- Share This Post
- submit
- 2
-
Sparkle (0)
On “Meet the Press” yesterday, Republican “strategist: Mike Murphy said Hillary Clinton has “male problems.” No, this is not some kind of plumbing disorder. Apparently, Iowa men are unsure about voting for Hillary, and so the Clinton campaign put together a TV ad featuring a nice man talking about how Hillary saved his son’s life.
I don’t know about you, but I have TMI about this year’s election campaign. It gets worse every election cycle, and I'm a news junkie so I can't resist tuning in. I don’t want to know about Hillary’s male problems or why the Michigan Democratic Party won’t play ball. I just want to get to know a candidate and vote.
Since I don't live in a battleground state, I only learn about the candidates via the media. With all this talk about the horse race, how are voters supposed to decide? Well, it’s kind of strange to me that someone would go out and buy a book to help them decide who to vote for, but some people are clearly doing this, because Mark Halperin, Senior Time Magazine editor and former ABC News Political Director, is everywhere all of a sudden. He wrote a book called The Undecided Voter’s Guide to the Next President and as far as I can tell, his thesis is this: issues matter! The best campaigner may not be the best president, so you'd better do your research. How refreshing.
Yesterday he got my attention with a column in the NY Times that calls into question how we choose our candidates. Although one of my favorite bloggers, Christy Hardin Smith, scoffs about Halperin, “You mean all this horse race campaign journalism is counter-productive to choosing a good president? Who could have imagined that?!?!?!…,” I’m glad Halperin speaks up:
“Voters are bombarded with information about which contender has “what it takes” to be the best candidate. Who can deliver the most stirring rhetoric? Who can build the most attractive facade? Who can mount the wiliest counterattack? Whose life makes for the neatest story? Our political and media culture reflects and drives an obsession with who is going to win, rather than who should win.
For most of my time covering presidential elections, I shared the view that there was a direct correlation between the skills needed to be a great candidate and a great president. The chaotic and demanding requirements of running for president, I felt, were a perfect test for the toughest job in the world.
But now I think I was wrong. The “campaigner equals leader” formula that inspired me and so many others in the news media is flawed.
Case in point: Our two most recent presidents, both of whom I covered while they were governors seeking the White House. Bill Clinton and George W. Bush are wildly talented politicians. Both claimed two presidential victories, in all four cases arguably as underdogs. Both could skillfully serve as the chief strategist for a presidential campaign.”
JaninSanFran has given up, and says we “might as well criticize our capitalist culture that has assured most of us that candidates are just marketable commodities and that holds campaigns to no higher ethical standards than it holds prescription drug commercials.”
No Jan! Don’t do it! We don’t have to give up yet. I don’t need to buy a book to tell me who will be the best PRESIDENT.
Right now, I’m frankly undecided about who I’m going to vote for. My questions are about Iran, Iraq, and who I perceive is willing to tell the truth. You? I'm thinking about starting a poll-reading moratorium and reading policy papers and blogs. A couple suggestions for keeping up to date on issues, not horse race:
Lorelei Kelly on National Security
Maggie Mahar on health care
Megan McArdle at Asymmetrical Information for lots of issues.
And I can still watch TV and read my favorite horse race blog The Fix to find out who is the best CANDIDATE.
