Rev Wright and the Polls, Barack's deathnail?

Will public opinion polls ultimately decide how super delegates vote?

A vote--the deciding vote--hinges on polls of perceptions of a man not running for office: the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

A historic opportunity to begin to redress cynicism and the corruption of American democracy--squandered by a voting public unable and unwilling to distinguish between two starkly different men. Devastating.

Elizabeth Edwards weighs in on press shortcomings

As the spotlight shifts to North Carolina, one of the state's leading political families has taken the opportunity to re-enter the campaign dialogue after dropping out of the race earlier this year. Last week, John Edwards made a hilarious stop on "The Colbert Report," and yesterday, his popular wife Elizabeth contributed an op-ed piece to the New York Times in which she critiques media coverage of the campaign.

Edwards repeats many of the now familiar refrains about the media's leaning on soundbites, drama, and trivial matters rather than providing in-depth reports about issues and policies; the article is entitled "Bowling 1, Health Care 0." She laments the "Cliff Notes of the news" and "strobe-light journalism" that deprive us of the full picture. Rather than complaining on her husband's behalf, she points to other worthy candidates whose campaigns were doomed from the start by media neglect, in particular Joe Biden. By contrast, she notes how much attention Fred Thompson received before even entering the race officially.

I think an especially intriguing passage is one where Edwards describes the convenient narrative template that the media has constructed for the campaign, making each candidate an archetypal character in a story: "on one side, a self-described 9/11 hero with a colorful personal life, a former senator who had played a president in the movies, a genuine war hero with a stunning wife and an intriguing temperament, and a handsome governor with a beautiful family and a high school sweetheart as his bride. And on the other side, a senator who had been first lady, a young African-American senator with an Ivy League diploma, a Hispanic governor with a self-deprecating sense of humor and even a former senator from the South standing loyally beside his ill wife." While those easy characterizations are true, they are not enough; Edwards argues that "issues that could make a difference in the lives of Americans didn’t fit into the narrative template and, therefore, took a back seat to these superficialities. "

Edwards concludes that the media must change, and it will not do so on its own accord: "If voters want a vibrant, vigorous press, apparently we will have to demand it." It is a worthy call to remind people that we may get the news we deserve, so we must raise our expectations rather than being complicit in the rampant mediocrity of reporting today. I think her piece offers an eloquent summary of a grievance many have been seeking to articulate over the course of the campaign. It helps for respected figures like Elizabeth Edwards to put public pressure on the media to do better. If we consider the primary season as a first semester, the media's report card is the kind you might want to intercept at the mailbox; in the coming months, the media should aim for general election grades worthy of the fridge door.

Clinton's kindred spirit on the big screen: a petulant overachiever?

In honor of the Oscars, which take place tonight, I am posting a video mash-up that likens Hillary Clinton to Tracy Flick, Reese Witherspoon’s character in the 1999 film “Election.” In the movie, Flick is a diligent, driven young woman who climbed the ranks of student government before running for its highest office: Student Body President. It seems that the election is likely to play out according to her careful designs—until a popular, “cool” male student joins the race and threatens her inevitability. Sound familiar?

Watch the video here: http://slatev.com/player.html?id=1377935786

Columnist Frank Rich mentioned the mash-up today in a New York Times article that traces the “remarkable implosion of the Clinton campaign.” The article sheds light on how Clinton’s odds went from “inevitable” to “outside chance” in a matter of months. The video is offered as a silly way to illustrate real complaints from Clinton supporters that Obama’s popularity is somehow unearned; they suggest that his youth and gender allow him to surpass her in a sexist culture that values style over substance.

Read the article here: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/24/opinion/24rich.html?th&emc=th

Anyone else expecting/hoping for political overtones in acceptance speeches tonight? Maybe, more subtly, a campaign button on an evening gown? Considering the star-studded crowd at last month’s Democratic debate in the Kodak Theatre, I’m betting some of the same celebs will return to Kodak tonight. We’ll soon find out if they can resist using this enormous stage to voice their views while they have the attention of millions of Americans…

Obama’s unexpected endorsement

I could not resist to the envy to write about the so-called John McCain’s scandal and the article written and published in the last Thursday New York Times issue. What the article revealed is that Senator John McCain would have lobbied for the client of a lobbyist, with whom, in addition, he would have had a romantic relationship.
I was struck by the article itself for many reasons. Firstly, the article looks like a recollection of John McCain’s dubious past as an elected representative. Secondly, the article is based upon information that the journalist seems to be unable to prove. Indeed, as for his so-called involvement in the Keating Five scandal, McCain never got sentenced, but just reprimanded for poor judgment. As for the pretended romantic relation he would have had with a lobbyist, both John McCain and Vicki Iseman said they never had such a relation. Thirdly and mainly, the article raises the question of its own purpose; what is the relevance of such an article at a time in the campaign where McCain’s nomination seems to be established and where the Democratic nomination has never been so uncertain.
As far as I am concerned, I think that the article brings us back to the New York Times’ endorsements. The newspaper has endorsed Hillary R. Clinton and John McCain. It is first surprising that the New York Times seeks to confound a candidate it has endorsed. I also wonder whether the newspaper is not looking to modify its choice. Indeed, who really benefits from this accusation? If it probably undermines McCain’s integrity, it does not benefit to his challenger, Mike Huckabee, who is now far behind him. Yet, the beneficiary might be among the democratic candidates. Between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, it is certainly Obama who is going to enjoy the New York Times’ denunciation. Indeed, he is the one who is the youngest in politics and the one who embodies the change with practices perpetuated by the previous generation of politicians to which belongs Hillary Clinton. With this article, the New York Times has endorsed Barack Obama.

Bye-bye, Rudy

Whatever happened to Rudy Giuliani? He was a favorite here in California, and a frontrunner across the country just a few short months ago. In the past few months, however, Giuliani’s support waned then nearly died in the polls. He was hoping for a comeback in Florida then maybe gaining momentum in California, but the campaign never quite reached that point.
Now we’ve all heard the old adage, “all press is good press.” Giuliani proved it true albeit with a slight variation. Bad press followed by no press. Giuliani’s communications shop had a flawed strategy. They displayed a form of arrogance to the media that damaged Giuliani’s campaign more than anything else.
When the New York Times published a crushing article regarding Giuliani’s use of mayoral campaign funds to pay for his personal trips to the Hamptons in 1999 and 2000, it took more than a month for Giuliani’s communications team to respond with anything and have the article retracted. Had his campaign team been more on the ball, they might have been able to save the campaign and themselves.
It is mistakes like these that cost a candidate an entire campaign. With the candidates we have left in the Republican Party, I know everyone is keeping their fingers crossed for the one who is slightly better than the other.