reflectivepundit

Senator McCain ’s Smooth Ride in the Media

By Brigitte L. Nacos
Senator John McCain is the only presidential candidate the mainstream media haven’t laid a glove on. All other candidates, Democrats and Republicans, those still standing and those out of their respective party’s race, have been targets of media criticism and attack-dog journalism. Some more (i.e., Hillary Clinton); some less (i.e., Barack Obama). In a democracy, the fourth estate is supposed to scrutinize public officials and candidates for public offices. But one would expect some evenhandedness in this respect. Instead, Senator McCain has gotten a free ride because the press has bought into his “straight talk” slogan. Add to this the media’s frequent references to McCain’s suffering as POW in North Vietnam and as genuine American hero, and you get an idea why he is now the favorite for Republican nomination—and perhaps beyond.   

Referring to President Bush’s and Senator McCain’s shared hawkish attitudes, Arianna Huffington wrote the other day, “When it comes to the war in Iraq, the president and the leading GOP contender to replace him seem to be stuck in a time warp -- tossing out applause lines from years gone by and using rhetoric drawn from the Dark Ages of the Iraq debate.” The amazing thing is that McCain is not seriously questioned by the mainstream media on positions that are outright frightening and more hawkish than those of the very unpopular President Bush. During a campaign stop in Florida, he said, “There's going to be other wars... We will never surrender but there will be other wars." After Iraq—what next?

Last night, there was yet another useless TV-exercise called “debate;” nobody asked McCain about the next wars to be fought with what resources and at what costs? And when the Senator was asked about his remark that American forces may stay in Iraq for 100 years last night, he was not pressed for a straight answer but allowed to display once again his righteousness in favor of military actions. And this is a candidate who promises to cut spending and taxes once he is president.

Rudy -- He Could'a Been a Contenda

by David Epstein

I was on the BBC World Service TV show last night, commenting on Rudy and the Republican primary. The show was very good, including some great comments my friend John Fortier chiming in from the DC studio. I was reasonably happy with my performance overall, but my answer to the last question was lame. When the commentator asked me whether Giuliani's speech was in fact a farewell speech, I blabbered on about how he didn't yet say he's going to get out, but probably will in a day or two, and kind of left it at that.

What I *should* have said was that Giuliani's speech was, indeed, clearly a signal that he's dropping out. There are those who have been saying that Giuliani has been acting like a character in a spy novel poisoned by Strontium 90 -- he's dead but doesn't know it yet. But in the past week he's been acting much more statesmanlike, not attacking his opponents and seemingly resigned to the inevitable. So I think he'll get out sooner rather than later, and McCain and Romney can start the "Rudy Primary," courting his endorsement.

Also, I thought the speech was rather good, hitting his main themes and sounding like someone who could'a been a real contender. It's as if, finally freed from the necessity of genuflecting to the right wing of the Republican Party, he's much lighter, much freer, giving us a glimpse of the candidate that might have been. Not my candidate, mind you, but listening to him talk you remember why there were many who thought he'd be the Republican standard bearer this time around, and a tough candidate to beat.

Blog Newspaper The Issue: A Jewel in the Blogosphere

By Brigitte L. Nacos
If you are tired of surfing the blogosphere and look for more than your favorite blogs, there is a wonderful option: The non-partisan blog newspaper The Issue . This site resembles a quality print newspaper in a welcome departure from the noisy tabloid look that seems on the rise in the vastly expanding blogosphere. While the sophisticated lay-out is a bonus, it is the content and its presentation that stand out here. Most importantly, the editors present in literally each issue a marketplace of ideas consisting of pertinent posts chosen from a multitude of blogs—most of them not among the most popular sites.

The selected posts address a wide array of important questions and issues of our time and are organized along the line of broadsheets. Under “Featured Stories,” each issue of the blog newspaper presents contributions addressing current and/or generally important events, developments, problems, and the like. Today, for example, there are four featured stories, among them, “How much fiscal stimulus? Dollar amounts versus Efficacy.” The showcase section is the “Issue of the Day” with important topics discussed in posts from various blogs. “The Future of NATO,” “The Science of Aging,” “The Media’s Political Influence,” and “The Future of the GOP” were among recent topics with typically three different contributions and a short introduction by the editors.

Finally, the “Best of the Blogosphere” selections are presented in six sections: U.S., World, Business, Science & Health, Art & Culture, and Musings. There are cartoons, a book review section, and several other interesting features.

I need to disclose here that the The Issue has featured several of my reflectivepundit posts in the “Issue of the Day” and “Best of the Blogosphere” sections, but this is certainly not the reason why I visit this exceptional site regularly and why I recommend it. 

Hillary Clinton: “Two-for-One” Perception is Too Risky

By Brigitte L. Nacos
I read the other day that John Edwards endorsed the prominent roles that spouses play and should be entitled to play during presidential campaigns. Growing up in Western Europe, I did not witness anything close to the American tradition of spouses and other family members weighing in quite heavily during campaigns. Mostly, this is explained by the distinctly different candidate selection processes in parliamentary systems. In the current battle for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination there is a widely shared perception (part of it fueled by competitors’ campaigns and part of it by media reporting and comments) that former President Bill Clinton has been too outspoken and aggressive and divisive in his wife’s campaign efforts—especially, after her win in New Hampshire and before her poor showing in South Carolina.
    Senator Obama’s wife and former Senator Edwards’ wife have been blunt in their support of their husbands and critical of their husbands’ rivals. But they, unlike Bill Clinton, are not ex-presidents who are persistently in the limelight and have credits and liabilities accrued before and during presidential terms.
    While one would expect any man or woman in the American political context to go to bat for his or her spouse during campaigns for the highest public offices, in this year’s extraordinary and so far unique case, one of the spouses is a former president.

Of Media Favorites and Objectivity in Presidential Campaigns

By Brigitte L. Nacos
After last week’s Republican primary in South Carolina, Washington Post media columnist Howard Kurtz wrote about the relationship between presidential candidates and the reporters that cover them. As for the darling of the press corps, Senator John McCain, Kurtz noted, “McCain's ability to charm the press wasn't responsible for his big win in Saturday's South Carolina primary, but it didn't hurt.” It is impossible to establish whether the mostly positive portrayal of McCain in the mainstream media contributed to his win in South Carolina. But the excellent relationship between the Senator and the “Boys and Girls on the Bus” may have affected the media characterization of his quite narrow 33-30 victory over Mike Huckabee as “big” victory or win. As Kurtz put it,
“How candidates treat reporters shouldn't matter in the coverage, but it does. Journalists tend to reward those who engage them and get testy when they are stiffed, concluding that such candidates are overly calculating and wary of unscripted exchanges.” 
The point here is that Senator McCain’s popularity among reporters is the result of his accessibility that began during his presidential run 8 years ago. In 2000, however, George W. Bush was ultimately most successful in charming and co-opting those reporters who covered him. The candidate the media described then was an accessible down-to-earth fun guy and the one you would pick to have a beer with. In sharp contrast, Al Gore’s media image was that of a brainy, robot-like stiff who seemed hard pressed to appear relaxed. So much for reporters and candidates’ likeability.

The Road to the White House Runs Through the Newsrooms

By Brigitte L. Nacos
In the early 1990s, political scientist Thomas Patterson published an excellent book. In Out of Order: How the decline of political parties and the growing power of the news media undermine the American way of electing presidents, he wrote that the reform of the presidential selection system in the wake of the turbulent 1968 Democratic nomination convention replaced party insiders with the mass media. Before the reform, when conventions were strongly influenced by power brokers inside the major parties, presidential contenders made their appeals to relatively few activists and leaders in their own parties who would decide the nominees at the conventions. This was best done in person-to-person communications. But once the binding primaries established what the reformers believed to be a more democratic system, the media became out of necessity the links between presidential contenders and primary voters and caucus attendants. In the process, the influence of the mass media increased dramatically. That is why Patterson wrote, “The road to nomination runs through the newsrooms.” One can go a step further and argue that the road to the White House, too, runs through the newsrooms—if only because the media influence who survives the absurdly structured primary season and who drops out. 
    It is true, as Patterson put it, that the “news media do not entirely determine who will win the nomination, but no candidate can succeed without the press.” Since Patterson published his volume, the proliferation of television and radio channels has intensified and so has the growing competition for audiences and advertising dollars. As a result, even serious print and broadcast newsrooms opt increasingly for infotainment or soft news at the expense of hard news and important public affairs information.
Thus, what Patterson recognized some 15 or so years ago, is far more of a problem today. In their permanent search for dramatic, captivating stories, newsrooms are far more eager to highlight the latest poll results, campaign tactics, and personal attacks rather than deal with complex policy issues. This kind of reporting contributes to citizens’ dissatisfaction with the political realm and, just as important, fails to provide the electorate with a comprehensive, reliable system of primary and general campaigns. Neither the drastic increase of radio and television channel nor the information available on the Internet resulted in a better informed citizenry and electorate. Given the media’s obsession with candidates’ personalities and likeability, it is hardly surprising that many voters opt for the one they would like as next door neighbor or drink a beer with. And that, even after such mass-mediated sentiments helped to nominate and elect the current occupant of the White House.

Dealing with Direct and Indirect State Sponsors of Terrorism

By Brigitte L. Nacos
During his current Middle East trip President George W. Bush said in a speech about the region’s problems. “Iran is today the world's leading state sponsor of terror.” This sentence was highlighted by the media. Typically, headlines stated that the president “accused” Iran of being the leading terrorist state sponsor or “insisted” that Iran had such a role. There is nothing to be questioned, accused, or insisted, when it comes to Iran and terrorism. The president basically repeated a long-known fact. To be more precise: Iran is today the leading direct state sponsor of terrorism.   
In early 1980, Tehran used the Revolutionary Guard Corps to organize and train Lebanese Shiite extremists of what became the terrorist organization Hezbollah. Ever since, Iran has continued to support the group financially and otherwise. The president was right when he said that the Iran-Hezbollah tie “undermines Lebanese hopes for peace.”  Hezbollah’s role transcends Lebanon since the Lebanese group pursues the destruction of Israel as one of its foremost goals. Moreover, it is equally well known that Iran supports Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and other Palestinian terrorist organizations with financial aid and arms shipments and thereby contributes greatly to the failure to settle the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Add to this, Iran’s support for terrorist organizations in other countries in the Middle East and far beyond. 
When it comes to indirect state sponsorship, other governments may have done more in support of terrorism in our time by allowing religious extremist forces to spread their fanaticism abroad in order to keep them off their back at home. First of all, Saudi Arabia comes to mind.

Whereas the Bush administration and others consider Iran an arch-enemy, they see Saudi Arabia’s rulers as friends. I am not advocating the add Saudi Arabia to the president’s infamous axis of evil but suggest that it should not be impossible to treat direct and indirect state sponsors of terrorism in similar ways. The U.S. and Saudi governments had in the past and still have today constant diplomatic relations and highest level contact. So, why not try to reestablish diplomatic ties between Washington and Tehran, talk about each side’s grievances, and probe for common ground?   
If  U.S.diplomats can talk to their North-Korean counterparts, why can’t there be direct American-Iranian diplomacy? After all,in the U.S. Department's last "Country Reports on Terrorism," North Korea, a country with an advanced nuclear program, remained on the list of state sponsors.

The Swiftboating of Clinton, Edwards, and Obama

By Brigitte L. Nacos
Item # 1: Long-time Clinton-Hater Chris Matthew (host of MSNBC’s “Hardball Chris” show) said this about Senator Hillary Clinton one day after her victory in the New Hampshire primary as guest of MSNBC's “Morning Joe” show, "Let's not forget -- and I'll be brutal -- the reason she's a U.S. senator, the reason she's a candidate for president, the reason she may be a front-runner is her husband messed around. That's how she got to be senator from New York. We keep forgetting it. She didn't win there on her merits. She won because everybody felt, 'My God, this woman stood up under humiliation,' right? That's what happened."(For more on Matthew’s Clinton bashing appearance, see account on Media Matters for America.   
Item # 2: One day after John Edwards' third place finish in New Hampshire, Glenn Beck said in his CNN Headline News show, “I listened to him [John Edwards] last night give a speech, and, I mean, why not just start wearing the Soviet star on your head and the Workers World Party?" Beck added: "Good Lord in heaven. Was it a mistake for him to go after her [Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY)] for crying and then also to join this great Soviet state?" 
Item # 3: During his January 6 nationally syndicated radio show, host Bill Cunningham referred to Senator Barack Obama repeatedly as “Barack Mohammed Hussein Obama” although Mohammed is not part of his name. According to Media Matters for America, “Cunningham also falsely claimed that Obama ‘was raised in madrassas in Indonesia’ and accused Obama's church, the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, of being ‘black separatist’ and ‘black racist.’” Cunningham said furthermore that it would be a shock, “if Barack Mohammed Hussein Obama can be elected the president of this country in these difficult terrorist times."

These are but three of many, many examples. While the swiftboating of John Kerry began after he won the presidential nomination of his party in 2004, this time around the vicious attacks against all three of the viable Democratic contenders began earlier and come from a multitude of quarters. Not to mention the common bias of many media figures and outlets with Hillary Clinton especially singled out for unfair treatment as even some non-Clinton supporters recognize and criticize.
A cursory review of mainstream media, talk radio and TV, and the blogosphere does not reveal such massive dirt-throwing against Republican candidates.
The three remaining Democrats in the race are foremost in the line of fire because it is widely believed that one of them has the best chances to become the next president. If Clinton, Edwards, and Obama want to bring about the most important change if all, they need to be careful not to attack each other in ways that put lethal ammunition into the hands of the eventual Republican nominee and his supporters against whoever wins the intra-party race.

To be sure, the electorate deserves further substantive debates—but they should be civil and shame the preachers of hate and viciousness.

P.S. The anti-Clinton and chauvinist gender bias by swiftboater-in-chief "Hardball Chris" described and analyzed in a new article.

Hillary Clinton: Victim of Persistent Gender Prejudices?

Brigitte L. Nacos
During one of Hillary Clinton’s last campaign appearances before the primary in New Hampshire, two men screamed, “iron my shirt!” in an obvious effort to tell Hillary supporters that a woman’s role is that of a house-wife and her place the kitchen and laundry room—not in the White House. If you think that these two guys were rare chauvinist nuts among otherwise enlightened people without gender prejudices, you are living in a make-believe world. Males, white males, are still holding the power in America—including in the media corporations and the news rooms—and they are in excellent positions to influence the public climate—for better and for worse. Which is not to say that women in influential positions, especially those in the media, are free of these traditional prejudices or have chosen to embrace them, if only to prove that they are not weak sisters but as tough or tougher than the boys on the bus and in the news room. Just read the columns of Maureen Dowd and Gail Collins in the New York Times and you get the general picture. According to Reuters, Noami Wolf rejects the idea that “gender will determine whether the U.S. senator from New York and wife of former President Bill Clinton stands or falls… None of the polling or the focus groups indicate that people are ... (snubbing) her because she is a woman but because of a deficit in how she is projecting leadership.” I believe that Wolf is wrong. Neither the shapers of public’s perceptions nor voters will openly display gender bias. But the unbalanced reporting of the last several months and weeks undoubtedly worked on the Democratic side in favor of Barack Obama and against Hillary Clinton. 
As Gloria Steinem wrote in an op-ed article in the New York Times, the early stage of this candidate selection process has followed “our historical pattern of making change. Black men were given the vote a half-century before women of any race were allowed to mark a ballot, and generally have ascended to positions of power, from the military to the boardroom, before any women (with the possible exception of obedient family members in the latter)."

Since Senator Clinton’s qualifications for the highest job in the land are difficult to attack, gender stereotypes have been used to trample her personal traits, her character, her sincerity. She has been characterized as robotic machine, shrill, tough, ruthless. In comments below articles on Clinton’s changing fortunes on the Washington Post web site, she was called a bitch, cold-hearted, an “so obsessed with getting the nomination she has lost focus on the issues and her cause.” After a campaign-tired Clinton teared up during a conversation with women in New Hampshire, reporters asked witnesses of the incident whether it was a purposely produced display of her human side. Like Geraldine Ferraro as candidate for the vice-presidency and other female candidates for executive offices before her, Hillary Clinton’s news coverage is different than that of male candidates and affects public perceptions of her and her rivals.

McCain/Obama, Romney/Clinton, and the Power of Independents

By Brigitte L. Nacos
According to Hans Nichols of Bloomberg, “Republican Mitt Romney and Democrat Hillary Clinton are each counting on capturing a plurality of their party's vote in tomorrow's New Hampshire primary election. That may not be enough for either to win. Their fate may instead be in the hands of people such as Barbara Pressly, a retired Nashua alderman, Stacy Pollard, a Merrimack hairdresser, and Jim Taylor, a Londonderry builder. The three are registered as independents, like some 40 percent of the state's voters, and can participate in either primary.” In other words, 2 of 5 registered voters in New Hampshire are Independents and entitled to cast their vote in either the Democratic or Republican primary.
Thus, not those New Hampshire voters who are registered Democrats or Republicans but rather registered Independents may ultimately decide who wins and loses in this state and, given the irrational media hype surrounding the first caucuses in Iowa and the first primary in New Hampshire, perhaps the contest for the two major parties’ nomination. The fact that Independents can influence and even determine the outcome of caucuses and primaries by choosing to participate in either the Democratic or Republican primary is another strange feature of the presidential selection process as is some states’ habit to allow Democrats and Republicans to cross party lines in primary elections. (I wrote earlier about the absurdity of mass-mediated presidential campaigns that allow Iowa with less than 1% and New Hampshire with less than ½ of the total U. S. population the role of making and breaking presidential contenders).