« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
MSNBC July Nostalgia
Just a year after after MSNBC managed to give us 23 minutes of prime time Hillary cleavage reporting (WaPo only put it on page 1 of its fashion section - 2 years in a row), they're here to tell us Hillary has a new hair-do. This is why the independence of the press is important, the 4th Estate plays a vital role in our public debate, one that we will discover hundreds of years from now when alien space gods divulge our ultimate purpose. In the meantime we'll have to just keep on guessing. Of course they might have spent a few more minutes on Bill's announcement about arranging discounts for malaria and HIV/AIDS drugs for the 3rd world, but that would detract from his good-prez-gone-bad media image. All the print that's news to fit.
Comments (30)
Well, let's recall that Hillary, herself, went through a number of hairstylist changes during the Clinton years to "soften" her image.
So, let's be honest: both sides (media and politicians) contribute to this.
And why? Because for most people, issues like that influence their vote.
And why? Because most people don't have the time, inclination, smarts, or responsibility to weigh their decisions carefully. In a rational manner. Without delving into emotional responses.
There is a reason why the founders wanted the US to be a Constitutional Republic and not a one-person/one-vote Democracy. Despite all calls to the contrary in this Internet age, people haven't changed over the last 250 years.
As far as Bill's malaria issues -- all well and good. Who is against elevating health care in impoverished areas? But if he really loved public service, he would throw his presidential weight behind the most pressing issue of our time: the end of cheap energy. That would be far more beneficial to this country (and possibly the world). On the other hand, being a very difficult and controversial subject, it wouldn't help rehabilitate his image, would it?
You see? You can't have it both ways with the media. Just accept that fact that the public loves their bread and circuses -- and the media gives it to them to generate revenue and politicians give it to them to generate votes and/or influence.
July 20, 2008 4:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clearthinker. I hope you'll rethink some of this. (I found reading Des' piece earlier today on Mandela helped.) Two comments only. The argument that "you can't have it both ways" is basically a low-level conversation (and thought) blocker. "The media" can and HAS done better, and done worse. Politicians tend not to be able to directly overwhelm what the press reports, so they have to play to it. you already noted that. Would they be happy to raise their game, if the media was willing? Often, yes. (See: Obama's statements on changing the tone of the debate.) Does this in any way justify what has happened to the US media (and that in much of the rest of the world?)
Secondly, the Bill shot. "If he really loved public service..." That was just plain ole cheap. and not knowledgeable, by the way. I suspect you recognize that energy use and climate change are often two sides of a coin. Well... I happen to know what ole Bill's been doing on this fairly intimately. He works hard at it. Puts real hours/days/weeks into it. And knows his shit. Only thing is, he has to be careful working on it, because some see it as Gore's turf. So he keeps it just slightly lower-profile. Is what he does perfect? No. But don't try and nail him for ignorance or absence of effort on this one. Fault his ways with women on snarky comments if you want, but I'm damned pleased with what he's attempted to do on energy/carbon, AIDS, etc. - and hope it helps on malaria. No need to be ungracious - Bill's a big enough man with big enough faults that we can all line to whack him on those, without slighting the good stuff.
Some of what he's done on energy/carbon is here.
July 20, 2008 5:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hope you go back and revisit some history. Newspapers, the media of their day, have often railed to people's basest emotions. You can go all the way back to the founding of the country and see evidence for that. As soon as you recognize it, you will see the rants and raves about the mainstream media is nothing new. And why not? As I said, people haven't changed.
Secondly, Desidero's post is a bit hypocritical in my view. He has an issue for how things get played out on the media -- except if it's a particular message he would like to promote (in this case, Bill Clinton pushing to rehabilitate his legacy.)
Thirdly, global warning is not the same issue as the end of cheap energy. You will see this more clearly as people desperately try to hang onto our currently lifestyle -- environment be damned. By the way, this isn't just Americans, the Chinese are now about to contribute in a major way as well. One of the biggest problems with Kyoto, for example, is that the caps were based on per capita numbers, not absolute numbers. And if you think the US and Europe did damage to the planet's ecosystems during the industrial revolution, just wait until China and India, with their massive populations, get in the act.
And finally, your link on Clinton is to a PR site -- the Clinton's own foundation. Now, while I do not dispute the veracity of the claims made there, I do find it ironic, given Des's blog, that you use a self-serving, rather than an independent third-party, site to back up your arguments. Welcome to the value of media in general, I guess.
However, I reiterate: Bill has done nothing to deal with the impending crisis caused by the end of cheap energy. Want an example of what he could be doing? He could start with something along the lines of Carter's "Moral Equivalent of War" speech:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/05/the-moral-equivalent-of-war.php
Clinton could actually lead. He could push, and push hard, for developing a national railway system before the airlines collapse within the next 2 years. He could start telling the American public that the party is over, that in all likelihood their children will have a lesser lifestyle then themselves (something outside of our control) -- the only issue at this point is by how much (something within our control). Bill Clinton is one of the few people in the country with nothing to lose on this issue. It might even propel Hillary to be an energy czarina -- if people can only forget the fiasco of the health care program she was in charge of.
But for Clinton to throw his weigh behind this issue would actually spend some of his political capital. This capital would be spent in service of the country. And apparently, he doesn't want to spend it on the country. He would rather spend it on himself as a means to secure some place in history.
As I said, getting people to pony up money for decent causes is a worthwhile task. But it is not leadership.
July 20, 2008 6:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dude. Too much. But hey - look at it this way. People like bread, circuses... and cheap energy. And they haven't changed in 250 years. You got a tough row to hoe if all your arguments hang together.
Oh. One other thing. Kyoto - last time I checked - was actually based on an absolute, not per capita measure. A 1990 baseline, to which each signatory accepted a certain % reduction (or in some cases, increase.)
July 20, 2008 6:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
So basically you are saying that Bill Clinton can do enromous good in the US and around the world, and yet if he doesn't focus on your pet cause of cheap energy and a national rail system, it's an irrelevant attenpt to rehab his image? That's an an awfully self-centered view of the world and myopic view of Bill Clinton's legacy.
July 21, 2008 8:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh by the way I am a progressive that believes that in order for the principles of Brown v. Board of Ed. to be fully lived up to, we need a nationalized (or at least state-wide) education system where the amount spent per child in and the quality of the education system does not vary by what zip code you live in or local property taxes. If Obama does not make this demand happen in his first year of office, he goes on my dead to me list of hacks and political failures.
July 21, 2008 8:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's a bit tough. The costs for rent and building vary from county to county or between neighborhoods, the cost to attract teachers to live nearby, the costs of materials, and of course the numbers of kids per thousand inhabits greatly varies say between Miami and St. Petersburg. I sympathize with the basic principle, however, but I'm also thinking that our educational system isn't evolving anywhere close to the rate that our jobs and technology are. I keep coming back to "what are the 5 most important skills a kid needs to have at 18, and is the education plan focused on providing that?" We might differ on the exact 5, but I don't think we'll be expressing it as "good at math and reading".
July 21, 2008 9:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, there needs to be variation for differences in cost of living depending on the school location. But the disparity between the cost spent per student in NYC ($8500) and in Scarsdale (almost $16,000) is appalling to me. The HS graduation rate for Detroit less than 25% and NYC estimated at 50%. Separate and certainly not equal education systems which certainly is a major factor in continuing racial inequality and the cycle of poverty.
July 21, 2008 9:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
To be fair to whoever's in charge in DC, Detroit has its own unique set of problems, exacerbated by the fact that an especially crooked mayor(Kwame "Player Mayor" Kilpatrick) and his cronies have bled that once-great metropolis dry.
Detroit's strikingly low graduation rate is really collateral damage from the flight of businesses and taxpayers into the suburbs of Wayne County, brought on by the corruption and malfeasance introduced into Detroit city government. There's not much the federal government can do to clean up that cesspool - certainly, throwing more money at thieves won't help.
July 21, 2008 10:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Also Detroit was a manufacturing jobs city where you could once make a decent wage without a high school diploma. That reality is changing and many many of these dropouts are in for a rude reality. Have you been to grocery store and seen the self-checkout lines? The jobs of tomorrow are not going to be the checkout clerk - it's going to be the person who fixes the check out machine. What happens to that 75% of kids in a world where a bachelors degree is now the minimum qualification for many jobs and not having a HS degree makes you unemployable or employable at the minimum wage poverty level (unless trained in a profession). We are facing an impending crisis and the only reaction I've seen so far is build more prisons.
Money won't solve all the problems but drastic problems call for drastic measures. The focus on early education is wonderful but the crisis is really at the secondary level. Not to divert the thread - something I've been thinking of posting on separately as I work in a non-profit that is peripherally involved with the failures of our education system. The problem is getting more severe every day we do not address it.
Not that I expect Obama to be able to solve our education crisis single-handedly - that's impossible. I was being a bit snarky in my response to CT above. His overarching cause is energy and mine is economic inequality. They are both huge, systemic problems that will take much buy in and the solutions will not come about overnight. Faulting President Clinton or Obama for not immediately rushing out to carry out our personal mandates is an unfair way to judge their effectiveness or their polcies.
July 21, 2008 10:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Your post will come back to haunt you.
If you look at history, you will find that progressive ideas go hand-in-hand with the Industrial revolution, starting with coal in England in the 17th century. Without cheap energy, the world will be much more dog-eat-dog.
When you complain about food shortages, feeling cold, etc., I hope you remember that it is all linked to having cheap energy.
The growth of the economy is also based on cheap energy.
July 21, 2008 11:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's exactly why I'm being nice to Des. I am hoping to keep my sustenance by relying on the orange cauliflower for food and the mushroom cloud for heat.
Energy I will grant you is a huge problem and we need more scientific experts to be able to find affordable alternatives. You are much better informed on the energy challenges than I, but it is one crisis we have facing us among many others. Wouldn't investing in education and particularly math/science to develop our future leaders make us better capable of meeting the energy challenges in the future as well as maintain economic growth?
July 21, 2008 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
You may bask in my glow, Little Miss Sunshine
July 21, 2008 12:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
The time for that investment for science education to be meaningful has past. (In fact, it's not even a solution in my view, but even if there were benefits of it, they would be derived too late to save the impending situation. I say all of this as a trained scientist.)
This is the real thing I've been trying promote here: the iceberg is going to hit us, it's physically impossible to steer the ship clear (because of momentum) and so the best we can do now is
a) know we are going to crash into it
b) organize the passengers now to help save as many as possible.
Of course, using this analogy, there are many that won't believe they are in danger until the ship actually lists.
Nearly every one of your espoused issues starts with the assumption that cheap energy exists. I believe you live in NYC: just imagine what will happen when you can't pump water around. NYC itself has an unsustainable density without cheap energy. This will hold for the wealthy and the poor alike. Our present lifestyle is unsustainable. This is more fundamental than any issue, because it will soon be impossible to even stay in the place we are currently at.
That's why preparing for it now it critical. While we still have a bit of time.
July 21, 2008 2:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
My bad, you are absolutely correct. My error was a result of quick typing, glad you caught it. The argument remains as I typed it, just reverse the "per capita" and "absolute" numbers phrases.
July 20, 2008 6:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
When did the media ever consider Bill Clinton anything but a usurper of Village prerogatives let alone a good-prez-gone-bad?
July 20, 2008 11:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Revisionist marketing. "We've been behind you from the beginning, but now...."
July 21, 2008 8:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Today Quinn speaks for me, he has the keys to my flat.
July 21, 2008 2:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Does no one have anything good to say about the Clintons?Bill Clinton made a mistake and got a BJ in office and he lied about it.But as of today I still haven't found one married man who would admit to being unfaithful to his wife for that matter nor any woman would admit to being unfaithful.Now I would appreciate any one who could show me anything that both Pres.Bush's have done better than Bill Clinton has or is doing.
July 21, 2008 3:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
They didn't derail Congress for nearly 2 years with a ridiculous situation and therefore both Bushes were allowed to push the GOP agenda longer in office. Clinton, on the other hand, handed the opposition a golden opportunity to sit tight while his term in office ticked down, preventing Bill from pushing the Democratic agenda harder and longer.
July 21, 2008 4:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Clinton didn't solve String Theory and for 2 years wasted precious time in which he could have solved String Theory, while Bush didn't derail Congress for 2 years so he could spend 2 more years in pushing for a solution to String Theory if he had wanted to.
July 21, 2008 4:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
What's with all the pushing? And on strings? At least clearthinker is clear. He wants harder and longer pushing. On that agenda. Item One of which is - I would predict - strings.
I'll deal with the derailing later, once I get my bike fixed.
P.S. Did you notice that Bob Jones University has the acronym.... yeah. Me too.
P.P.S. Politics is getting harder. I need a sandwich.
July 21, 2008 4:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Math is tuff and tuffer. Where is Ken?
From Dee-lite to de railing, mon, your bike be jammin' but don't ride worth shit. And what's with all the food today? Get kicked out of the house again?
July 21, 2008 4:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
YOU trying arguing with clearthinker all day, and see if you don't work up a hunger. And a thirst.
And not a single commentator today mentioned that Padraig jumped the Shark? WTF? (Man I LOVE words with no letters. I'm catching right ON to that shit.)
Oh yeah. There's more jam over at Crankypants. You may have something with that "food" concept.
July 21, 2008 5:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
YOU try arguing with clearthinker all day, and see if you don't work up a hunger. And a thirst.
And not a single commentator today mentioned that Padraig jumped the Shark? WTF? (Man I LOVE words with no letters. I'm catching right ON to that shit.)
Oh yeah. There's more jam over at Crankypants. You may have something with that "food" concept.
July 21, 2008 5:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Careful with the "jam" references, but yeah, I understand getting your hunger up. Me, I'm slacking, letting you get in the good shots. Perhaps I need a notch up on my tanning machine, lessee, yes, that's just right.
July 21, 2008 5:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
And what's with Padraig jumped the Shark? He won the British Open, didn't he?
July 21, 2008 6:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Royal Birkdale jumped the Shark. Harrington was just there to catch that rickety old claret thingamabobber when Greg dropped it. (To be fair, Padraig played a good final round.)
July 21, 2008 10:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ghost Who Walks:
Until and unless those who are blessed with Neilsen boxes on their televisions respond more to news broadcasts that focus on real news instead of news broadcasts that focus on Hillary's hair, then I am afraid that you had better get used to precisely this kind of news.
July 21, 2008 8:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
With as little as I watch network news, I'm obviously not their target audience. It's not just Nielsen participants, it's real people out there. George Bush didn't have to change to pull his constituency - people seemed to like him just the way he was. Scary, eh?
July 21, 2008 9:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment