Political Analysts = Fail
I used to think that sports announcers had just about the most worthless job in the world—essentially, all they really do is state the obvious while occasionally tossing out some vaguely interesting bit of trivia that is tenuously connected to the events that just occurred on the field. But while the incessant coverage of the Olympics hasn’t really raised my opinion of that particular profession much (with a few exceptions), I have come to the conclusion that there’s one career choice out there that’s even more pointless and pathetic: television political analyst/commentator/pundit.
Here’s the sad truth: these folks are paid to be little more than whiny little bitches. They’re less interested in actually bringing to bear any insightful commentary on the issues and topics at hand, and are far more interested in twisting and obscuring what is actually said and discussed so as to have better comebacks, putdowns, and zingers to use against the other analysts in the room. In other words, they’re less concerned about the issues and more concerned with how they can one-up each other.
Case in point, Barack Obama and John McCain’s recent appearance on the Saddleback Civil Forum. Pastor Rick Warren interviewed both of the presidential candidates—Obama first, and then McCain—and asked them questions on issues ranging from abortion and war to education and energy. The event itself was admirable and even enjoyable, giving us voters an opportunity to hear the candidates speak for themselves plainly and honestly. In short, it was a very refreshing change from what passes for much of the “conversation” that occurs during presidential campaigns.
And then the analysts and pundits had to go and take a nice, long piss all over it.
For starters, it was obvious, from the get-go, which analysts would go where on the event: one merely needed to discover their “liberal” or “conservative” persuasion. And then there was the blatant twisting of what the candidates said, such as when one Fox News pundit—I didn’t catch the name, they all look and sound alike to me—implied that Obama listed only his wife, grandmother, and Ted Kennedy in response to Warren’s request to name three people he’d go to for advice. Which was a gross simplification of what Obama actually communicated.
And finally, let’s not forget the shrill, annoying tones in which all of this “analysis” took place. It was almost as if the analysts were determined to go against the entire raison d’être of the Forum, which is “to promote civil discourse and the common good of all”, with the emphasis on the word “civil”.
Now, I didn’t sit through all of the analysis. I’m sure that, somewhere, on some channel, someone threw out a thought-provoking and cogent observation. However, when one of MSNBC’s commentators kicked off that channel’s post-Forum discussion by tallying up how many times Obama and McCain each said “God”, “Jesus”, and “Christianity”—almost as if he truly believed keeping score like that told you something valuable about the candidates—I knew I’d only be able to stomach so much commentary of that caliber before throwing up a little in my throat.
Comments
Daniel Giesbrecht
August 19, 2008 2:37pmOkay then, I’ll give you MY commentary on the event.
I like to keep these things short. Here goes;
McCain owned the ever-living-crap out of Obama.
Aaron
August 19, 2008 3:13pmFixed your post. ;)
almostcool
August 19, 2008 3:16pmFixed it even further.
Daniel Giesbrecht
August 20, 2008 9:00amwhere we watching the same channel? I guess it wasn’t so much that I thought McCain’s answers where good, but that Obama’s where so bad.
Daniel Giesbrecht
August 20, 2008 10:37amThough I add the exception of his(McCain’s) answer to the question about the definition of “rich”. In which I felt he really did hit it out of the ballpark.
Aaron
August 20, 2008 10:38amIt’s “were,“ not “where.“
Jason
August 20, 2008 11:05amFWIW, I don’t think either candidate “won” or “lost”. For starters, it wasn’t a debate, nor was it at structured like one—it was structured more like a “casual conversation”, which is why I thought it was so enjoyable (kudos to Warren for that) so I don’t think it’s quite right to say that one candidate trumped the other.
That being said, I think both candidates had moments where they shone, where they “hit it out of the part.“ I’ve always felt that one of Obama’s strengths is that he doesn’t give simple answers. It’s not that he’s being “elitist” or some bunk like that: we’re dealing with complicated issues, even abortion, and personally, I appreciate it when a candidate realizes that when answering questions on those issues. But that same thoughtfulness is a double-edged sword, and there were times where I think Obama was trying to be *too* thoughtful, *too* qualitative in his answers, and it ended up looking like he was hemming and hawing.
McCain was more on-point in some issues; he sees things much more in black and white, I think—or at least, his campaign does. And I appreciated his candor on certain things, such as abortion (I think Obama gave a bit of a soft answer here, with that comment about his pay grade). However, part of me groaned when he threw out answers or told stories that were definitely intended less to communicate his position on the issue and more to pander, for lack of a better term, to the Christian audience.
For example, him throwing out that little bit about Georgia being one of the earliest Christian nations. An interesting factoid, to be sure. But in the context of his larger answer, it felt more like a little gimme, as if to say “Hey Christians, I know a lot about Christian history, I’m really one of you guys!“ That, and his multiple references to Reagan got a little tedious.
So, like I said, it seems kind of silly to say that one candidate “beat” the other candidate. They both did well, and they both could’ve done a lot better. Frankly, I was less impressed with the candidates than I was with Warren, and the forum he had created. We need more of this kind of political discussion in America, especially during a presidential race this crucial.
(And yes, I realize there’s a wee bit of irony with me doing some analysis, such as it is, of the Forum.)
Jason
August 20, 2008 11:06amBTW, you can download the entire transcript of the event here.
Daniel Giesbrecht
August 20, 2008 12:34pmWhere (the right one! I think.) Jason saw thoughtfulness I saw a candidate that couldn’t decide who he was more scared of; his constituents, or the crowd before him. Who would burn him in effigy faster? Either the pro-choice, should he answer with anything other than ‘at birth’. Or the pro-life, should he pretend he hasn’t already amassed a huge failing grade with them on this issue.
I thought he failed even at failing on this question. You’re pro-choice. Absurdly pro-choice. You’ve never missed an opportunity to be pro-choice. If it’s “beyond your pay grade” why then is it always so damn easy for you to act in defense of abortion? If I humor his response instead of dismissing it as bull, doesn’t it seem like he’s not exactly erroring on the side of caution on this issue, this issue with which he allegedly has no expertise? If you honestly don’t know whether or not anyone is living on a particular island you shouldn’t proceed to use it for target practice anyway. Thoughtful my ass.
almostcool
August 20, 2008 7:19pmIt’s interesting, my interpretation of Obama’s “above my pay grade” response was that in saying what he said, he was basically saying that “only God knows.“ To me, it sounded like a variation on, “that’s for the big man upstairs to decide.“ Maybe I was listening to it completely differently, but based on his conversational tone in the rest of the forum, that’s how it struck me. That people are attacking him on it (especially if he meant it as it seemed he did) becomes especially ironic in that regard.
Also, I will restate my earlier opinion in saying that McCain is simply setting up evangelicals for a serious episode of Punk’d here real soon. This is a guy who has literally changed his opinion on just about every single major position he’s held in the past 15 years. Don’t believe me that he’s going to set up evangelicals for a rope-a-dope? Here’s a little clue; he’s already sending surrogates out with the message that being pro-life shouldn’t be the most important issue for them. As Elasticheart mentioned in a post awhile back, this is a wedge issue that Republicans need to keep dividing people and playing up to what they think is their base, only to slap them upside the head with a change in opinion as they get elected to office over and over again. You think that people would be insulted by now, but apparently they like being in something akin to an abusive relationship (“This black eye just means they love me officer!“).
In the end, I guess I can see why McCain has said he’s pro-life all the way, because he’s going to keep needing fresh bodies to get plowed asunder in a series of neverending wars. Hey, at least his war contracting buddies and oil friends will get rich. It’s hard to keep those high-rollers happy, but McCain rolls in a pretty exclusive club with his ten houses and 700 dollar Italian loafers. Of course, when you’ve made money the old-fashioned way (having an affair on, then dumping your wife who stuck with you while you were a POW, then marrying a beer heiress), it’s hard to want to give up that lifestyle. What a great role model for a Christian.
Daniel Giesbrecht
August 21, 2008 9:34amyeah. I know. Maybe my post was too long or boring and you didn’t read it.
if “only God knows” how do explain a record of constant support for the right to kill your baby? Isn’t that kind of, I dunno, scary?
I guess he could have said “who gives a shit” the way mccain basically did on the question of who a rich person was. Except we’re not talking about money. We’re talking about life.
Your entire last paragraph is just sad.