Halperin’s Confession

Halperin’s Confession updated

Bill Clinton an “underdog” in 1996? Pass the political crack pipe.
An insider is unwinding.

Mark
Halperin delivers a doozy in the New York Times today.

Voters are bombarded with information about which contender has “what it takes” to be the best candidate. Who can deliver the most stirring rhetoric? Who can build the most attractive facade? Who can mount the wiliest counterattack? Whose life makes for the neatest story? Our political and media culture reflects and drives an obsession with who is going to win, rather than who should win. … .. … 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.

This is rich, especially considering that it was the hack pack press and people
like Halperin who orchestrated the hunting and skewering of Bill Clinton over
consensual sex instead of saying Who cares and how does this affect this
country?

Where has Halperin been? Or is it just that he leans right that inspired him
to such an analysis after much soul searching over his holiday egg nog? Note to Mr. Halperin: Your job is to report what happens
and trust the people will make the decision best for the times. Unfortunately,
now that journalism is a race to punditry we’re all racing down a very sharp hill.
How do you think we got Bush in 2000 in the first place? Insert audio of Gore
“sighing” here and the imminent collapse of the world if you didn’t
want to have a beer with him here.

But the biggest problem in Halperin’s analysis is equating the candidacies
and presidencies of Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. See the economy. See U.S.
world prestige. See the deficit. See, well, pick anything. Now look at what
Bush has done in Iraq. Clinton’s presidency stacks up pretty well today, especially
compared to George W. Bush, but Halperin can only find equivalency.

Then Halperin delivers this rancid nugget:

We should examine a candidate’s public record and full life as opposed to his or her campaign performance.

Who exactly is it that continues to talk about likeability, like that is any
prerequisite for dealing with Ahmadinejad? Who is it that talks about having
a beer, and what it will mean to the world?

Oh, and let us never forget the traditional media signing on to the “Democrats
will look weak on national security if they don’t — fill in the black here
–,” which led to the wholesale collapse of Senate Democrats on Iraq, because of relentless pressure in the press, and
continues to color our legislators when thinking about doing what’s needed on
Iraq. With Halperin of TIME helping to lead public opinion with their own unannounced
biases, how could we possibly go wrong? This isn’t just about how the press
covers presidential races. It’s how people in the top echelons, minus a few
well placed liberal pols, continue the same old sound bites against Democrats,
while ignoring humongous failures by Republicans.

Will anyone ever do a serious investigation on Mr. 9/11 over his leadership
failings before that horrid event? The latest Brian Williams interview proved
the cowardice of our media to dare to dent the image.

Do the candidates have what it takes to fill the most difficult job in the world?

The truth of our democratic republic is that even when they do the press often
ignores that fact for some artifice.

Admitting you’re an ignorant ass isn’t
much comfort. That the New York Times finds Mark Halperin’s vacuous
blathering worthy of an op-ed encapsulates the current state of political campaign
coverage by paid hacks. Another insider gets the spotlight (mission accomplished for TIME magazine). Alert the media.

UPDATE: Kevin Drum’s bingo bottom line:

So while it’s nice to see Halperin’s mea culpa, I think I’ll wait to see if he actually changes the way he covers this year’s campaign. And then we’ll see if anyone follows suit. My take: since modern press coverage is not a result of the individual foibles of modern campaign reporters, but is rather a natural response to the realities of modern campaigning and the modern media environment, the respective odds are slim and none.