ABOUT THAT SPEECH! It was most unusual, Kristof says. Potentially, thats the problem: // link // print // previous // next //
THURSDAY, MARCH 20, 2008
TOMORROW: Who is Michelle Bernard?
NEVER ADMIT, NEVER EXPLAIN: Why has John McCain gotten off easy for recent factual misadventures? On last evenings Countdown, Keith Olbermann pretended he wanted to know. And Jonathan Alter pretended to tell him:
First, an obvious question: What have they done with the real Alter? For years, Alter was the major pundit least likely to repeat his cohorts scripts. But in this campaign, he has become one of Olbermanns zombies.
At THE HOWLER, we now call this program Groundhog Night due to its grimly repetitive nature. Each evening, Olbermann introduces the exact same Stepfords; they proceed to recite the exact same points. Alter cast himself as a Stepford again with this non-explanation explanation.
For the record, several of Alters statements were accurate. During Campaign 2000, for example, McCain made an endless string of factual blunders on basic policy matters; few major pols seem to know so little about a long list of such topics. And McCain got an endless string of breaks from the press about his howlers. But did they do this in part because theres a lot of fatigue with playing gotcha games with all these politicians? Please. Pundits insult the viewers intelligence quite routinelybut rarely as baldly as this.
In fairness, Alter went on to offer a naughty remark about this sanctified solon: What John McCain is clearly trying to do here is conflate again all of the bad guys over there in a way to confuse Americans who are not paying close attention. Yikes! Alter was basically willing to call McCain a liar. But he wasnt willing to explain why the straight-shooting authentic straight-talker has gotten away with so many groaners in the past dozen years.
Why has McCain gotten a lot of breaks over the years? Duh. Because hes been the press corps client! Everyone knows this, including Olbermann. But Keith played Stepford last evening too. He let Alters large groaner pass.
NOTES FROM THE SANDBOX: Yesterday, Hillary Clinton released 11,000 pages of White House schedules. The journalistic result was predictable. On the front page of the Washington Post (the days top story), Monica Lewinsky made paragraph 4along with Vince Foster, of course. On page one of the Posts Style section, Lewinsky made the fifth paragraph. Next to Libby Copelands piece, Style presented a giant graphic about philandering pols.
Why did reporters want to review those records? Of course! So they could flip to the dates involving Lewinsky and laugh about what Hillary Clinton was doing! They stroked their thighs and pleasured themselves, praising open government as they did.
The New York Times showed more restraint. Lewinsky doesnt appear until paragraph 6. On the other hand, the Times John Broder still thinks she was an intern. The story is more pleasing that wayand pleasure is what its about.
(In the Post, Copeland said intern too. Out on the papers front page, Peter Baker didnt.)
WHO HAS A MOTIVE: Its basic rule of very bad journalismmotive is restricted to pols you dont like. In todays Post, Anne Kornblut, one of the eras top hacks, discusses the fight about a Michigan do-over. Note which side has motives:
In this dispute, each campaign has adopted the position which just happens to support its short-term advantage. But in Kornbluts piece, only one side has has this motiveand only one side has a tone, Obamas position is presented without comment (good). Clinton gets all snarked up.
Kornblut is one of the eras top hacks. She has mastered the rules of bad journalism.
ABOUT THAT SPEECH: Pundits have responded in various ways to Obamas speech on race. With his classic blunderbuss style, Chris Matthews said this at the start of Tuesdays Hardball:
Dr. King, report to the underside of the bus! But then, Matthews has about as light a touch when it comes to race as he does when dancing with Ellen Degeneres. Others have praised the speech, but more sensibly.
We think the speech was quite good ourselves. Sadly, thats part of the problem.
What were the various strengths of the speech? Yesterday, we cited Obamas passage about a generations deep, impressive, deeply spiritual forbearance. We thought of a string of decent, deeply impressive people with whom we taught, starting in 1969:
Hoo boy, do we agree with that! Then too, we agree with Obamas suggestions about racial progress:
In our view, liberals sometimes fail to confront this subjects full reality when we act as if nothing has changedas if decent people of various races havent struggled to do the right thing over the past many years. (We were very impressed by things we saw over Thanksgiving in South Carolina.) We also agree with this:
We would have dropped that immigrant experience line ourselves. But we think we liberals sometimes fail the test this issue poses when we move too quickly to assume bad motives on the part of white people who may not respond to these issues in precisely the same way we do. By the way, since Obama mentioned the topic: In our first year of teaching, we taught a class of black fifth-graders who were bussed from one all-black school to another, for reasons of over-crowding. Their parents didnt want them bussed. Race had nothing to do with it.
We agree with those parts of the speech, and with others. But this was a very dangerous speech, and were sorry in many ways that Obama had to give it. Lets take Nicholas Kristofs opening paragraph as our text:
Those are dangerous words of praise. It isnt clear that a White House campaign is the place for acknowledgments of complexity, nuance (for symphonies) about the most emotional topic on Americas political list.
Your pundit corps is too dumband too novelizedto tell you this. But theres a reason why acknowledgments of complexity are most unusual in modern politics.
Acknowledgments of complexity are dangerous in White House campaignsespecially about such emotional topics. Voters respond in emotional ways, with reactions that will often be hard to change. In our politics, no topic is more emotional than race. The current matter exposes Obama to many dangersdangers which could defeat his candidacy. Of course, it was always obvious that this particular problem was comingat the very least, that it would hit Obama at a time of the RNCs choosing. Thats why we went off-topic some weeks ago to warn about the possibility that Obama could be Dukakised. This matter was off-topic for us. But we had grown tired of waiting for our liberal intellectual leaders to mention this obvious problem. For at least a month, we had been looking for an excuse to bring this matter up.
During this period, the lovable losers at our liberal journals continued to do what they do bestthey continued to gaze off into the air, ignoring what was happening around them. When Richard Cohen mentioned Obamas pastor, we all agreed to yell race race race, buying ourselves a few more months of know-nothing bliss. Instead of trying to assess the complex problem which was going to come, we spent our time accusing Democrats of playing the race card, often on the most ludicrous pretexts. Many liberals got out their tinfoil hats and heard dog whistles, all around.
In this way, we lovable losers keep arranging to bungle elections.
We think Obamas speech was superband that its very dangerous. Ideally, such work should be done by liberal intellectuals, by liberal pundits, by liberal think tanks, in liberal journals. Its dangerous when we put our White House candidate out in front on such issues, making him lead a risky parade. (Just as it would have been dangerous to have Candidate Gore deliver those courageous speeches about global warming.) But lets state the obvious: Our liberal intellectual leaders dont lead in any way on race, and Obama failed to neutralize the political problem posed by pastor Wright before he began to campaign.
Similarly, Dukakis sleep-walked about that furlough programand got destroyed in the end.
This isnt about what you think about race. It isnt about what we might see as the merits in what was largely a superb speech. This is about several hundred million potential voters and the reactions they will have. Many of them wont react the way you do, and they wont necessarily see this speech as courageous. For better or worse, courageous doesnt typically win elections. Courageous is good for liberal thinkers, of whom we have very few.
This morning, Kristof is letting us know how symphonic he thought the speech was. But we were struck by the end of Courtland Milloys piece in yesterdays Post. Milloy is a smart and acerbic black columnist. We found ourselves slightly kerflubbled by the way his piece ended:
As usual, Hume couldnt handle the truthbut we were struck by Milloys ending. Even if Obama doesn't make it all the way to the White House? For ourselves, we wont sure like where Obama has taken us if it puts McCain in charge.
By the way, the Post has already filed a correction. Uh-oh! The Courtland Milloy column in the March 19 Metro section incorrectly said that Fox News anchor Brit Hume referred to Barack Obamas speech on race as blaming whites. Hume did not say or imply that.
THE PART WE DIDNT AGREE WITH: We thought one part of the speech was wrong. Here it is:
Shorter Obama: Race only becomes divisive when it starts to hurt me! All that race-baiting aimed at the Clintons? That was OK, this text implies. At least, thats how it struck us.
Your view may totally differ. Again, this shows us that various people will react in various (unpredictable) ways when this, our most emotional issue, comes center stage. Its dangerous to campaign this way. Safe bet: The RNC has other tapes. Theyll release them at their convenience.
LETTER IN A BALTIMORE BAGEL JOINT: The Post leads today with a high-minded letter about the Wright matter. Well post it, then well show you how we think it may sound to some people:
We didnt hear that sermon ourselves, and we arent inclined to demonize Wright based on ninety seconds of tape. But when we read that letter, we just couldnt help but think it! We imagined how some people would read that final paragraph:
Twenty minutes later, a guy we often see at the bagel joint (a late-30s registered independent) made a point of telling us how annoyed he was by that letter. He had told us several months ago that he could never vote for Clinton. Yesterday, he said thatafter viewing the tapes of Wrighthe never could vote for Obama.
The person in question is a very nice guy. But he doesnt share our instincts on various topics, and race is our most dangerous and emotional topic.