The Rules Should Apply To All
The 2008 presidential campaign, which started....ah.... like 24 minutes after the polls closed in 2004, has given us some dramatic changes in the political landscape. These changes have made it difficult to follow the "rules" of campaigning, and I guess we're still feeling our way, although to a somewhat lesser degree than a during the primaries. What do I mean? Let's see if I can sort this out....
The primary season kicked off with a very strong woman candidate, Hillary Clinton, being the front runner on the Democratic side, and a strong possible winner in the general election . Now, the rules for her seem to have been somewhat different than for recent GOP vice presidential nominee, Sarah Palin, until very recently, anyway. Why? Clinton supporters may not like to hear this, but Hillary was an EXCEPTIONAL candidate (they'll like that part), but by being a former First Lady of eight years, and also having been an adviser, or at least perceived to have been a close adviser to her husband (something they used in the 1992 campaign-"Vote for one and get two!), she had taken some hits from the media and the public over various things, perhaps most notably over her heading the secretive government health care reform committee. Later, when she ran for the Senate, she was in a campaign that, at least initially, got pretty tough. When she ran for president, she was already an experienced public figure. Knowing her as they did, the media didn't always cut her a hell of a lot of slack, and that's fine with me (Hillary supporters, please read further, before you get all excited).
When John McCain announced that his pick for a running mate was Sarah Palin, many people, even many people who paid attention to politics said, "Who?" It took several days for news and talk show people to get the pronunciation of her last name down pat. The McCain campaign proceeded to insist that Palin was highly qualified, but they essentially hid her away from public interviews. At first she was highly popular, perhaps because she was a fresh face, and I would argue because very few Americans really knew much about her, including the conservative base she was supposed to appeal to. Her digs at the media did nothing but give her a further boost in the public's eyes. At first, this "hide the candidate from the media" strategy seemed to work. But after a couple of weeks, Americans seemed to want to know more about this person who might not only become vice president, but potentially president. When the interviews came, they were NOT always very pretty. Despite the McCain campaign's insistence, Sarah Palin was NOT qualified, at this point, to become vice president, and certainly not president. Living near Russia is not a qualification, and when the comedians got hold of that line, Palin took some serious hits to her credibility. The interview with Katie Couric was a disaster, and since that time, Palin has seemingly been a drag on the Republican ticket, as far as the broad cross-section of the American electorate is concerned, although even some conservative columnists have recently tossed her under the bus.
A few years ago, Barrack Obama won a U.S. Senate seat in Illinois. He gave a much lauded speech to the Democratic National Convention in 2004, and I guess along about the latter part of 2006 he made it clear that he would be a candidate for president in 2008. As events unfolded, it seemed that Obama's run for the presidency would be doomed to fail, as Hillary Clinton and John Edwards were seen as the top Democratic candidates, early on. When Obama stunned the political world, and definitely his challengers, in the Iowa caucuses, he was off and running, and became a viable candidate for president. Now, you can argue with the overall details, but he went through the process and wasn't hidden away from questions by the media. His qualifications were challenged, and that's all fair game for a person aspiring to any office, let alone THE office. There's no question in my mind that many in the media took a liking to him, and the fact that he was giving Hillary a run for her money endeared him to many more, both media and non-media. For the media, this was THE story, and with the media, THE story trumps any liking they may have for a particular politician. I'd argue that many in the media probably liked Bill Clinton and agreed with many of his policies, but when the scandals erupted, they went after him with great fervor.
The problem with all three of these high profile candidacies is that they presented problems for their challengers and for the media, at least in the minds of the pundits. We've heard such rules as "You can't talk down to her," or "You can't be condescending to her," or "You can't seem to be dismissive of him." The whole point was/is, during the primaries, many women, but certainly not all, wanted Hillary to win, because she is a woman. Some claim otherwise, some even adamantly so, but let's lay the cards on the table. That was one of the reasons. The thing is, there's not necessarily anything wrong with that. We vote for, or against candidates for any number of reasons that weren't part of our high school Civics class. Further, many African-Americans want Obama to win because he's black (the fact that he's half white doesn't seem to matter, to pro-Obama or anti-Obama folks). I suppose there's also an element of support for Sarah Palin because of her gender, but I'd say far less so than with Hillary. On the other hand, there were/are people AGAINST Hillary, Palin, and/or Obama because of their gender or race.
When the vice presidential debate was about to take place, the pundits started about Biden not being able to say this to or about Palin. To me, the pundits can say what they want, but in the end, it is up to voters to listen and watch and then decide what they thought of each candidate. Our views of such can definitely be influenced by our gender (or in the presidential debates, by our race). Let's not be naive here. It was pointed out that when then vice president George Bush (SENIOR) faced off against the first woman vice presidential candidate, Geraldine Ferraro, in the debate in 1984, that she zinged him with a comment that he didn't have to "explain" things to her; with the implication being that he was doing so because she was a woman. The media loved it and this incident has oft been shown in recent news/talk shows. What seems to have failed to register is, SHE LOST! The Mondale-Ferraro ticket lost 49 states, and damned near lost the fiftieth by only a couple of thousand votes!!!
None of us likes everything the media reports, that's why overall the media is fairer than we realize, or at least that we care to admit. The media wants a story, any story. Any reporter wants to get the scoop of his or her life and win some prestigious award for journalism. The individual reporters and anchor people may favor one candidate over another, but in the end, the story is almost always what matters, even if it hurts "their" personal favorite. In more recent times, all points of view get an airing in the media, and while I may not like it when my candidate or an issue I feel deeply about gets knocked, in the end my candidate and my precious issues do get coverage in the media. I just wish they'd always AGREE WITH ME! Folks, that's what much of this stuff over the media is really about. We want them to give our views or candidates favorable presentations, and while we may not always wish for it, we'd probably like it just as much if they'd lambaste the other point of view or candidate to the point of destroying them. On any given day, there may well be a point where candidate X got a raw deal from "the media," but chances are, the next day or two that same media will give that candidate a boost. Republicans frequently whine how the media favors Democrats, but let's see, who usually wins the elections? ..... Republicans! (Now there's a DOUBLE win: victory in elections AND getting to play the victim.) To the defenders of Sarah Palin, I don't recall hearing much whining when she was the talk of the town, only now that the scrutiny has taken hold.
My personal belief is that "usually" the media is too timid with many candidates or office holders. The candidates need to be pressed, ala the way former ABC White House correspondent Sam Donaldson used to do, on what they really mean about certain issues and policies. I'm NOT advocating that race, gender, religion, or such be brought in by the media, but if it is, even subtly, the American people will react against such behavior, even if they don't necessarily agree with the attacked person's policies. All of this stuff about you can't ask this, and you can't ask that, or you have to ask it this way is a bunch of nonsense. We're talking about people seeking public office, and in the case of those mentioned above, HIGH PUBLIC OFFICE. The hell with their feelings, we need to know things. In the case of presidents and vice presidents, tough foreign leaders will not treat their feelings so kindly. In campaigns, candidates love to portray themselves as victims. I say, "Enough already! The standards applied for Hillary should be applied to all!"
The primary season kicked off with a very strong woman candidate, Hillary Clinton, being the front runner on the Democratic side, and a strong possible winner in the general election . Now, the rules for her seem to have been somewhat different than for recent GOP vice presidential nominee, Sarah Palin, until very recently, anyway. Why? Clinton supporters may not like to hear this, but Hillary was an EXCEPTIONAL candidate (they'll like that part), but by being a former First Lady of eight years, and also having been an adviser, or at least perceived to have been a close adviser to her husband (something they used in the 1992 campaign-"Vote for one and get two!), she had taken some hits from the media and the public over various things, perhaps most notably over her heading the secretive government health care reform committee. Later, when she ran for the Senate, she was in a campaign that, at least initially, got pretty tough. When she ran for president, she was already an experienced public figure. Knowing her as they did, the media didn't always cut her a hell of a lot of slack, and that's fine with me (Hillary supporters, please read further, before you get all excited).
When John McCain announced that his pick for a running mate was Sarah Palin, many people, even many people who paid attention to politics said, "Who?" It took several days for news and talk show people to get the pronunciation of her last name down pat. The McCain campaign proceeded to insist that Palin was highly qualified, but they essentially hid her away from public interviews. At first she was highly popular, perhaps because she was a fresh face, and I would argue because very few Americans really knew much about her, including the conservative base she was supposed to appeal to. Her digs at the media did nothing but give her a further boost in the public's eyes. At first, this "hide the candidate from the media" strategy seemed to work. But after a couple of weeks, Americans seemed to want to know more about this person who might not only become vice president, but potentially president. When the interviews came, they were NOT always very pretty. Despite the McCain campaign's insistence, Sarah Palin was NOT qualified, at this point, to become vice president, and certainly not president. Living near Russia is not a qualification, and when the comedians got hold of that line, Palin took some serious hits to her credibility. The interview with Katie Couric was a disaster, and since that time, Palin has seemingly been a drag on the Republican ticket, as far as the broad cross-section of the American electorate is concerned, although even some conservative columnists have recently tossed her under the bus.
A few years ago, Barrack Obama won a U.S. Senate seat in Illinois. He gave a much lauded speech to the Democratic National Convention in 2004, and I guess along about the latter part of 2006 he made it clear that he would be a candidate for president in 2008. As events unfolded, it seemed that Obama's run for the presidency would be doomed to fail, as Hillary Clinton and John Edwards were seen as the top Democratic candidates, early on. When Obama stunned the political world, and definitely his challengers, in the Iowa caucuses, he was off and running, and became a viable candidate for president. Now, you can argue with the overall details, but he went through the process and wasn't hidden away from questions by the media. His qualifications were challenged, and that's all fair game for a person aspiring to any office, let alone THE office. There's no question in my mind that many in the media took a liking to him, and the fact that he was giving Hillary a run for her money endeared him to many more, both media and non-media. For the media, this was THE story, and with the media, THE story trumps any liking they may have for a particular politician. I'd argue that many in the media probably liked Bill Clinton and agreed with many of his policies, but when the scandals erupted, they went after him with great fervor.
The problem with all three of these high profile candidacies is that they presented problems for their challengers and for the media, at least in the minds of the pundits. We've heard such rules as "You can't talk down to her," or "You can't be condescending to her," or "You can't seem to be dismissive of him." The whole point was/is, during the primaries, many women, but certainly not all, wanted Hillary to win, because she is a woman. Some claim otherwise, some even adamantly so, but let's lay the cards on the table. That was one of the reasons. The thing is, there's not necessarily anything wrong with that. We vote for, or against candidates for any number of reasons that weren't part of our high school Civics class. Further, many African-Americans want Obama to win because he's black (the fact that he's half white doesn't seem to matter, to pro-Obama or anti-Obama folks). I suppose there's also an element of support for Sarah Palin because of her gender, but I'd say far less so than with Hillary. On the other hand, there were/are people AGAINST Hillary, Palin, and/or Obama because of their gender or race.
When the vice presidential debate was about to take place, the pundits started about Biden not being able to say this to or about Palin. To me, the pundits can say what they want, but in the end, it is up to voters to listen and watch and then decide what they thought of each candidate. Our views of such can definitely be influenced by our gender (or in the presidential debates, by our race). Let's not be naive here. It was pointed out that when then vice president George Bush (SENIOR) faced off against the first woman vice presidential candidate, Geraldine Ferraro, in the debate in 1984, that she zinged him with a comment that he didn't have to "explain" things to her; with the implication being that he was doing so because she was a woman. The media loved it and this incident has oft been shown in recent news/talk shows. What seems to have failed to register is, SHE LOST! The Mondale-Ferraro ticket lost 49 states, and damned near lost the fiftieth by only a couple of thousand votes!!!
None of us likes everything the media reports, that's why overall the media is fairer than we realize, or at least that we care to admit. The media wants a story, any story. Any reporter wants to get the scoop of his or her life and win some prestigious award for journalism. The individual reporters and anchor people may favor one candidate over another, but in the end, the story is almost always what matters, even if it hurts "their" personal favorite. In more recent times, all points of view get an airing in the media, and while I may not like it when my candidate or an issue I feel deeply about gets knocked, in the end my candidate and my precious issues do get coverage in the media. I just wish they'd always AGREE WITH ME! Folks, that's what much of this stuff over the media is really about. We want them to give our views or candidates favorable presentations, and while we may not always wish for it, we'd probably like it just as much if they'd lambaste the other point of view or candidate to the point of destroying them. On any given day, there may well be a point where candidate X got a raw deal from "the media," but chances are, the next day or two that same media will give that candidate a boost. Republicans frequently whine how the media favors Democrats, but let's see, who usually wins the elections? ..... Republicans! (Now there's a DOUBLE win: victory in elections AND getting to play the victim.) To the defenders of Sarah Palin, I don't recall hearing much whining when she was the talk of the town, only now that the scrutiny has taken hold.
My personal belief is that "usually" the media is too timid with many candidates or office holders. The candidates need to be pressed, ala the way former ABC White House correspondent Sam Donaldson used to do, on what they really mean about certain issues and policies. I'm NOT advocating that race, gender, religion, or such be brought in by the media, but if it is, even subtly, the American people will react against such behavior, even if they don't necessarily agree with the attacked person's policies. All of this stuff about you can't ask this, and you can't ask that, or you have to ask it this way is a bunch of nonsense. We're talking about people seeking public office, and in the case of those mentioned above, HIGH PUBLIC OFFICE. The hell with their feelings, we need to know things. In the case of presidents and vice presidents, tough foreign leaders will not treat their feelings so kindly. In campaigns, candidates love to portray themselves as victims. I say, "Enough already! The standards applied for Hillary should be applied to all!"
Labels: Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Sarah Palin
posted by Randy at 6:16 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home