I've been turned off to Bernstein's book by his somewhat weird book tour interviews--where he kept saying incredibly outrageous things, then walking them back.

I'm gathering that the book is much more temperate, although, according to Somerby, somewhat thin about her Senate years.

Any comments on those things?

he's trying to sell the book.

i suspected what rosenberg says above. but it's nothing i didn't already know.

anyway. he's saying creepy things to sell the book.

Now I'm on to the Jeff Gerth book and will report back.

Just remember he is another Judith Miller. It is not just Whitewater story that he botched but also Wen Ho Lee.

Seashell, that still doesn't feel right to me. It's not about "issues" versus feelings. There was a heck of a lot of feeling in those speeches the press didn't cover. One could argue that Obama's speech, whether one likes this or dislikes it, was all feeling.

The question is whether it's all about who can parody a TV show better and whether that ersatz mode of connection, manufactured for the candidate, has anything to do with voter outreach, character, feeling, ideals, whatever else you like. And if not, who's complicit it passing it off as such. 

John

http://www.haberarts.com/

Wait, John - It's not about the candidate's feelings, it's about the voters emotions when they think of the party and the candidates. It's also not about outgodding each other in moral values nospeak, or out- bombing each other in other countries, either.

Sorry if I'm not explaining well. Clinton, a true blue policy wonk, had an intro campaign ad that essentially associated him with the American "dream" that anyone can become President through hard work and Hope, (ARK). Images in the ad included shaking hands with JFK, Main Streets, etc. He said he wanted to bring hope back to the American dream, leading many parents to "hope" their child could also become Pres (or at least successful) and this was the man who would be in charge of policies to make that happen.

Another wonk, Kerry had an intro campaign ad in 2004, that started OK with his war service. But it then inexplicably veered into his Heinz wife talking about his optimism (which his advisers were big on), but with images showing that didn't project that. Also he talked about going to Yale so he could serve his country. Etc, etc. How many people in this country could identify with a war hero, Yale and the Heinz fortune and hope their children could achieve the same? Count them on one hand, with fingers left over. Kerry didn't give them anything to understand or even strive for.

The author explains it much better, but the number of Americans that like listening to policy issues and vote accordingly, would not require much more than a shoe box to hold the ballots.

On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron. H.L. Mencken

Thank you, John. As always.

We should have an informal poll here are TPMCafe.

Is "politics" a dirty word?

Is partisanship necssarily a bad thing?

It seems so common to me, and very unthoughtful, for politicians to answer both questions with a "yes."

I actually disagree. I like politics. I'm glad we have a system where we can practice it. Sure, I have major issues with procedures and with who has access to decision-makers but it seems to me that in general the art of politics is good.

I feel the same way about partisanship. So often the best solution to a problem is not the middleground between two opposing views. So often, one view will give the desired result and the other won't. The middle-ground, the compromise, might actually yield something worse than either extreme. So if partisanship only means "I want to win this vote because I'm a Democrat," then yes, it sucks. But it usually means, "I want to win this vote because if I lose I think we go down the wrong course." That's fine to me, and admirable.

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

If you honestly think anyone who cares about anything at all, is for hyperintellectuals, presumably me, are you buying into the wingnut spin about the liberal elite?

John, the reference was not towards you, but all of us in the Cafe who are more of the issue detailed oriented types.

I'm sorry I've not explained this well. But most Americans are not interested in the level of detail like those of us who are regulars here.

Do you remember in the 1992 election run-up when GH Bush was visiting a grocery store in Orlando, Fl and was fascinated by how fast the checkers could total groceries through the use of bar code scanners? He was fascinated because that was the first time he had seen the process. It is safe to say that 99.9% of the rest of the country was all too familiar with the mundane process of buying and paying for groceries.

A few weeks later in a town hall meeting, a woman in the audience asked Bill Clinton if he knew the price of a pair of jeans. Clinton instantly replied with the average price of Levi's and related it to his family's living experiences.

In the voters mind, Clinton is now associated with knowing the average American's experiences. Bush is seen as out of the loop. The voter may not even remember what caused her to attain that association, but it is a powerful one in her mind.

Hillary's ad connects the same type of dots, all kinds of them. Dieting, parking, the Sopranos, diners and even Bill himself, who could be re-elected easily tomorrow, are all part of our daily and past experiences, which connects her to our level and distances the DC stigma (as perceived by many) at the same time. It was not about demeaning politics at all, it was about establishing a relationship, based on shared experiences (so to speak) between the candidate and voters.

According to Westen, that emotional bond with the candidate and the candidate's party reduces the need for further policy details unless the voter still remains undecided.

I guess what had me so fascinated about this is the reaction I myself experienced when I saw the ad, and my completely out of character donation to a candidate who had been my last choice. And I am one that does follow and believe the issues are important. That's where I was going. BTW, I don't like the Celine song they picked.

On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron. H.L. Mencken

But surely Edwards and especially Obama are not policy wonks.  They're communicating.  It's just embarrassing to think that a really cool advertisement is what it takes

John, it is the same type of emotionalism we see people exhibit towards their animals. Where they will die attempting to rescue them. Or in the case of Katrina, not leave if they have to leave their pets behind. The thing is that human beings are spiritual beings. We are not human beings having a spiritual experience (which is when the ad would not work) rather we are spiritual beings having a human experience (which is why the ads, pets and kissing babies) endears the candidates to the votes. In psychobabble language it is called emotional intelligence. EQ  (warmandfuzzies) elects folks not IQ (wonky issues)

Bernstein is intellectually lazy in his latest grab for gold from among the ranks of muckrakers.