The Fight to Come

New polls are out suggesting that if the presidential election were held today Hillary Clinton would be in a statistical dead heat with Senator John McCain; the same polls show Barack Obama would have a three or four point lead—which, in terms of the margin of error means he would be tied .

As a Democrat I’ve always argued to anyone who would listen that McCain is the most viable candidate in the GOP largely because by the time November rolls around it’s predictable that Americans will once again be confused about the war in Iraq and that other war in Afghanistan, and that other war shaping up in Iran.

I make no bones about my own views. I’m a participant in the loosely affiliated group called Poets AgainstPoets_against_the_war_2
the War
which was co-founded by the poet Sam Hamill.

The Democratic House and Senate have shown those of us who are fiercely opposed to the deployment of U.S. troops in Iraq what we can pretty much expect from Democratic leadership. The party opposes the war but lacks all conviction when it comes to fashioning a credible pullout strategy.

I have always said to anyone who would listen that the GOP will make this autumn’s election about the war on terror and whoever its candidate is will mark the Democratic ticket as being cowardly in the face of terror. We’re already hearing what we can expect from McCain: any withdrawal from Iraq would constitute a victory for Osama bin Laden. In fact, Senator McCain will base his entire campaign on this idea. He will have to do this because he has no substantive plans to assist the middle class or repair the U.S. economy. You can bet that part of his campaign will be smoke and mirrors.

The problem for both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama is that they’re respective plans for getting U.S. troops out of Iraq are made from the same smoke and mirrors the McCain forces will use for the economy. In point of fact neither Hillary or Barack has any idea how to get troops out of the middle east.

In the meantime you can predict that events on the ground in that troubled and wide region will remain precarious.

And so, in turn, the Democratic ticket will look weak.

Which of these two leading Democratic candidates do you suppose will have the tougher position and the most seasoned advisors when it comes to fighting John McCain on the war on terror?

For my money the answer is clear: Hillary Clinton is the toughest candidate the Democrats can choose. In this matter Connie and I are putting our money behind Senator Clinton.

Hillary will have to fight on two fronts: she will have to assert that the Democrats are tough enough to fight terrorism when and where it counts while arguing that the ticket possesses the leadership and vision to map an effective military and diplomatic strategy.

Again, our money’s on Hillary in this critical fight.

S.K.

TV Goes Down the Drain

The press coverage of the democratic presidential race has descended to one of those circles of hell wherein greedy appetites and exaggerated punishments exist side by side and without end. Did Barack Obama “snub” Hillary Clinton by turning his back on the New York senator as she sought to shake his hand at the State of the Union address on capitol hill? Who knows? What seems clear is that the Balkanization of identity politics has been a profitable story, particularly for the TV broadcasters, and that in turn, substantive issues are not discussed.

I continue to yearn for a dis-modern America where each of us is liberated from the symbolic and semiotic categorizations of the past. When individuals are reduced to symbolism there’s a very real chance that the hoary heads of discrimination and bigotry are doing most of the talking.

None of the reporters in the MSNBC or CNN crowds would easily admit to partaking in glib and discriminatory rhetoric. Yet the reduction of Barack Obama to a mere representation as “the black candidate” or the similar categorization of Senator Clinton according to her gender represents the most clay footed and witless symbolic obfuscation we’ve seen in this country since the reign of Lee Atwater.

I can’t say which I dislike more: the reduction of two fine candidates to racial or gendered inferiority or the money making feeding frenzy that this phony story has created in the media.

Continue reading

Tabloid Politics

Today on NBC’s “Meet the Press” Tom Brokaw observed that we may be in a new political era in the U.S.— an age that might be characterized as representing “the end of dogma” as we have known it.

I liked Mr. Brokaw’s optimism since his remark was contextualized within the broader assertion that voters in both the GOP and the Democratic party may be less inclined to vote for a candidate merely because they embrace the traditional polarizing political rhetoric of the past thirty years.

As “The Buffalo Springfield” once sang: "Something’s happening here…”

Meanwhile it’s clear given the percentages for each candidate in recent primaries that no one has the affection of the majority in either party.

In turn we have a great opportunity to debate ideas.

And this is where my optimism breaks down. The political coverage in this country is so poor and the lurid ambulance chasing of the press is so rampant that the substantive differences between the candidates on everything from how to fix social security to what we ought to do to repair our international diplomatic and economic status remains woefully under reported.

And so we have moved away from dogma into something like disaffected chatter. Here’s what the various TV political talk shows have focused on over the past week:

Bill Clinton got red in the face while scolding a reporter in Las Vegas. He looked really angry and kind of old. Old Bill was looking uncool. That Clinton was talking about the failure of the press to report on the dirty tricks of local labor unions was of no consequence. Why should it matter that union members who wanted to vote for Hillary were being threatened by union bosses? That’s no story! Look how red Bill has gotten! And he’s shaking his finger! Remember the last time old Bill shook his finger? Isn’t it time for Bill to disappear? Who cares what he’s saying? Aren’t we tired of him? Yeah. That’s right. He was the most effective bi-partisan president in recent history but who cares? Look! He’s red as a lobster!

Barack Obama said something that’s historically accurate about Ronald Reagan, namely that he represented a period of genuine change in the country. Yes! That’s right! Barack Obama said something factual about President Reagan. But you’d think what he really said was: “Ronald Reagan came down to earth from outer space and I’m one of his pod people!” The scouring that poor Obama has taken for saying something absolutely benign is astonishing. And that’s the problem of course. Barack Obama is one of the most reasonable people to run for the presidency since Abe Lincoln. This requires the tabloid press to stretch the senator’s features out of shape. Lost in all this is the fact that Obama was talking about the fact that this election may be a different political moment for our nation and that a smart candidate should recognize that. God almighty! You’d never know what the poor man was saying. Newsroom! Newsroom! Hold the presses! Obama said “Reagan” out loud in front of a camera and he didn’t demonize him. Yep! That’s right! What a scandal! Let’s show the film clip over and over as if it’s the Zapruder film.

Notice any substance here? I didn’t think so.

Mitt Romney got angry at a reporter who confronted him about his assertion that he had no political lobbyists in his campaign. When the reporter said this wasn’t true, that one of Romney’s top advisors is a noted Washington lobbyist, Romney argued that his campaign manager isn’t a lobbyist “so there” Nah Nah Nah! Then the reporter was confronted by Romney’s chief campaign strategist who dressed him down for confronting “the candidate” and Lo and Behold! The coverage on MSNBC was about whether or not that reporter was actually wrong to have asked the question. I swear on my Little Orphan Annie decoder ring that this is true! And the talking heads argued back and forth about whether a reporter should ask a tough question like that and lost in all of this nonsensical palaver was the fact that Mitt Romney has a genuine aura of unreliability when it comes to certain facts. If the current reporting trends continue Romney doesn’t have much to worry about. I think he can count on the press to fixate on the dropped scraps of butcher’s paper. In short, you can say what you want nowadays so long as you look good doing it.

Obviously these are just a few recent examples of what I like to think of as the post-dogma tabloid trivialization of our political reporting.

Perhaps the most egregious thing I heard today on “Meet the Press” came from Peggy Noonan (who else?) who in a neat bit of sophistry argued that the sight of Bill Clinton fighting on the front lines for his wife’s candidacy is essentially an “anti-feminist”position. Apparently Ms. Noonan has forgotten all those solo campaign stops hosted by Nancy Reagan who did her level best to get angry for her Ronny whenever she could.

Is it possible that we’re in the post-dogma era but there’s no one left in the fourth estate to report on it?
S.K.