The U.S. Is Facing Many Serious Issues; Will Someone Please Explain That to Reporters Who Will Cover the 2008 Presidential Campaign?

By Joe Rothstein
Editor, USPolitics.einnews.com

February 5, 2007

If you are a serious candidate for President, is the length of your speech more important than what you say?

Apparently Dan Balz and the Washington Post think so.

Balz is the Post's chief political writer. He covered last weekend's winter meeting of the Democratic National Committee, where, for the first time, all of the likely 2008 Democratic candidates for President showed up at the same event.

Hillary Clinton, Barrack Obama, John Edwards, Chris Dodd, Wesley Clark and Dennis Kucinich all spoke on Friday. Each gave a serious speech covering Iraq, health care, immigration, and other critical issues.

Balz's next-day by-line article, prominently displayed in the Post, was a tongue-in-cheek piece about how many minutes each candidate spoke, how far they exceeded a designated time limit, and efforts DNC Chairman Howard Dean made to try to stay on schedule.

I was in that audience, listening to all the speeches, and if anyone other than Balz was disturbed about their length, it sure wasn't obvious.

On Saturday, four more presidential candidates spoke: Joe Biden, Bill Richardson, Tom Vilsack and Mike Gravel. And Balz, in his coverage for Sunday's Post, was at it again, serving as unofficial time-keeper, and more. He said that dark horse candidate Mike Gravel didn't help his cause, since Gravel's speech went on for 25 minutes. Never mind that Gravel gave the most provocative speech of the two day session.

I'm picking on Balz, not because his coverage was superficial--most of the coverage was---but rather because he is one of the more knowledgeable and responsible political writers around, working for one of the most influential media outlets in the nation. You expect the best from people like Balz and newspapers like the Post.

But Balz, along with most national political reporters, typically cover politics as something of a game. Who's ahead and who's behind? Who's raised the most money? Who's drawing the most endorsements? What are the ins and outs of strategy? There's no small degree of cynicism in most political coverage.

That attitude makes it seem quite acceptable and professional to look past serious statements being made by serious candidates and pounce on something as trivial as who overstayed their welcome at the podium, and, in Hillary Clinton's case, to make a big deal out of the fewer than 10 of the thousand people in the audience who chose to heckle at her about Iraq.

Barrack Obama addressed this very problem in his speech. I wish I could quote from it, but unfortunately, no one seemed to cover it except in the most superficial way (it was "sober," "his crowd was bigger and noisier than others," etc.).

Obama said it like it is. Political insiders (including reporters) revel in campaign "gotchas." Ethically questionable negative ads are analyzed for their effectiveness, seldom for their truthfulness. Slips of the tongue get elevated to national policy status. Premiums are placed on "opposition research" that grabs a nugget from one's past, or an errant vote and tries to fabricate from it a candidate's true character.

This is the filter most candidates must squeeze through to talk to potential voters. It's a filter clogged with ashes of past spin, manipulation, cynicism and suspicion.

Mike Gravel, a former U.S. Senator, used his 25 minutes to raise powerful issues that seldom see the light of day in the mainstream political debate: America's role in promoting nuclear proliferation, our huge defense budget ("Just one Trident nuclear submarine can hold the entire world hostage. Yet we continue to build more nuclear devices. Who in the world are we prepared to nuke?"), and others. Gravel was tough on sitting Democrats for many reasons that undoubtedly are shared by a large constituency of voters.

None of this was reported. As a senator, Gravel, was instrumental in releasing the Pentagon Papers, and for his troubles had to fight the Nixon administration all the way to the Supreme Court. He filibustered against more money to continue the Vietnam War, which at the time required considerable political courage. He may not have much of a chance to win the presidency, but he's earned the right to be heard, and not scolded because he spoke too long about issues that are not discussed nearly enough. (You can read the speech at www.gravel2008.us).

"America's political leadership is in denial as to the gravity and scope of our problems," Gravel said.

One reason for that is timid leaders. Another is a cynical press.

How on earth are voters to seriously judge their candidates, Democrats and Republicans alike, if the media fails to present them as they are rather than as caricatures?

The media considers itself a guardian of democracy, and well it should. In a society that rests on the votes of the citizenry--an informed citizenry--that's its role. The coverage of the weekend's DNC meeting is not encouraging that for 2008 it will live up to it.

Joe Rothstein, editor of US Politics Today, is a former daily newspaper editor and long-time national political strategist based in Washington, D.C.

See all previous articles by Joe Rothstein here.