Prickly City demonstrates how you cover a campaign when you have to factor in lead time. Whatever happened in the intervening days, Stantis was unlikely to have to back off this one.
I didn't watch last night's debate, in large part because, if I stay up for that, you don't get this, but also because it seems rote at this stage and I'll catch enough coverage in the morning that I'll know if I want to review the transcript.
The bad news came from Robert Reich:
It's understandable that both candidates would feel pressure to be more combative, but I worry that if this keeps up it will be harder for either's supporters to enthusiastically unite behind the opponent as nominee just 90 days from now -- when unity and enthusiasm will be essential in order to overcome a far greater Republican menace.
The biggest issue I'm seeing is not so much from the candidates as from the way in which, in the world of social media, the voices from the fringe are as loud, or louder, than the voices from the center.
Are there "Bernie Bros"? Sure. And he's denounced them multiple times.
Amd I've been trashed on-line by avid Hillary supporters in vulgar terms. Do they represent her official position?
Maybe I missed her renunciation, just as her supporters may have missed Bernie's.
Then again, I heard her on the news tell a rally that it's time we had a woman president and so they should vote for her.
Which brings us to Ann Telnaes' sketches from last night, and they are "sketches," which is better than if she were trying to sum up the entire debate, or campaign, in a single, finished piece.
My recollection of 2008 was that some African-Americans were disappointed with Obama for not directly saying people should vote for him because he was black, and, in fact, backing away from it. But it would have been tacky for him to voice an appeal he didn't need to make.
This is a sketch, and so the quote lacks full context, but it lays out a critical element in Clinton's campaign, without really taking a stance on it.
It came in a discussion of the Supreme Court appointment, in which Clinton said that, if elected, she would continue to support Obama's choice, to which question Sanders then responded he would ask the President to withdraw it so he could nominate someone who pledged to help overturn Citizens United.
At which point Clinton said
And I want to say something about this since we're talking about the Supreme Court and what's at stake. We've had eight debates before, this is our ninth. We've not had one question about a woman's right to make her own decisions about reproductive health care, not one question.
Which is a fair point, except that Sanders then pointed out his long-time unswerving support of women's rights in that area.
She might, rather, have amended her pledge to support Obama's nomination to clarify that she'd need to quiz Garland on Roe v. Wade.
As delivered, though, it seems like a point she should hold onto until she's debating someone who disagrees with her.
Telnaes also tagged Sanders for his position on guns, which is more complex and troubling.
With Roe v Wade, there is no city/country divide, except that women in rural areas may have even greater problems finding family planning care if the war on choice continues to shut down clinics.
But people in rural areas have a different perspective on gun ownership, because they're more apt to see them as normal, even if they don't hunt or own guns themselves.
City people may well see guns entirely as a weapon to be used against other people, not for hunting or target shooting, and, for that matter, they're more apt to oppose hunting than rural people.
I agree with Bernie, but I like Telnaes' sketch because she sums up an impression he needs to address, just as she summed up Clinton's.
Sanders did clarify that he has voted against assault weapons and that he is glad the Sandy Hook parents' lawsuit got the go-ahead yesterday, but he continues to insist that gun sellers and manufacturers who follow the law should not be liable, with a disclaimer for clear negligence.
But, what I do believe is when gun shop owners and others knowingly are selling weapons to people who should not have them -- somebody walks in, they want thousands of rounds of ammunition, or they want a whole lot of guns, yes, that gun shop owner or that gun manufacturer should be held liable.
This is why I'd rather have a sketch -- and there are others at the site -- because they did motivate me to go back and get the facts.
And, while some people will use quick impressions to make up their minds, and others made up their minds long ago, these may also motivate people to focus on those aspects as the campaign unfolds.
And, of course, I'm only fooling myself, because people are lazy and, for all that they complain about the media, they want to be spoonfed and they want it in small bites.
But maybe we need more "sketches" and fewer ex cathedra pronouncements, to try to inspire people to think before they start nodding.
I did my part:
You're not supposed to just make them look stupid, even if it's accurate reporting, but on your last day, wotthehell.
On this day in 1993, I left the newsroom and took advantage of the occasion to drill down on the claims of a fellow whose organization was around before the Tea Party. (This was a sidebar; another reporter covered the actual presentation. They had assigned us both in case I was already gone.)
The guy called and chewed me out and challenged me to go on his radio talk show and debate matters, but I found a way to avoid having to do that.
I say "Sure. Say when."
Works like a charm
Comments