Here is Eric Alterman on recent developments. I could not agree more with most of this. If it wasn’t for Paul Krugman’s very existence, Eric Alterman would be my fantasy lover. Did I tell you guys I’m meeting Krugman in April by the way?
1) On John Edwards: The Edwards campaign was a surreal experience that should inspire a doctoral dissertation or two. He was both the most progressive candidate on issues and the most electable on paper, and yet he did not get the support of most progressives or most professionals. This despite the fact that he actually ran a terrific campaign and, more than Obama and Hillary, defined it in a positive direction. That he forced the other candidates to respond did not end up mattering as much as the media's fascination with all things Clintonian, Obamian, and the egregiously awful coverage of Edwards. The Washington Post deserves special mention for its idiotic 1,300-word piece on his haircut and an even longer one on his house. Richard Cohen and Michael Dobbs both called him a liar and presented no evidence. The editorial board attacked him constantly. The New York Times also went in for the "How can you care about poor people when you're so rich?" line of questioning, which implies that poor people are unentitled to representation in the American political system, since it allows for only wealthy people to run. And Maureen Dowd was her usual awful, substanceless self, helping to set the tone for the rest, to the shame of all of us.
2) Rudy G. is gone. This proves the old adage that it is actually possible to underestimate the wisdom of the American people, even Republican primary voters. We New Yorkers kept telling you people that this entire idea is insane, but the media kept taking it seriously. We knew that to know Rudy is to hate Rudy and to be fearful of him getting anywhere near nuclear codes. Now everybody knows. I'll admit, it was a little scary.
3) McCain as the nominee is scary, too, because the media remain more in love with him than ever. Remember that picture of him hugging Bush? Put McCain in Bush's place and the punditocracy in McCain's place, and that's what we can prepare ourselves for. What's more, because the media love McCain and treat elections entirely as high school popularity contests, Republicans will not be held responsible for the last horrific eight years. Hillary Clinton is no match for McCain in this respect; they hate her, they love him. Obama is a match, but his anti-war position will be held against him, since most of the media were just as wrong as McCain about Iraq and feel themselves indicted by those of us, like Obama, who were right, and their natural defensiveness manifests itself in the form of petty vengeance. So-called liberal hawks, which is most liberals with a mainstream platform, will do McCain's bidding for the price of only being called by their first names on the bus. It's going to really suck.
4) Should Democrats run against McCain as too old to be president? I think so. It's dangerous, but so what? He may not be too old today, but what about four years from now? Ronald Reagan was already losing his mind by the time he left office. And he was younger than McCain will be. This is a high-risk strategy vis-à-vis the older part of the electorate, but I'd risk it. It will actually affect lots of people's votes.
http://mediamatters.org/altercation/?f=h_column
1) On John Edwards: The Edwards campaign was a surreal experience that should inspire a doctoral dissertation or two. He was both the most progressive candidate on issues and the most electable on paper, and yet he did not get the support of most progressives or most professionals. This despite the fact that he actually ran a terrific campaign and, more than Obama and Hillary, defined it in a positive direction. That he forced the other candidates to respond did not end up mattering as much as the media's fascination with all things Clintonian, Obamian, and the egregiously awful coverage of Edwards. The Washington Post deserves special mention for its idiotic 1,300-word piece on his haircut and an even longer one on his house. Richard Cohen and Michael Dobbs both called him a liar and presented no evidence. The editorial board attacked him constantly. The New York Times also went in for the "How can you care about poor people when you're so rich?" line of questioning, which implies that poor people are unentitled to representation in the American political system, since it allows for only wealthy people to run. And Maureen Dowd was her usual awful, substanceless self, helping to set the tone for the rest, to the shame of all of us.
2) Rudy G. is gone. This proves the old adage that it is actually possible to underestimate the wisdom of the American people, even Republican primary voters. We New Yorkers kept telling you people that this entire idea is insane, but the media kept taking it seriously. We knew that to know Rudy is to hate Rudy and to be fearful of him getting anywhere near nuclear codes. Now everybody knows. I'll admit, it was a little scary.
3) McCain as the nominee is scary, too, because the media remain more in love with him than ever. Remember that picture of him hugging Bush? Put McCain in Bush's place and the punditocracy in McCain's place, and that's what we can prepare ourselves for. What's more, because the media love McCain and treat elections entirely as high school popularity contests, Republicans will not be held responsible for the last horrific eight years. Hillary Clinton is no match for McCain in this respect; they hate her, they love him. Obama is a match, but his anti-war position will be held against him, since most of the media were just as wrong as McCain about Iraq and feel themselves indicted by those of us, like Obama, who were right, and their natural defensiveness manifests itself in the form of petty vengeance. So-called liberal hawks, which is most liberals with a mainstream platform, will do McCain's bidding for the price of only being called by their first names on the bus. It's going to really suck.
4) Should Democrats run against McCain as too old to be president? I think so. It's dangerous, but so what? He may not be too old today, but what about four years from now? Ronald Reagan was already losing his mind by the time he left office. And he was younger than McCain will be. This is a high-risk strategy vis-à-vis the older part of the electorate, but I'd risk it. It will actually affect lots of people's votes.
http://mediamatters.org/altercation/?f=h_column
