Andersen on the Media on Obama

@James - maybe this is more of a critique of Andersen, but I have to object to one of your points.

The issue with Obama and Clinton is not that "it's fine to be Ivy-educated and extremely smart—but only if you're willing to show the requisite shame for it by recognizing, politically, that you must pretend to be regular folks." I mean, no one really expects to run in to the Obamas riding the El or bus in Chicago on their way out to watch a NASCAR race at Chicagoland Speedway, or Hillary Clinton waiting in line at 4 am for the Walmart after Thanksgiving sale so she can grab a cheap television, while Bill heads out with the boys for some hunting.

Rather, the issue is respect and genuineness. I wouldn't expect Clinton or Obama to be huge NASCAR fans, but I DO expect them to RESPECT the millions of NASCAR fans in this country. I don't expect to see them out doing shots of whiskey at a dive bar, but I DO expect them to understand and respect the fact that doing the occasional boilermaker is REAL and FUN for millions of Americans, and not look down their nose at it.

And as an Obama supporter, I guess that's why I find Clinton so off-putting - the pandering and shots and speaking from the bed of a pickup truck isn't Hillary "being one of us", but rather her pretending to be something she's not, and in the process demeaning it as beneath her. (I can't think of a more eloquent way to put it than pandering, but that's truly what it feels like and why it's insulting). I don't get the same feel from Obama - he's still shooting hoops, which he did long before he was a candidate. Sure he went bowling, but he sucked, admitted it, and still said he had fun and had a few beers while he did it. Slight pandering, but no one (at least not me) was hurt because Obama never came in trying to be something (i.e. a good bowler who regularly frequented the alley in his neighborhood) that he was not. Nor did he insult or pander in regards to the millions of people that enjoy bowling.

Anyways, I think the issue is not "being what they're not" but rather Obama and Clinton actually respecting the genuine likes of people unlike them. It's amazing that the Democratic party (the so called party of "tolerance" and "multiculturalism") has such a problem when the "multiculturalism" is drawn on class, rather than racial/religious/sexual preference lines.

I just thought of how to word this response in Tuned-In language:

Clinton-Obama vs. "the common folk" in this election is somewhat like people who watch only "serious" or critically acclaimed television (like The Wire, Lost, 30 Rock, FNL, and The Office, to pick a few critically acclaimed if sometimes ratings challenged shows) vs. viewers of the Nielsen Top 10 (where American Idol, Criminal Minds, and Two and Half Men are king).

Just because I like 30 Rock certainly doesn't mean I CANNOT like Idol or Criminal Minds, and vice versa.

But what viewers of Two and Half Men have a problem with is when Office fans say things like "The Office is so much funnier than Two and Half Men" or "Traditional sitcoms are formulaic and boring." Fans of Idol/2.5 Men like the show, and that's all there is to it - and to somehow intimate that 30 Rock/The Wire/Office is somehow "better" than the others (while a function of criticism) insults the legitimate entertainment preferences of Criminal Minds/Idol viewers.

So Idol/Criminal Minds fans don't expect Lost/Wire fans to enjoy their show (hey, everyone has preferences), but they don't want their show "demeaned" as somehow inferior.

It's the same with voters - just because you're working class, or you enjoy hunting, or bowling, doesn't make you any less of a citizen, or your vote or perspective count any less. But when a candidate comes in and "panders" by "playing down to their elitist stereotype of you" - whether that be by doing shots of whiskey, dropping your g's, bowling, or pretending to be a hunting fan when you've never been near a duck-blind - that's just insulting.

Then again, maybe I'm completely wrong (I mean, after all, for all her "pandering" in my opinion, Hillary Clinton seems to be picking up, not losing, votes).

@Chaddogg: There's actually nothing in your response I'd disagree with. I think the distinction here is that Andersen (and I in responding to them) are characterizing how the MEDIA judges candidates' handling of the "elitism" question, and you're talking about how, you know, actual voters with common sense see it.

I tend to agree with you, in that the typical voter probably does not care if a candidate bowls or does shots or hunts -- they just don't want to feel looked down on themselves for doing it.

But they way the press has covered this matter in the campaign is: Ah, she's drinking a shot and a beer! Well played! Oooh, he bowled a 37! Bad move! But he got four baskets in that pickup game! Nice recovery! etc. The political press covers the perceived effectiveness of the pander rather than the actual authenticity, because (1) it's how they're used to doing it and (2) when you discusss a candidate's authenticity, you risk being accused of bias and subjectivity.

@James and Chaddog - good points all around.

I totally agree with Chaddog that Clinton's pandering is increasingly transparent, and increasingly insulting. Maybe I'm walking a strange line here - I'm a southern girl who likes my whiskey straight up and wants my various uncles to have all the guns they want. I'm also politically progressive, I was raised by middle-class parents, both of whom were raised in poverty, and Mr. Shara Says and I barely break even most months. I have a strong appalachian accent, as well as degrees in politics and law. So what box do I fit in? Definitely not in Hilary's. She irritates the bejezus out of me with her fake accent and her fake photo ops and her fake sincerity and her manipulative catch phrases. On the other hand, Obama appears to be a dude who can handle dealing with real differences among people in a meaningful and significant way - which makes Hilary only look even more desperate to me.

So why is she suddenly gaining (some) ground, when everything she does and says is so obviously fake? My initial thought is that Hilary, with her pandering, is taking advantage of people who just don't know better. I wonder if the way I perceive her is colored by my political/legal education. But then my grandmother, who never got to go to high school, can take one look at Hilary and recognize insincerity a mile away.

My only reflection is that a lot of people tend to be afraid of "other". Obama looks at these different groups and offers to view them in context with everyone else. He offers to take their issues and find patterns and parallels to help them see connections (race, class, etc.) that they might not have perceived before, to help us face our demons and become better, as a society. But he does not offer them the comfort of remaining an isolated "other", who wants NASCAR and guns and tradition and the rest of the world be damned - he wants to uplift everybody, and some people just don't want to be uplifted, because they're scared of change. Hilary offers to wear a flag pin and recognize - nay, emphasize - their "otherness" in stereotypical ways, and, in doing so, she appears less threatening to their way of life. Maybe its obviously manipulative, but people are used to being manipulated by politicians. People are used to valence symbols being thrown around, used to hearing meaningless doublespeak, used to being skeptical of the Gub'ment. Maybe it sucks, but it sucks in a way that they are used to, and in a way that allows them to maintain their in-group identity as an outsider. Obama (in theory) offers something different than that, so people are waffling because they don't know if they really want to leave what is familiar territory for something new - something that would require them to re-evaluate their relationship with the rest of the country, and the rest of the world. And the politics of "hope" can also be scary for people who have had hope before, and seen what came of it - idealism takes courage and patience, especially when society has seen idealism beaten down time and time again by cynicism and partisan crap. That's all I can get out of this.

Totally gets at the heart of the differences between the campaigns, and about how we are totally torn amongst ourselves about what path to take.

I'm in the Jon Stewart camp on "elitism" in that I don't want a "regular Joe" to run the country. I want someone who is smarter, more ethical, and more sincere than most of the country and knows it.

With that said, I think Hillary's "rise" can be attributed to: 1) many people believe the media storylines, even if they don't accept the details and 2) buyer's remorse/expectations. Obama was supposed to be "the golden boy" and all of a sudden he's not perfect, so Hillary seems better. It's like how we judged who won primaries based upon how the vote was expected to go and how it actually went. Now that Hillary can't win (essentially), people are wondering if they've made a mistake after it's too late because Obama now has shades of "Angry Black Man" and "Elitist." Happens after most purchases you've made that you're not entirely satisfied with.

That's my theory, anyway. But I hate NASCAR. (Born and still living in Knoxville, though, so there you are).

Hey, I'm in Knoxville too!

Count me in the Stewart camp on wanting someone top-notch in the Oval Office, not a regular Joe. But I think we are in the minority. I fear that people are too threatened by those who are smarter than they, whether on the job or in the White House. Who knows--maybe they assume someone highly intelligent can't understand them or their needs?

As interesting and thoughtful as I found the comments above, I think they overlook one important thing--pandering, right or wrong, nauseating or not, sure seems to work. While I admire Obama for trying to minimize his pandering (because he hasn't avoided it completely), I worry that it will hurt him in a general election. It's cynical, but it's how the game is played, as John McCain has clearly realized.

@Bemused and DM - see, the Stewart camp is the problem, in that they think Americans are NOT voting for the person who is smartest (in this case equating smarts with the person with the best ideas to lead America).

Call this the "What's Wrong With Kansas?" insult. In the book (to paraphrase), the author states that conservatives have "blinded" rural and low-income voters (such as the good people of Kansas) to vote against their economic interest (which he arrogantly presumes is served best by liberal/Democratic economic policies) and for Republicans due to agreement on social issues (i.e. pro-life, anti-gay rights, etc.)

But the central conceit of the entire argument is that twofold: one that these voters are voting against their economic interest (if anything, economics shows that by voting for smaller government/free trade/market competition they are voting FOR their interests intelligently), and two that it is somehow stupid or "wrong" to base your vote based on your personal moral judgments (for example, why is it "wrong" to say to yourself "Hey, the government really doesn't have any power over whether I keep my job, so I might as well vote for representatives who will uphold what I view to be traditional moral values"?)

By saying he wants "a smart guy" and not a "regular Joe" in the White House, Stewart is in some ways demeaning the intelligence of "the common man" (i.e. regular Joes aren't smart enough to be President) and imposing his personal idea of the "smarts" necessary to be President.

The worst example of this is actually our current President. Is/was George W. Bush wrong on a number of things during his Presidency? Undoubtably. But was he "dumber" or "less smart" than Kerry or Gore? Not at all. You're talking a guy with his MBA from Harvard....he may talk slow (and with frequent malapropisms), but he's not an idiot. And it's insulting to him (and people that agreed with his policies) to insult his intelligence. Attack his policies as wrong or poorly planned - but the man himself is no dummy.

Funny, I don't recall saying George Bush is a dummy, although I am not a fan. But I hardly think a diploma from any school is a sign of the type of intelligence necessary to be an effective president. Being stubborn, being unable or unwilling to recognize and respond to changed circumstances, and refusing to hear or consider information that conflicts with one's "firm beliefs" can easily undermine the intelligence necessary to earn degrees.

I also don't recall endorsing the Kansas theory--you make a lot of assumptions. I actually have issues with the Kansas theory, not the least of which is that you could easily say liberal Democrats vote against their interests when they, for example, oppose making Bush's tax cuts permanent.

I think our real point of difference, though, is that I think many people vote more on personality than on issues. Your points make sense--but ONLY if the majority of voters actually understand and vote on economic factors. I wish that were the case, but I doubt it is.

BTW, while I don't think Bush is a dummy, I highly doubt that his last name played no role in his academic "achievements." And for someone with an MBA, he sure had a lot of business failures and he sure took a long time to recognize that the economy is in trouble.

P.S. One of the smartest things Bush did when he was campaigning was to completely downplay his elite education and background and instead play up his down-home, "I speak your language" persona. I'd bet that many of the people who voted for him in 2000, and probably 2004, had no idea about that he has a Harvard MBA. But he sure seemed like he'd be fun to have a beer with (even tho he didn't drink).

I think "The Stewart Camp" wants to avoid/stop what Bemused is describing above, ie the "need" to make yourself seem like an "average," relatively unintelligent person in order to get elected. Instead of policy discussions and people arguing over their genuine qualifications, candidates all too often "dumb themselves down" to "appeal" to voters. It's there on both sides, Bush just did it better and more obviously than Kerry and Gore. And it worked (on a lot of people).

I'll agree, Stewart is demeaning the intelligence of the common man. And I don't think it's a bad thing. I can respect a lot of reasons you'd vote for Bush, but Bush didn't win in '04 because of those reasons. Stewart consistently critiques politics and media tactics that prey upon stupidity, and I'm very much in favor of those critiques. I don't think the media or politicians would use these tactics if they didn't work, and if it's elitist to criticize and demean the opinions of those who fall for it all, then, yeah, I'm an elitist and I see nothing wrong with it.

(It's not a partisan thing, although the Reps seem more successful at it. It's a politics and media thing.)

@shara: You, me, and little Sawyer make three :).

@Bemused - sorry, I myself hate it when someone attributes views that I don't hold to me, so I'm sorry if I did that here.

I just don't think that people are as "dumb" as the media makes them out to me. No one is voting for Clinton because she's throwing back shots, and no one is voting for Obama because he can hoop it up or bowls horribly. And I really don't think Bush won because of a "I speak your language" persona -- I think it had a lot to do with the perceived phoniness/weakness of his opposing candidates. I mean, let's face it - if Bye Bye Birdie is correct and "You Gotta Be Sincere" is the mantra for successful campaigns, Al "Alpha Male Today?" Gore and John "Voted For It Before I Voted Against It" Kerry don't scream out "sincerity."

It's not being "a man (or woman) of the people" that matters, it's being genuine, sincere, and at least superficially honest. Bill Clinton, say what you will about his honesty, always came across as sincere ("I feel your pain," indeed). Reagan was unapologetically sunny, unapologetically patriotic, and unapologetically conservative. Even this year, the more "sincere" or "genuine" candidate (McCain) won out over the somewhat polished but strangely artificial one on the Republican side (Romney).

The problem is that Bill makes Hillary seem more sincere and genuine that she really is(even if she is a phony), and Obama may be sincere and genuine, but he's had trouble making that connection (whether it was due to the fawning of the media at his eloquence, his Ivy educational background, or just the fact that voters are having to reassess their personal sincerity-meters due to the fact that they haven't dealt with a young African-American candidate before, I'll leave to the pundits and others to sort out).

It's sincerity - not being "one of us" - that voters are looking for. The first to get there frequently is the victor.

@Chaddogg: I'd like to have that high opinion of the public, but I keep trying and failing. I wonder, why do you think the media keeps putting forth what you feel is a disingenuous representation of the public if it's not true and, I would think, alienating to the very people who are consuming their product. In other words, one of the reasons I think the media and politicians deal so much in tripe is because it works and sells. If you don't think it works, then why do you think they still do it? How is it still profitable?

I have my doubts about sincerity, too, (Hillary Clinton's rising, after all, and McCain is winning after he sold out post-2000), but I guess that's a different discussion.

@DM - I think the media is ultimately (with the exception of our intrepid Tuned-In host and his virtuous robotic assistant Robo-James) lazy in learning about "the people." Although maybe it's not laziness, but rather just the amorphous nature of 21st Century America - we're a hard people to categorize or "know" in any deep and full sense. Regardless, the media doesn't "get" the public - they don't tend to live or have much experience with the small towns a still dauntingly large number of Americans work in, they don't attend the same churches (or attend church at all), they don't frequent the same bars, they don't mix really much at all. And when all your information on what voters are "thinking" is coming from poorly worded (by the pollsters) exit polls, or focus groups where the voters themselves may have trouble articulating their exact feelings/thoughts, you end up with a "disingenious representation of the public" that is often untrue and certainly over-simplified. I'm not sure there is any way to truly correct for this...

And as for why people aren't alienated by the media's inaccurate and sometimes insulting portrayal of them, the answer is quite simply that: 1) they are, and 2) because they are, they aren't consuming media as much, and thus 3) we see declining ratings, falling media profits, and cutbacks across the board and major media outlets, whether it be newspapers, magazines, or television.

Hillary is still in this race, in part, because she played the "media bias" card, with a large assist from SNL and other comedy shows which Americans still actually DO watch (not necessarily because they agree with their politics, but merely because they're entertaining and funny in a way people still relate to). And I doubt the "media bias" card would work at all if we all still trusted the media in a "1950s/1960s Walter Kronkite" way. I mean, if people thought the media was truly "fair and balanced," then the accusation that the press was "in the tank" for Obama would have fallen to the ground as a lead balloon.

Maybe I'm overly optimistic, but I have immeasurable and complete faith and confidence in the intelligence of the American people when it comes to their process of picking a leader. We don't always get it correct, but our reason for voting the way we do is certainly more thoughtful and complete than "I'm voting for Hillary cause she threw back some shots" or "Obama's my man because we both like basketball" or "I'm supporting Bush because he speaks my language." And the reduction of voting decisions to these trite explanations is due to media laziness and oversimplification - by probing deeper than an exit poll or focus group and asking the "correct" questions, the media might be able to find the true, intelligent reasons behind voters' choices....too bad they won't do it, because such an in-depth study would take time and money - two things in short supply in today's media world.

I have to say, this is a far more thoughtful and respectful debate than I have ever seen on Swampland...

A couple of things -- I would argue that most Americans want someone "smarter" than the typical citizen in the Oval Office. I think it's that our definition of "smarter" may vary -- to me, it means being well-read and well-informed, with the ability to select trustworthy advisors and the understanding that it is important to look at all sides of an issue and learn from your own and others' experiences. (The ability to give a speech or press conference without butchering important words or phrases is a good one too.) For this reason, I voted for Obama today. (Three months ago, it would never have occurred to me that my IN vote would count for anything.) But I realize others may value McCain's ample experience or Clinton's policy knowledge as contributing to their intellect.

That being said, I think there is validity in the argument that people get distracted by the media's (or an opponenent's) caricature of a candidate -- or of the issues. I want to have Chaggog's positive view of people very carefully weighing their options and selecting the candidate that best fits their beliefs/needs/positions, but I do feel that some voters focus on more trivial matters (like flag pins) and base their votes on those.

Still, I was reading a blog yesterday with postings by mostly conservatives debating the merits of McCain. I started to seethe a little after reading a few postings with (in my opinion) irrational thoughts as to why Clinton or Obama would ruin our country, but then I came to a comment that (to paraphrase) said, "We may not like certain policies of Obama and Clinton, but we have to remember that policy-wise they can do very little without Congressional majority approval. Perhaps it's more important to vote for the individual who would make the best leader."

Reading an occasional comment like that does a lot to restore my faith in this whole crazy democratic process.

"I have to say, this is a far more thoughtful and respectful debate than I have ever seen on Swampland..."

Our commenters are also better looking and have a better good-to-bad blood cholesterol ratio.

Ahhh, Tuned In, where all the women are strong, all the men are good-looking, and the children are all above average.

Chaddogg--Apology accepted and appreciated.

I think you have a very good point about sincerity, but I can't help wondering about the factors voter use to evaluate a candidate's sincerity. Isn't there a possibility that "Candidate X speaks my language" plays a role in that evaluation, at least on a subconscious level? And, at the risk of sounding totally cynical, what about the role things like flag pins play in evaluating sincerity? Obama is clearly very sincere in his belief that patriotism isn't about wearing a pin, whereas many of those politicians who wear the pin likely do so partly for political reasons. Yet, the flag pin issue probably goes against Obama and for the others in the sincerity debate.

I also agree about the media being lazy in learning about "the people." In their defense, I think it's nearly impossible to truly learn about the people in a country as vast, diverse, and, as you say, amorphous as the U.S. That said, the answer is not to draw conclusions about "the people" from their peers or small segments, but to stop purporting to be able to speak knowledgeably about "the people." It can't be done, and, as soon as a pundit or politician trots out the line "the American people want..." or similar, they lose me.

@Chaddogg: I can see that. I guess I went with a "free market rulez" mindset, wherein if there's a niche to fill and a market to sell to, someone's going to find it, fill it, and profit. So perhaps that's still true, it's just that no one outside of the internet has been able to do it.

I'll also agree that we often get it right and when we don't we learn from it. That's one of the best things about democracy :).

@ Molly: I like that comment, and it's a mindset like that that ultimately prompted me to vote Obama too. He's a President I think I could really be proud of. (It's also why I'm not too afraid of him losing, because John McCain's a pretty decent guy as well).

Instead of a discussion of what will the Post-American world will be like, you should concentrate on the question on why America is losing its power and control of the world? One of those questions is why some White people have voted for Obama? It is extremely difficult for a person with any intelligence to understand why some White people have voted for Obama because by voting for him is simply an admission that the America's overwhelmingly White majority are incompetent and incapable of managing and leading their own country. That Whites have to reduce their status themselves by asking a Black man whose ancestors were not even American to do such important jobs. Many countries will begin to doubt American intelligence, or are they too
lazy to become president themselves?

Instead of a discussion of what will the Post-American world will be like, you should concentrate on the question on why America is losing its power and control of the world? One of those questions is why some White people have voted for Obama? It is extremely difficult for a person with any intelligence to understand why some White people have voted for Obama because by voting for him is simply an admission that the America's overwhelmingly White majority are incompetent and incapable of managing and leading their own country. That Whites have to reduce their status themselves by asking a Black man whose ancestors were not even American to do such important jobs. Many countries will begin to doubt American intelligence, or are they too
lazy to become president themselves?

Instead of a discussion of what will the Post-American world will be like, you should concentrate on the question on why America is losing its power and control of the world? One of those questions is why some White people have voted for Obama? It is extremely difficult for a person with any intelligence to understand why some White people have voted for Obama because by voting for him is simply an admission that the America's overwhelmingly White majority are incompetent and incapable of managing and leading their own country. That Whites have to reduce their status themselves by asking a Black man whose ancestors were not even American to do such important jobs. Many countries will begin to doubt American intelligence, or are they too
lazy to become president themselves?

And just like that, thanks to fan_chor-cheung, we've hit Swampland level discourse.

We knew it was too good to last. But congrats to James, who has now attained the level that he attracts trolls.

And.... scene!