More thoughts on a coming bloodbath

These sentiments have been registered elsewhere, and many times, but isn't the media coverage of the Democratic pack atrocious? Really, it's just an exaggerated example of the way most punditry in America has become, but it's just so bad. I remember several months back, when Kerry was the presumptive nominee. I remember that even then the press had sketched out a Standard Press Account for Kerry. There was always "he's aloof" "his hair is weird" "northeastern liberal" "waffler" "looks French" somewhere in every press account. Most of these were Republican fashioned spin points, but they caught hold at the bastions of the supposed liberal media: the Wash. Post and NY Times.

All of it speaks poorly to the quality of political discourse in this country. Each (actually flesh and blood) candidate is assigned a designated role by the media. They are rebuilt in straw only to be whacked at repeatedly by the punditocracy. Politics is all spectacle in contemporary American culture. Some candidates even participate in their own caricaturing. Kerry, early on, made copious mention of his previous military career, to the point where it came to define him. Not that Kerry's Silver Star doesn't put Bush's "Brave, Brave Sir Robin" routine to shame, but I'd prefer to see a candidate stand up to Republicans than know that he stood up to VC more than 35 years ago. The point is that a campaign based on substance isn't feasible in these times.

Such brilliant luminaries as Maureen Dowd and Bill Schneider have lamented the fact that Howard Dean has kept personal history and anecdote out of his campaign. Ms. Dowd even attacked Judith Steinberg Dean's relative absence from the campaign trail. No wonder Dean doesn't return her calls. Both seem to crave a convenient story arc for Dean, as if Dean were a goddamn fictional character they could pose.

And it will only get worse. If Kerry gets the nomination, the story will be that he's aloof, phony and has weird hair. If it's Clark it will be that he flipflops, that he doesn't have experience, that he's really a puppet of the Clintons. If it's Dean, he'll be an angry, pessimistic, cold, weird traitor who says the craziest things, wants to raise your taxes and whose wife doesn't wear pink pantsuits or go to Washington parties and is therefore some sort of freak. If it's Edwards, it'll be that he's inexperienced, a Clinton-wannabe who's controlled by the trial lawyers who really are all slimy and want to raise your insurance premiums with their insane torts. And each one will be accused of pandering to special interests, and probably of class warfare. Meanwhile, unless Iraq turns into Lebanon or Algeria or unemployment hits 7%, Bush will remain everyone's favorite lovable dim schlub, like George Wendt and Woody Harrelson from Cheers rolled into one, only a lot more religious.

But does any of this make any sense? Does it make any sense when we're heading toward an election for the Leader of The Free World for our Pulitzer-Prize winning NY Times columnists to be obsessing over Wes Clark's sweater? Lady, do you know how cold a New Hampshire January is?