Democratic Primary
Is This News?
April/07/2008 15:56 Filed in: Politics
This is why I can no longer get my news from television. Honestly, I could not tell if I was watching Election Coverage on MSNBC or Around The Horn on ESPN. This is sad. And what's the deal with that stupid boxing donkey, is this really how people want to get their news? Why do shows like this continue to get air time, are they getting high ratings? Has the MSM decided that there is absolutely no value to real objective news and analysis? I encourage everyone to pull their news from other sources (internet, podcasts, etc.) and not get pushed by this comic-book trash.
|
The Tragedy of Media Complicity
March/06/2008 11:00 Filed in: Politics
On Tuesday Hillary Clinton won three primaries
(Texas, Ohio, R.I.), while Barack Obama won one
primary (Vermont) and one caucus (Texas). As
everybody knows, the democratic party awards
delegates proportionally, not on a winner takes all
basis. However, for anyone watching CNN on Tuesday
evening this victory was painted in the most
dramatic of colors. True, Clinton won three
important primaries, although only one by
landslide. But her overall delegate gain after
Tuesday was a trifling 4 delegates. In other words:
de minimis. To provide a telling contrast, Obama
gained more delegates than Clinton did in the
Washington DC primary alone (9), in the Nebraska
primary (8), in the Washington State primary (12),
and in the Georgia primary (33). Hillary’s
complaint leading up to Tuesday was that there
existed an unfair bias in the media towards Obama.
This complaint was A. desperate and B. patently
untrue. Remember that Obama won 12 straight
contests before Hillary was able to finally win in
Rhode Island. 12 straight. If Clinton had amassed
that kind of winning tally, I guarantee the media
would not have been so kind to Obama, or have even
given him any remote chance of climbing back into
the race. The Democratic party and the media would
together have been clamoring for Obama to bow down
and wait his turn. He would have been altogether
written off only to become a nice little political
footnote in the Clinton’s power mongering memoirs.
Clinton has stayed alive precisely because the media has tolerated her, has consistently breathed life into her campaign even while Obama has criss-crossed the United States winning primary after primary, and caucus after caucus. The fact of the matter is that the media wants this to get as bloody as possible and as close as possible because that makes for better sport. But the only chance that Clinton has to win the nomination is through power brokering for superdelegates at a brokered convention in Denver. This is simply a fact. She cannot, barring miraculous lopsided victories in the remaining primaries, overtake Obama’s lead in pledged delegates. It is also extremely unlikely that she can amass more of the popular vote in the remaining contests. Even if she gets her way and, like a 5th grade tyrant who can’t bear losing, changes the rules of the game that she and everyone else agreed to and manages to get a revote in Florida and Michigan, she still will not surpass him.
All the Clintons can hope for is to minimize the margin by which he leads so that they can better make their case that the superdelegates should have a right to break what is effectively a “tie”, that superdelegates should not look to represent their respective constituents, but instead selfishly determine for themselves what is “best for the party” (but more likely, what is best for themselves). That is all the Clintons can hope for. That and that the media will line up right and left to support her in the endeavor. That the media will paint her as “the comeback kid” (even though, remember, only 4 delegates were gained on Tuesday). That the media will re-anoint her as the inevitable incumbent nominee, that the media will join with her in tearing down one of the most inspiring and powerful grassroots campaigns in the history of our country. That the media will portray a new narrative of “it’s anybody’s game now”, instead of portraying honestly and openly the reality of the situation to the American people. That the media will aid and assist her in running an increasingly negative campaign by giving credence to negative campaigns in the first place.
The sad fact is that the media will willingly accept this role because the media is owned by large corporations and conglomerates whose main priority is securing millions of dollars in revenues and profits through the distribution of their “news”. The media wants this to be a fight to the end, a duel to the death. Turn on CNN at any moment during their political coverage and you will almost instantly hear phrases like “taking the gloves off”, “throwing punches” and “in the trenches”. The media wants to turn this into a sporting event, instead of honest coverage of political issues and candidates. CNN calls their coverage “Ballot Bowl ’08” for crying out loud. The news media will carry and fuel this increasingly vicious primary season all the way through Pennsylvania, and what now sadly looks like all the way to Denver. It took them nothing more than to know that Clinton won Texas and Ohio primaries to start making ridiculous claims about Clinton’s new momentum (which, if there is any is being fueled only by her negative campaigning/scare tactics and the media’s newfound depiction of her campaign) and about how the campaign is all back to even.
I hope the good people of Wyoming, Mississippi and Pennsylvania can serve up victories for Obama and make the case once and for all that people want something different in the White House, not more of the same. But the cynic in me sees an increasingly desperate and negative campaign from Hillary Clinton, which ascribes by the rules of do anything, regardless of ethics or grace, in order to win. Do anything, even if it means telling the American people that hope is synonymous with delusion. Do anything, even if it means tearing apart the Democratic party and discouraging an entire new generation of energy and involvement. Do anything, even if it means spreading false rumors about your opponents religion in order to scare up votes. Do anything, even if it means tearing down a potentially transformational figure in American politics instead of rallying your own constituents by standing up for what you believe. Do anything, even if it means changing your message constantly throughout a campaign, so as to properly microtarget and divide Americans up by race, gender, religion, demographic, instead of understanding the underlying fiber that connects us all and reaching towards something higher than yourself in order to inspire Americans as a collective entity to believe in and fight for real change.
Clinton has stayed alive precisely because the media has tolerated her, has consistently breathed life into her campaign even while Obama has criss-crossed the United States winning primary after primary, and caucus after caucus. The fact of the matter is that the media wants this to get as bloody as possible and as close as possible because that makes for better sport. But the only chance that Clinton has to win the nomination is through power brokering for superdelegates at a brokered convention in Denver. This is simply a fact. She cannot, barring miraculous lopsided victories in the remaining primaries, overtake Obama’s lead in pledged delegates. It is also extremely unlikely that she can amass more of the popular vote in the remaining contests. Even if she gets her way and, like a 5th grade tyrant who can’t bear losing, changes the rules of the game that she and everyone else agreed to and manages to get a revote in Florida and Michigan, she still will not surpass him.
All the Clintons can hope for is to minimize the margin by which he leads so that they can better make their case that the superdelegates should have a right to break what is effectively a “tie”, that superdelegates should not look to represent their respective constituents, but instead selfishly determine for themselves what is “best for the party” (but more likely, what is best for themselves). That is all the Clintons can hope for. That and that the media will line up right and left to support her in the endeavor. That the media will paint her as “the comeback kid” (even though, remember, only 4 delegates were gained on Tuesday). That the media will re-anoint her as the inevitable incumbent nominee, that the media will join with her in tearing down one of the most inspiring and powerful grassroots campaigns in the history of our country. That the media will portray a new narrative of “it’s anybody’s game now”, instead of portraying honestly and openly the reality of the situation to the American people. That the media will aid and assist her in running an increasingly negative campaign by giving credence to negative campaigns in the first place.
The sad fact is that the media will willingly accept this role because the media is owned by large corporations and conglomerates whose main priority is securing millions of dollars in revenues and profits through the distribution of their “news”. The media wants this to be a fight to the end, a duel to the death. Turn on CNN at any moment during their political coverage and you will almost instantly hear phrases like “taking the gloves off”, “throwing punches” and “in the trenches”. The media wants to turn this into a sporting event, instead of honest coverage of political issues and candidates. CNN calls their coverage “Ballot Bowl ’08” for crying out loud. The news media will carry and fuel this increasingly vicious primary season all the way through Pennsylvania, and what now sadly looks like all the way to Denver. It took them nothing more than to know that Clinton won Texas and Ohio primaries to start making ridiculous claims about Clinton’s new momentum (which, if there is any is being fueled only by her negative campaigning/scare tactics and the media’s newfound depiction of her campaign) and about how the campaign is all back to even.
I hope the good people of Wyoming, Mississippi and Pennsylvania can serve up victories for Obama and make the case once and for all that people want something different in the White House, not more of the same. But the cynic in me sees an increasingly desperate and negative campaign from Hillary Clinton, which ascribes by the rules of do anything, regardless of ethics or grace, in order to win. Do anything, even if it means telling the American people that hope is synonymous with delusion. Do anything, even if it means tearing apart the Democratic party and discouraging an entire new generation of energy and involvement. Do anything, even if it means spreading false rumors about your opponents religion in order to scare up votes. Do anything, even if it means tearing down a potentially transformational figure in American politics instead of rallying your own constituents by standing up for what you believe. Do anything, even if it means changing your message constantly throughout a campaign, so as to properly microtarget and divide Americans up by race, gender, religion, demographic, instead of understanding the underlying fiber that connects us all and reaching towards something higher than yourself in order to inspire Americans as a collective entity to believe in and fight for real change.
Talking Points
November/02/2007 13:25 Filed in: Politics
The Democrats debated yet again this past Tuesday. And while there were Hillary attacks ad nauseam, and debates over Social Security and the pending conflict with Iran, I found myself focusing not on these talking points but on how the points were talked. We’ve seen from past elections how important stage presence, body language and speaking habits can be. In 2000, Gore was highly criticized for his elitist, scholarly drawl, lecturing, it seemed, not only George W. Bush, but also the American people. By contrast, Bush was and has always been a bad speaker on any and all accounts. He repeatedly uses poor grammar, even poorer sentence structure, he stutters and rummages vainly for words amidst his very limited vocabulary. When his vocabulary fails him he pulls a Harding and simply invents words ('misunderestimate', 'eck-a-lectic', etc.). He is not even a remotely fluid speaker in the way his father was. Indeed, he often pauses mid-thought as if to catch his breath before stammering cantankerously through his remaining argumentation. Yet I believe his speaking presence nonetheless helped him outperform Gore and Kerry in the eyes of the American people. (Kerry’s flaw was precisely his speaking eloquence, his ‘patrician aloofness’ ). It was Bush’s ‘tell it like it is’ cowboy twang that endowed him with a tough, down home quality that appealed highly to voters. So, let’s take a look at how some of the current Democrats speaking prowess fares.
Hillary Clinton: The only woman in a crowded field of 7 men, Clinton is surprisingly the most comfortable and forceful speaker. She carries herself very strongly, she has a clear speaking voice and rarely gets lost in her own words. There is a resoluteness in her tone that many voters will find appealing, because it exudes confidence and know-how. Clinton is sometimes so effective a speaker that she cleverly manages to eschew pointed questions by answering them in whatever context she pleases. You’ll also notice when moderators try and hold her to task she is extremely assertive and overpowering. Her achilles heel is clearly the timbre of her voice which a great many voters find smarmy and grating. A-
Barack Obama: It is strange because in the early stages, Obama was touted as a great speaker and leader, capable of awing crowds with his powerful rhetoric. But in the 13 debates so far he has not lived up to the reputation. Obama is simply not a great speaker. He stutters often and does not seem to pace the intervals between his words very well. This occasional stumbling is not a case of confusion or unformulated thought, as in the case of the current President, but instead appears to be a habit of over-intellectualization. It’s as if Obama is thinking so hard and thoroughly about the topic at hand that he overloads his speaking system and ends up presenting himself clumsily. B-
Denis Kucinich: Kucinich is clearly one of the smartest candidates in the field with some of the brightest ideas. And while there are no glaring issues with his speaking abilities, voters will continue to dislike his high-pitched tenor and elvish stature. Let’s face it, Kucinich is neither physically imposing nor tough-sounding. In a fist fight, Mitt Romney or Rudy Giuliani would eat him for breakfast and regurgitate pocket constitution, AFL-CIO card and all. But if voters could look past some of these limitations they would find a candidate whose words speak a moral courage and toughness that defy his physical limitations. B+
Bill Richardson: Richardson has one of those deep husky voices that can only be caused by years of chain-smoking, emphysema or some combination of the two. That kind of raspy croaking might come across as charming or character defining in a candidate whose physical stature merited it. But Richardson’s hoarse squawking bellows from what caricature artists might winningly portray as a bloated bullfrog. Combine this with the fact that Richardson often makes some of the most asinine, crooked comments and you get a candidate with very little opportunity of winning over the hearts and ears of voters. C+
John Edwards: In many respects Edwards resembles a southern JFK. He can display both charm and compassion, knowledge and insight, all the while retaining his stunning good looks and signature hair. But Edwards sometimes strays from this picturesque impression. During debates he can often be seen squinting and blinking repeatedly, instantly giving voters reason to doubt his preparedness. In certain debates he has simply been caught in the headlights, reduced to temporary silence as he regained his composure. In speaking, he sometimes reverts to an almost schoolboyish dialectic, especially in his complaints pointed towards Clinton. When he is clear, he is effective and emotive. When he rambles, he comes across like a fifth grader who feels snubbed for not winning a popularity contest. B
Chris Dodd: Dodd is a Senator from Connecticut with a crisp New England vernacular, which makes me instantly like him. But voters, at least in the general election, will find the same issues with Dodd as they did with Kerry. Instead of seeing graceful parlance they will see verbal snobbery and will feel distanced from him. When Dodd speaks, he is neither particularly warm nor exciting and it is likely that many will unfortunately completely disregard or forget about his candidacy because of this. B+
Joe Biden: Biden is the second best speaker in the field. He carries himself well, has a deep, full voice, and wavers rarely. Biden also has an attribute that few of the other candidates possess: sense of humor. During one debate, when asked whether he could curtail his "notorious talkativeness" in order to be taken more seriously on the campaign trail, Biden answered with a succinct “yes”. It was funny and it hit the spot perfectly. Biden can use that kind of wit to his advantage as long as he avoids becoming the class clown. Coupled with his commanding speaking presence, Biden offers an interesting alternative to voters so long as he can garner a bit more recognition in the polls. A-
Mike Gravel: Is he still running for President? He hasn’t been at any of the recent debates and it’s a pity. Even if he is radical and angry, his anger is most certainly an effective tool, at least in the sense that it puts the other candidates on the defensive. A debate with Gravel is like a debate with a second or third moderator - he answers the question and then points to his peers and demonstrates their inadequacies, after which they are forced to respond. While he might be slightly too far off his rocker to be President, Gravel is a useful rabble rouser and an effective speaker to boot. B+