Practice Management

The Pundits Are Making Me A Little Seasick

By chucknewton

You know, it is a form of motion sickness characterized by a feeling of nausea and, in extreme cases, experienced after spending time on a craft on water. It is typically brought on by the rocking motion of the craft.

In my case the craft is the democratic presidential selection process and the rocking is caused by the overly exuberant and depthless news media and pundits.

Before Iowa they anointed Hillary as the heir to the throne, which she was not.  This allowed them to tear her down and toss her aside as irrelevant when she lost Iowa, which was not true.  Then they led us all to believe that Barack was unstoppable leading into New Hampshire, which was proven wrong by the next three contests, New Hampshire, Michigan and Nevada.  And, now with South Carolina, Barack Obama is being crowned the uncontainable, unrestrainable, rhapsodical lamb of God.

Of course South Carolina was momentous for Obama.  But, for the nation or the party?  I doubt it.  It was a step, and a small step at that.

Hillary Clinton is beatable.  Barack Obama is beatable.  The fact that one of the other can motivate a certain class of people to show up and vote for them is impressive but, as we have seen, it is not likely to repeat itself in state after state.

The vetting process is hampered by made up rules of the pundits.  Somehow, for example, Hillary is attackable, Bill Clinton is susceptible (maybe for good reason), but Obama is not assailable.  The are all vincible and vulnerable, and we all know it.

And now the Teddy Kennedy endorsement, as if this is the consecration of Barack.  The pundits are now approaching it as the beatification of Obama.  Give me a break.  I like Ted Kennedy.  He is a great Senator.  He is a super delegate and therefore deserves some recognition.  But, increasingly he is irrelevant on the national stage.  The South does not particularly care for him.   And, how has his past endorsements worked out - Dukakis, Kerry, Tsongus.  The endorsement has moderate relevance, but the punditry is a bit much.  His unconciliatory and pompous behavior during the 1980 Democratic Convention probably cost Jimmy Carter reelection.  The Kennedys and the Clintons have been cordial at best over the years.  I would not write too much into to this endorsement.  It is not the passing of the torch.  It might very well be a kiss of death by the time the pundits overstate the relevance of it all.

And, the media and the pundits, no matter what the good news of the candidate might actually be, continue to make statements that are simply unsubstantiated by any evidence.  How does this help the process?  The first that I can remember is that someone analogized, and then it was picked up as fact, that two thirds of the voters in Iowa voted against Hillary Clinton.  What?  Where was that in any exit poll?  All candidates spurred record turnout. It is just that Obama did a slightly better job and motivated slightly more people.  Nobody or group of people went to the polls to vote against anyone.  The problem with these statements,  taken as fact, other than not being true, is that they are insulting to both candidates.  It is insulting to Clinton because it states that the motivation for those in Iowa was to vote against her, which again a complete fabrication of the truth.  It is an insult to Obama because it suggest that he did not motivate his supporters to show up and caucus and they did not vote for him as much as they showed up to vote against Clinton.

Now Obama is a very motivational but very lacking candidate.  Clinton is very compelling candidate but lacks that WOW factor.  She does not have that Barack baritone and when she raises her pitch she comes across as a bit shrill.  She is not that tall, that young, that new, and she is not a male.  Frankly, these are obstacles too in this World.  Still just try to be a female lawyer in this World.  It is not easy.  It is the nature of the mix and the voters are trying mightily to figure out which is best.

My guess (and let me say again it is only my guess) is that Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama will win the Democratic nomination for president.  I do not have a crystal ball like many of the pundits and do not know for certain.  But, I do no that all of this rocking back and forth by the media and the pundits is making me sick.   

Full post as published by Chuck Newton on January 27, 2008 (boomark / email).