Stop Projecting

Alessandra Stanley of the New York Times does some serious drama-projection in this piece on the nomination of Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State. Here’s a snippet of the wankery:

Presentations of presidential appointees can be important, but they are rarely interesting. Usually, the men and women chosen for top cabinet roles are not well known to the public; if there is drama behind the scenes, most in the audience are blind to it.

That was hardly the case on Monday when President-elect Barack Obama introduced his national security team. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s speech was no ordinary public-service pledge; for plenty of viewers, it was the moment when Mrs. Clinton finally conceded the election for real.

The occasion was solemn, but like a wedding where the parents are divorced, the ceremony was carefully choreographed to avert awkward moments and camouflage past unpleasantness.

When Mr. Obama unveiled his economic team last week, he alone made a speech. In this more delicate selection, it was decided that Mrs. Clinton, his pick for secretary of state, should also speak. But that might look suspect — or too political — unless the five other appointees also said a word, and that, in turn, required a few words from Vice President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr., who had yet to make public statements of any consequence since the election. (He spoke last, spiritedly, and at some length.)

Not all the staging was designed to address Mrs. Clinton’s sensibilities. She and the five other appointees walked out on stage and stood in line, almost as if at attention, waiting for the president-elect to walk in. He did so briskly, with Mr. Biden at his heels. [Emphasis added]

Look, it’s clear that the press wants there to be Obama-Clinton drama. They love the old storylines and they love creating a storyline that wedges Democrats apart. This is exactly that sort of story: Clinton v. Obama, Can He Trust Her? Will She Go Rogue???

But it’s 100% B.S. Nowhere in the press conference is it apparent that any of it was “designed to address Mrs. Clinton’s sensibilities.” Stanley is projecting, plain and simple. Moreover, at no point in the time since June 7, 2008, has Hillary Clinton ever suggested that her concession of the Democratic nomination for the presidency was not “for real.” Again, Stanley is making things up.

I have no doubt that the good people of the Obama Transition Team carefully choreographed yesterday’s press conference. It was likely on par with the roll-out of the Obama administration’s economic team for importance. So yes, there was surely a schedule of who spoke when and who stood next to whom. It’s even conceivable that the speeches of all of President-Elect Obama’s appointments were written and/or vetted by members of the transition team. This is not news. The professionalism and orderliness seen in the Obama press conference yesterday was not done out of a desire “to avert awkward moments and camouflage past unpleasantness.” It was “carefully choreographed” to be presidential.

Alessandra Stanley and her editors need to stop projecting their desired story lines onto the Obama administration (viz. making things up) and start reporting the news like professionals. Unfortunately, my guess is that as long as Hillary Clinton (let alone Bill) is in the picture, this will not happen. This is no fault of Senator and soon-to-be Secretary of State Clinton; the blame lies with petty and trite fiction writers like Alessandra Stanley.

Wanker of the Day

Lisa Miller of Newsweek, for penning a column that is not satire called “Is Obama the Antichrist?”

Now Strandberg was receiving up-to-the-minute news from his constituents in Illinois. One of the winning lottery numbers in the president-elect’s home state was 666— which, as everyone knows, is the sign of the Beast (also known as the Antichrist). “It is very eerie, and I take it for a sign as to who he really is,” wrote one of Strandberg’s correspondents.

No wonder, then, that Obama triggers such fear in the hearts of America’s millennialist Christians. Mat Staver, dean of Liberty University’s law school, says he does not believe Obama is the Antichrist, but he can see how others might. Obama’s own use of religious rhetoric belies his liberal positions on abortion and traditional marriage, Staver says, positions that “religious conservatives believe will threaten their freedom.” The people who believe Obama is the Antichrist are perhaps jumping to conclusions, but they’re not nuts: “They are expressing a concern and a fear that is widely shared,” Staver says.

Before Christ comes again, those who are saved will ascend to heaven, according to this end-times theology, in a huge, upward whoosh called the Rapture. Strandberg is so certain that the Rapture is coming, he’s bought a number of Internet addresses in addition to RaptureReady: AntiAntichrist, Tribulationus and RaptureMe. In the event that RaptureReady crashes during the apocalypse, anyone who needs an update will, with a simple Google search, be able to get one. Strandberg says Obama probably isn’t the Antichrist, but he’s watching the president-elect carefully. On his Web site, he has something called the Rapture Index, a calculation based on signs and prophecy of the proximity of the end. According to Strandberg, any number over 160 means “fasten your seat belts.” Obama’s win pushed the index to 161. [Emphasis added]

It’s pretty stunning that has made it into one of the country’s widest read weekly publications. Miller presents radical fringe religious ideas as reasonable, expected fact. She gives multiple radicals a platform to say the same thing, while providing no backing for its content: namely, Obama’s probably the Antichrist and fundamentalists are scared. Since when does the random occurrence of three lottery balls have meaning meritorious of elevation to the national press? Is Staver so naive that she thinks there’s actually a need to *not* wonder about why fundamentalist Christians are scared of Obama? Look lady, just because some kook has bought domain names doesn’t mean that what they’re about is reasonable and a good idea (see: PalinforVP.com).

There are a lot of crazy things happening in the world. Times are changing and some of our fellow citizens aren’t really excited about that prospect. But just because a non-quantitative assessment on a scale exists on a website somewhere, it doesn’t mean it has validity. Rather than assigning negative religious roles to the next leader of the free world, Miller and Newsweek would be better served trying to report on why radical Christian fundamentalists are so scared about electing a Democrat to the White House who happens to be black. There are still real problems of bigotry and hate in America; Miller’s article elevates them, rather than trying to marginalize the people who perpetuate them. It’s appalling and the editors at Newsweek ought to be ashamed of themselves.

Concern Trolling Perfection

A few days ago my friend Fred Gooltz wrote about the great steps media outlets are going to appear balanced and in so doing fail miserably to report fact in politics.

Across town at the Old Gray Lady, the funniest headlines are the ones that try the hardest to not be criticized as liberal. The New York Times is apparently scared of being called liberal. How else to explain this headline:

Democrats See Risk and Reward if Party Sweeps

Holy. Slippery. Fuck. What!?

The point of a political parties is to win elections. This year, Democrats are going to win the big elections. To report such is not liberal. It is fact.

To feign an argument that a win for the Democrats is somehow a bad thing is so stupid that when the Philadelphia Phillies win the World Series on wednesday, and when there isn’t a pearl -clutching headline in the Times to the effect that:

Phillies Win, Worry Sinks In

or

Phillies Win, Will Phillies Lose?

or

Phillies Win, Lose

There’s a lot of this sort of nonsense going around and we’ll only see more of it into the election and in the immediate aftermath.

Chris Bowers of Open Left identified even more of this media concern trolling, both in terms of the Times’ article Fred posted about and bold pronouncements of risk for Obama purchasing 30 minutes of national tv time.

Look, the raison d’etre electorally focused political party is to win as many elections as possible. To argue that winning more seats is somehow a negative for any political party is exactly as stupid as arguing that it is bad for a sports team to win a championship. To even attempt an argument that winning an election is bad for a party is to enter the final level of concern troll mastery, where you begin to take on a light glow. …

Arguing that tonight’s commercial could hurt Obama is akin to arguing that campaigning at all could hurt Obama. It doesn’t quite give you the concern troll mastery glow, but it does mean you have almost achieved that level.

What has to be recognized in this is that this sort of coverage doesn’t stop after the election. Every positive action Obama and the Democratic majority take will be met in the press by some level of concern trolling about the potential risks associated with it. The source of these concern troll narratives will be the Republican Party, conservative business lobbies, and Blue Dog Democrats who will seek to undermine the progressive parts of Obama’s agenda.

It’s going to be a rough ride, folks, and we need to prepare for previously unimagined levels of stupidity from the punditocracy.

***

[ Find Your Polling Place | Voting Info For Your State | Know Your Voting Rights | Report Voting Problems ]

The Miracle of Modern Punditry

Atrios writes:

It’s important to get ready for what’s to come. In 2000, once the dust settled from the election, it was quite frightening to watch the press assume their roles as official courtiers and sycophants. After all of those years of contempt and disdain for Clinton, they welcomed the Bush administration with a gushing love which was truly surreal. Bush didn’t get a 100 day honeymoon, he got one which lasted until 9/11… and then got a bit extended.

It won’t be like that with Obama. The failed Obama presidency begins the day after the election. Just wait for it.

Actually, David Brooks already announced the beginning of the anti-Obama, anti-Democratic backlash as a result of a failed Obama presidency last week. We didn’t even have to wait for Obama to be elected for his presidency to be declared a failure! Hooray for the miracles of modern punditry!

Backlash? We Haven’t Even Begun to Lash Yet

David Brooks has used today’s column to fast-forward through the coming re-regulation of the economy and much-needed growth of key domestic initiatives and social support systems that will drive us back to economic health, and ushered in what Brooks sees as a coming conservative political swing that will throw Obama and Democrats out of power.

It’s pretty remarkable that with weeks left in the presidential election and nearly 100 days left in the Bush presidency, Brooks is able to write a column, presumably with a straight face, predicting a conservative backlash to Democratic spending that hasn’t happened yet. It reminds me of the opening wedding scene in Spaceballs, where Bill Keller is the Minister, Princess Vespa is David Brooks, Barack Obama is King Roland, and I’m Dot.

MINISTER Dearly beloved, we are gathered here on this most joyous occasion, to witness Princess Vespa, daughter of King Roland….

VESPA starts running toward the door, while Dot is dragging behind.

MINISTER ….going right past the alter, heading down the ramp, and out the door.

ROLAND Stop her! Someone, stop her! Stop her!

EXT. CHAPEL – DAY VESPA and DOT come out of the chapel. They head for the getaway car.

DOT Hey wait! You forgot to get married. Will you stop?

My guess is Brooks won’t stop and we’re in line for 4-8 years of Brooks predicting an imminent backlash.

Debate Blowback

I didn’t watch last night’s Democratic presidential debate on ABC. Judging from the blogospheric reaction, I didn’t miss much. You know the debate was a disaster when the Washington Post’s TV critic Tom Shales rips ABC and their moderators like he does in this piece, “In Pa. Debate, The Clear Loser Is ABC.” Shales writes:

At the end, Gibson pompously thanked the candidates — or was he really patting himself on the back? — for “what I think has been a fascinating debate.” He’s entitled to his opinion, but the most fascinating aspect was waiting to see how low he and Stephanopoulos would go, and then being appalled at the answer.

I honestly wonder what ABC’s internal goal for the debates was. I doubt it’s something direct like “Make Clinton and Obama talk about trivialities so McCain will look great in comparison.” I’d guess it was something more like, “Have the sort of debate that gets praise from Serious People.” No doubt winning over David Brooks will be seen as a sign of the sort of success ABC likely sought last night.

As I said above, I didn’t watch the debate so I can only marvel from afar at how bad it was. But while this may have been a triviality driven debate, I remember quite a few debates with seven or eight Democratic candidates that failed to seriously discuss the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and completely skipped any discussion of issues connected to the rule of law. So while this may represent a new iteration of how low the media will go in their substance-free Democratic debates, it’s not as if we suddenly arrived here after having departed from Socrates’ agora just weeks ago.