Punditry? Idiocracy

Iron my shirt! Iron my shirt!
--Hecklers at a Clinton appearance in New Hampshire

Before we really get rolling here, I'm going to tell you a little story. In 2004 I was so for Kucinich. He was right about everything. There wasn't a single issue that I thought he got wrong. He was perfect.

When February came around and it came time to cast my primary vote, I voted for Edwards -- still believing that Kucinich was perfect. Why? Because I noticed that the longer the Democratic primary race went on, the lower Bush scored in the polls. The 2004 dem debate wasn't about who would make the best president or -- despite the punditry -- the question of electability. The debate was really about who thought Bush sucked more. And, as the primaries went on, it was Bush -- not the Democratic candidates -- who was taking a beating. So I voted for Edwards, who was running second, hoping to keep the ball rolling. If the Bush-bashing fest that was the Democratic primary continued, I figured Bush's slide would continue.

All of which is by way of explaining that I can't say who I will or won't vote for next month. I vote in the primary based as much on the moment in history in which my vote is cast as I do on whether or not I think the candidate is good. I'm not ruling out voting for anyone, even if I'm not particularly supportive of them at this very moment. When it comes to the primaries, at least, I'm the non-classic undecided -- someone who's vote is cast deliberately and strategically -- as opposed to the classic indecisive dope.

So, I'm not saying that I won't vote for Hillary Clinton. Just that it's really, really, really unlikely. Hillary, like her husband and Joe Lieberman, is a "New Democrat" -- meaning a corporatist Democrat, what Sen. Russ Feingold calls "Republican-lite." So I'm not really a fan.

But, man, is Hillary ever getting a raw deal in the press. She seems to be attracting the stupidest, most simpleminded criticism out there. We got a glimpse of how brainless the criticism would be at the very beginning of the campaign, when she caught some flack for showing a little cleavage on C-SPAN. This had something to do with the campaign how? Since then, it really hasn't gotten any better.

It's been asked whether the nation is ready for a black or female president. The first two primary contests say yes -- and that trend's likely to continue. The question is whether or not the media is ready for a black or female president. And the answer there is mixed. Black? Yes. Female? Clearly not. Despite either being or living with women all their damned lives, most of the press seems to have no idea how to cover a woman's campaign seriously.

Take the latest incident. At an appearance in New Hampshire, Clinton was asked, "How do you do it? How do you keep up ... and who does your hair?" OK, stupid question, but we'll let it pass. It was asked by a local free-lance photographer, not some big-name talking head.

According to CNN, "Clinton said she had help with her hair on 'special days,' and that she drew criticism on the days she did not." Point number one -- she draws criticism from the media for bad hair days. Who freakin' cares? What's the reasoning here? Will Osama Bin Laden (assuming he's alive) look at President Hillary's frizzy hair and say to himself, "America is weak today. We must strike now!"?

But the bigger point is that Hillary cried when she answered. Well, not exactly. Not if you watch the video. She chokes up, probably because she was as tired of the damned, stupid-assed questions about hair and make up as she was just plain tired. But, you'll notice, she doesn't actually cry.

This is what crying looks like:



That's House Minority Leader John Boehner crying his eyes out over the fact that Democrats had introduced a non-binding resolution opposing Bush's surge. In fact, Boehner seems to cry at the drop of a hat. How big a deal was this with the punditry? It wasn't. Pretty much only lefty blogs made anything of it.

But Boehner's not running for president, just running at the eyes, you say? How about this, then:

Associated Press:

Mitt Romney's eyes filled with tears Monday as the Republican presidential contender recalled watching the casket of a soldier killed in Iraq return to the United States and imagined if it were one of his five sons.

Adding a poignant twist to a story he often tells on the campaign, Romney recalled the scene at Boston's Logan International Airport while he was Massachusetts governor to make the point that the country remains united despite its differences over the war or other national challenges.

Was the reaction of the punditry, "Boo-hoo, Mittens! Boo-hoo-hoo!"? No. Romney's emotional moment was "poignant." Never mind that Mitt's kids are only in imaginary danger of that imagined death in Iraq. Mitt's kids will never serve -- they're too busy campaigning for their dad. Mitt calls this, "Serving their country." There was no talk of Mitt Romney's "Ed Muskie moment."

Apparently, it's only bad when women cry these days -- even if they don't actually cry.

We'll end this with the context of the quote we started with:

A Hillary Rodham Clinton campaign stop was interrupted when two men stood in the crowd and began screaming, "Iron my shirt!" during one the US senator's final appearances before New Hampshire voters cast the first primary ballots in the US.

Clinton, a former first lady running to become the United States' first female president, laughed at the seemingly sexist protest that suggested a woman's place is doing laundry and not running the country.

"Ah, the remnants of sexism -- alive and well," Clinton said to applause.

Amen. Not only among those lower primates who heckled her, but among the punditry who criticizes her. There are plenty of substantial reasons for criticism of Hillary Clinton, the only reason pundits resort to sexism is because it's so damned easy for them.

This way, they don't have to actually do any work. And this way, they can ignore the issues. Just as in 2004, when the pundits asked the BS question, "Which candidate would voters most want to have a beer with?" (ignoring, BTW, that Bush doesn't drink), it allows them to dodge the real questions and the real problems facing the nation. And it allows them to drag the campaign coverage down to the level of paparazzi TV like Entertainment Tonight.

That's what they think of you. They think you're stupid and they think you care about BS. And, if you don't care about BS, they'll use all their pundit powers to convince you that you do. Think what you like about Hillary Clinton, but be offended by what the media thinks of you and how dismissive they are of your intelligence.

--Wisco

Technorati tags: politics; elections; 2008; Romney; Republican; Democrat; New Hampshire; The media covers Hillary Clinton as if she were Hillary Swank

Breaking All the Rules

There are a few rules that politicians (make that skilled politicians) tend to follow. For instance, there are words you never say. At least, not in reference to yourself. You never say, "We're trying" to do something. As Homer Simpson said so well, "Trying is just the first step in failing." Instead, you're "aggressively working toward" a goal or "moving forward" with your idea. "Trying" suggests the possibility of failure and speaking about failure at the outset doesn't inspire confidence. A good politician only uses words like "try" and "attempt" when talking about the opposition -- speaking of their failure from the git-go does inspire confidence.

Another rule can best be put this way -- "Never pull crap out of your butt." Don't make promises for other people, don't make up "facts," and, for that matter, don't say things that you aren't sure are true. This rule was broken the other day by a man Molly Ivins once described by saying, "He's the most skilled politician I've ever watched work."

David Session put it this way at Slate:

Bill and George's not so likely adventure: Bill Clinton said Monday that the "first thing" Hillary would do as president would be to send him on a world tour with fellow former President George H.W. Bush to fix the bad reputation the United States has garnered under the current President Bush. Predicting that Bush 41 would quickly shoot down the idea (he did), bloggers of all political stripes questioned Clinton's commitment to his wife's campaign.

Bill was slinging bullshit here and it came back to bite him. I'm sure he was thinking of his and 41's world tour to drum up support for tsunami aid, but he really should've considered who's daddy 41 was. Clinton was just shooting from the hip and wound up pulling something out of his butt. It doesn't seem to have stuck to his wife's campaign, but it was a surprisingly bad move from someone who's been referred to as the best political mind of his generation.

Another bad political move is to answer bullshit with bullshit. When faced with pure BS, the best possible move is to answer with the truth. President Bush was asked about this comment at a press conference and his answer was pretty much perfect -- then he went on and blew it.

Here's the exchange:

Q Mr. President, you maybe saw that President Clinton said recently that one of the first actions of a new Clinton administration would be to send Presidents 41 and 42 on a worldwide goodwill mission to restore the country's good name abroad.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes --

Q I wonder if you think such a thing is necessary --

THE PRESIDENT: Well, 41 didn't think it's necessary. It sounds like it's going to be a one-man trip. (Laughter.)

At this point, the wisest possible thing to say would be, "Hahaha! Yes, I'm so funny and Clinton's a very silly man. Next question, please" -- he'd just buried the issue and put up a tombstone.

But he didn't shut up and let it die. He decided to defend himself (emphasis mine).

Yes, Michael, do you want to try [to follow up]--

Q Mr. President, I wonder if you would consider doing such a thing during your presidency, and do you think that --

THE PRESIDENT: That's what I do during my presidency. I go around spreading goodwill and talking about the importance of spreading freedom and peace. Go ahead. I don't know what I'm going to do after I'm President. Michael, I've got an exciting 13 months ahead -- and I know you're just waiting for me to say "sprint to the finish line," so I won't. (Laughter.) But it's -- go ahead, Michael, try one more time.

Apparently, the shrub has himself confused with freakin' Santa Claus. The rest of the world thinks the US sucks and the only "peace" he's been spreading is the peace of the grave. The reality is that, once Bush is out, someone's going to have to go on tour and announce we're back in the peace and freedom business.

WorldPublicOpinion.org:

A multinational poll finds that publics around the world reject the idea that the United States should play the role of preeminent world leader. Most publics say the United States plays the role of world policeman more than it should, fails to take their country's interests into account and cannot be trusted to act responsibly.

In fact, positive opinion has been on the decline.



In 2005, world opinion was 46% mainly negative and 40% mainly positive. Today, that gap has grown to a whopping 52% negative to 29% positive. If Bush is traveling the globe, spreading goodwill, it's not taking root. Of course, the world sees the US as an "our way or the highway" sort of force in the world. Talking a good game isn't the same as having a good game.

Not surprisingly, opinions in the Arab world are even worse. A 2006 Zogby poll shows that "Overall Arab attitudes toward U.S. have worsened; negative attitudes have hardened" and that "Attitudes toward U.S. policies in Iraq and Palestine are to blame."

General favorability toward the US is 82% negative in Saudi Arabia, 83% in Egypt, 87% in Moroco, 90% in Jordan, and 68% in Lebanon. So much for "spreading goodwill." I wasn't able to find 2007 numbers -- apparently that poll hasn't been released yet -- but you'd expect that sabre-rattling over Iran and the threat of yet another war in the middle east would bring those negatives up even further.

Of course, there would've been no reason for me to point any of this out if Bush had just laughed the whole Clinton thing off. But he didn't. He added bullshit to bullshit, added to a story about how Clinton screwed up, and took ownership of the gaffe himself. The story, which had been about Bill Clinton, became a story about George W. Bush.

Which brings me to a final rule of politics -- if you suck, don't point it out. Although, I suppose if you suck, you can't help but suck. You're going to blow it and point it out.

Bush blew it in that press conference, by pointing out that he's spent the last seven years blowing it. He also proved Clinton halfway right -- someone's going to have to clean up this mess.

--Wisco

Technorati tags: politics; war; Iraq; Middle East; poll; elections; 2008; Hillary Clinton; Only Bush could take a story about how Bill Clinton screwed up and turn it into a story about what a screw up he is