Web Letters: The Presidential Pageant

"Wayne and her editors apparently think there's a 'sharp contrast' between a man being wealthy and his expressing concern for the poor. It's a constant theme of the Edwards coverage.... The unmistakable implication is that poor people have no right to representation in our society."

There's an even more cynical assumption underlying that one: Any rich man who claims to care about the poor is lying, so Edwards has to be a hypocrite. And this is coming from the same people who love to chortle about how out of touch progressive candidates are with the concerns of "real Americans."

Meredith Renwick

Toronto, Ontario, Canada

So then, why is David Corn over there telling us that Hillary sets the agenda and all candidates must measure up to her? Isn't he reinforcing the manufactured consensus here at The Nation?

Raphaelle del Vecchio

Trenton, NJ

Alterman hit this out of the park. I am so fed up with the punditocracy feeling they have every right to play games with this country's future and our elections by smearing the good politicians while coddling the bad ones because "it's fun." No wonder no one has any respect for the profession of journalist anymore. They have become not just a joke but we are constantly amazed by the degree of their shallowness and lack of real intellect. Our country is in dire straights because of their games and they should not be allowed to skip out without bearing some responsibility for what has taken place in this country over the past two decades.

There was a time when the profession of journalist was respected and aspired to and stood for something. Helen Thomas is the last of those great reporters. People like Murrow, Cronkite and Woodward/Bernstien were rightly placed in high esteem for their work. That is not what they look to do now. It's more about who can make it to the Georgetown circuit of insiders who dish and gossip and print it the next day as fact.

And here we have two excellent candidates who are what is desperately needed in our highest office, and the packhounds are out to destroy their very character for petty reasons the same as they did Gore. But they give a free pass to Hillary and let her slide by on her silly claims and promote them the same as they did with Bush.

The country is left with the worst of the politicians because they are fun and interesting and then we wonder how our country is falling into the abyss. What probably upsets the most is that these hyennas of the press feel no repsonsibility or guilt for their damage or shallowness or absolute worthlessness. When young people die in Iraq, they feel nothing, though their games are what helped beat the drums to war. They should feel every drop of blood spilled. They should feel what every person feels who suffers because of their games and peevishness towards the ones who could bring this country back and make it strong and work again.

And they wonder why the blogs are growing and overtaking their immature and worthless reporting.

Diane Lake

Machesney Park, IL

Eric Alterman needs to stop throwing stones from his personal glass house. While he complains profoundly about slanderous or smearing media attacks on Democratic Party candidates, Alterman himself is the king of such loathsome operations when it comes to candidates he does not support himself.

Some of us remember how Alterman sunk to abysmal depths in his desperate attempts to smear, slander and generally disparage Ralph Nader and his supporters. Alterman's previous refusal to acknowledge clear issues with Democratic candidates, in that case, as well as his repeated slanders and frequent use of potty-mouthed profanity to go after his target, Nader, still ring loudly in the ears of many of us, and define thoroughly Alterman's personal character.

If he's going to dish it out himself, he shouldn't complain about how others do what he does.

Seymour Friendly

Seattle, WA

While Alterman's overall point about the presidential pageant is well taken, he's incorrect in his criticism of M. Dowd vis à vis her article on Obama.

Obama is a fraud, and anyone helping to point that out is doing a service to voters. Here is the crux of Dowd's column: "Actually, the only thing we regard as a symptom of a lack of experience is a lack of experience. This pundit, for one, needs hope as much as any American these days. But the only time I roll my eyes is when my hope is dashed that Obama will boldly take on Hillary, making his campaign more than cameras and mirrors and magazine covers. The Obama promise was a fresh approach to politics, and now he pulls out the oldest trick in the playbook--the insider-who-pretends-to-be-an-outsider bit, the tactical populist, the sophisticate desperately shedding his sophistication."

So here, Dowd is actually criticizing Obama for taking a "pageant"-like approach to the campaign. How much of an "outsider" is he really? His policies are certainly not in any way populist. For Obama to court media coverage by voluntarily being on the cover of magazines like GQ, Men's Vogue etc. and then complain about it is BS. It's not like getting on the cover of Time, where they don't ask your permission. Obama had to actually go and do a shoot for these magazines!! Now it's a problem that people take note? Give me a break.

Maureen Dowd certainly has her shortcomings, but every now and then she comes up with a gem. "The 46-Year-Old Virgin" was one of them. I hope Alterman, and Nation readers, don't get sucked in by Obama as many others already have been. He is a wolf in sheep's clothing.

Chris Martin

Brooklyn, NY

As you said, the powers that be have determined the narrative, and damned if anyone veers from the script. Edwards is deemed a genuine threat to the power structure because of his populism (a word the mainstream media has perverted into a synonym for demagoguery) and his stressing of economic issues, especially the increasing gap between rich and poor. Obama is deemed somewhat less of a threat; one, because he's black and brings a new, marketable angle to the campaign (Tiger Woods as candidate; second, because he went to Ivy League schools and thus is more perceived as "one of us" by the media elites than the state university-educated Edwards. Of course, David Broder and his minions would prefer Hillary Clinton be the Democratic candidate, both for the "woman" angle (see Obama) and because there's no fear of her rocking the corporate boat. The irony is that Clinton, because of her core or detractors both left and right, may well be the least electable of the three.

Vincent Paterno

Triangle, VA

Alterman's article is on the money, especially about columnists like Maureen Dowd. Most of her comments are screeds about frequently personality- and appearance-related characteristics of those she's skewering. Since she's not a right-wing voice and does have criticisms of the Bush Administration's policies and the me-too Republican chorus, one wonders why she doesn't see the damage she does with her clever barbs and agenda-setting pinata shots at the democratic candidates.

Same goes for many so-called enlightened papers like the New York Times and LA Times and the Washington Post. Why propagate or perpetuate palpably unsubstantiated rumors and allegations about candidates? Why make headlines of trivia and trivialize the substantial? Is this poor journalistic skills, warped sense of priorities, or professional myopia, viz., I'd rather be clever and facile than right?

Stuart Fischoff
Journal of Media Psychology

Carbondale, IL

Alterman's analysis is right on, except for the "right wing conspiracy" part. Romney gets waxed for his $600 pre-debate makeup. McCain gets tarnished with "he's too old." Thompson with "he's too lazy."

The tarring and feathering happens in both directions, all the time.

That said, I too detest the practice. It gives us as the electorate no useful information, no real policy perspectives, no help in making real decisions. The press is far less interested in information than story telling. It's easier, it's quicker, it sells.

It's also disgusting.

James Price

Idaho Falls, ID