Say, What?
Mark Halperin has a hysterical op-ed in the NYT today, designed to be a mea culpa for the failures of presidential campaign journalism. Halperin reveals the reason behind the press corps' obsession with horse race politics--they all read Ben Cramer's What It Takes--and then admits that success in a political horse race does not necessarily equip someone to run the country.
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...read on
The HELL you say!!
Maybe Halperin spent this turkey day watching "The Candidate" with Robert Redford?
thats funny you guys condemning horse race presidential politics yet you bow down and give the media a free pass when it comes to Gravel (a viable candidate thats gaining more and more support as time goes by) being censored from the debates.
are you actually talking or do you just have peanut butter in your gums.
How does someone so clueless end up with a national platform? He defines political myopia, and is the dream "reporter' for campaign hacks like rove.
Old news but it needs to be said and re-said anyway. Anyone here read Matt Taibbi's "Spanking the Donkey"?
This is a lesson that many of us learned while observing our grade school and high school elections for class president. Welcome Mark, to the world of rational observation rather than blind heard migration. Better late than never I guess.
Of course I envision a Homer Simpson moment when he's distracted by birdies flitting outside the window and forgets the epiphany.
And i though George W. Bush was slow on the uptake.
republican candidates should be studyied by indian shamans , each repig should be fed one can of whole yellow corn, and at the time of the candidates first bowel movement the shaman will count the amount of corn not digested in his poop, the repig with the most cornels still undigested will be declared the winner and will go on to represent the repuke party,
"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"....and to think he is supposed to be an "expert" on this kind of thing. What a joke.
Mark Halperin could have writen a much shorter article. It would go something like this:
"Jesus Christ, I suck at my job!"
tyree @ 8:
Looking for a corny candidate, Tyree?
I think I've decided that the continuous state of intoxication advocated by my husband's uncle is the way to go.
xoites defends Constitution @ 10:
AHahahahahahahahahaha!
Concise and accurate!
Halperin comparing Bill Clinton and George W. Bush as 'failures', would be like him comparing Edward R. Murrow and himself as 'failures', or Katie Couric and himself as 'successes'.
As one might expect of a half-wit, in each case he is only half-right.
xoites defends Constitution @ 11:
well since the repigs only have the crappyest candidates i figure thier scat should be the main reason for voteing for one of them, i only feel sorry for the shaman that has to squeeze the shit out of them, the counting is the easyiest part,
Patricio @ 5:
No, but I like his columns. And I love this review of the book!
This helps when reading everything
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZ5SVDYBNrY
And Halperin is talking about Bill Clinton. How can he be serious? Bill Clinton was the one who squandered the majesty and power of the US Presidency?
JohnQ @ 18:
He failed to suspend Habeas Corpus, neglected to bypass FISA and wrote limited signing statements, didn't he?
Aside from the correct and obvious, if extreeeeemely belated conclusion that MSM political reporting sucks, Halperin proves his point again by using Bush as an example of electoral success. Bush it will be remembered LOST the popular vote in 2000. He got less votes than Gore and was merely 'declared' the victor by a partisan supreme court. In 2004 he only won by stealing Ohio.
EXCUSE ME?!?! These chuckleheads are only realizing now that the qualities of a good candidate don't necessarily make a good leader?!? Good grief...where in the name of all that's sacred have these people been, under a rock?? How did someone who's as monumentally thick as this guy is ever manage to get through journalism school? Anyone who's even remotely observant and perceptive can tell that the qualities which make a good candidate don't automatically make a good leader -- and it's not hard to see why this is. At this point in American politics, there's one critical distinction between a good leader and a good candidate -- and it's one of the reasons why we keep getting the government that we deserve, not necessarily the one we want or need. A good candidate tells the people what they want to hear (which is the means by which he or she usually succeeds in getting elected) while the good leader tells the people what they need to hear. Let's face it -- in politics (and especially today's American politics), success is defined as being elected to office and holding that office as long as possible until one chooses to step down (despite the fact that there is plenty of reason to doubt our Founding Fathers ever intended politics to become anyone's lifelong career). Most politicians succeed in getting themselves elected by telling the voters what they think the voters want to hear regardless of whether it's what they need to hear or not. In short, most of them to one degree or another LIE -- and habitual lying is most definitely not a notable quality of a good leader.
old hack @ 3:
See, the thing is, though, that GRAVEL IS A FRUITCAKE, not withstanding his principles. And I say that as a lefty who can't overstate my CONTEMPT for the fecklessness and stupidity of the Democrats. And if you had listened to Gravel for the 2 hours that Mike Malloy had him on, you'd agree with me and Mike that the guy is an embarrassment.
Wow. I'm surprised. It's almost like smearing bullshit all over a real-life problem doesn't really help... No wonder "swift boating" Katrina didn't work! Thank goodness the media pre-selects the nominees and president for us, otherwise voting would be hard!
Gee, I mean we'd have to go on things like a past history of fighting corruption, or being a self-made man/woman to show that a person understood the world and could AT LEAST manage their own affairs and is a hard worker.
But ZOMG i herd John Edwardz gotz a hairscut once!!!!11one ROFL! I'm voting for the other guy what R more cute with bigger hair!
What Halperin just wrote was that Bill Clinton and George Bush were both great candidates and terrible presidents.
How this man can make these 2 seem equivalent tells you all you need to know about the ineptness of the White House press corps.
First, in the campaigns, Bill Clinton was so far above Bush as both a debater and a campaigner that you can't even compare them. What let Bush steal the elections were the Rovian tactics, not his command of the issues. This is night and day.
As far as presidential performance, even when he was a daily media dartboard, the public was always solidly behind Clinton, because we saw the hypocrisy that was being played out in Washington. Never did the public consider Clinton to be the wretched failure that Bush is seen as.
Once again, these pundits who think they know everything about the process, reveal just how clueless they truly are.
Wow, can you get paid to write crap like that?!?!
That op-ed isn't good enough for a puppy to poop on.
I cancelled my subscription to the NYTs last week, the day I saw the planted front page article about how life is getting back to normal in Iraq thanks to the success of the surge. The photo they ran with it was of a bride and groom on their wedding day. I fought off the nausea and made the call right then.
Hmmmm, he came to this conclusion now that the Clintons are about to blow everyone else out of the water. This didn't occur to him when Karl and Company were manipulating the MSM and the public and managed to get a total idiot elected as President? I am so sick of the MSM I could just scream. They have lost all credibility and are nothing but bought off stooges.
Better late than never, but one journalist reaching this understanding isn't going to get the job done, and it's not going to do any good unless he actually shows some resolve in holding onto this concept.
That said, he's another faceless forgettable reported to me. If he means more to someone else here, it'd be a good excercise to see if he actually sticks with his new idea.
I stopped reading immediately after he called George W. Bush a "wildly talented politician." How could I take anything else seriously after that? All credibility was hopelessly lost at that point.
GASP!! You mean to say that Chris Matthews latest book is total and utter bullshit ?!?!?
Imagine that :)
halpern is a clueless hack and a shitbird for dumbing down news coverage and a day late and a dollar short on his "revelation." go fuck yourself, mark. you're as relevant as yesterday's non-news.
OK, let's just hope the pudnitry doesn't leap to the assumption that Bad Campaigner equals Good President...
Actually, I'm guessing that'll be the new wisdumb.
Comments are closed on this entry