Wednesday, August 22, 2007

In Defense of the Long-Shot Candidate

As I mentioned earlier, I've been working on this movie all week so I just got around to watching the Democratic debate from Iowa this past Sunday. About 30 minutes into the forum Dennis Kucinich called out moderator George Stephanopolous for creating artificial divisions and drama between the two front-runners and attempting to marginalize the rest of the candidates. About 20 minutes later when George asked a question about belief in the power of prayer to each of the candidates, Kucinich replied, "I've been up here praying that you'd ask me a question for the last 45 minutes"

Bravo, Congressman Kucinich. Take every chance you get to call out the nonsense of the process as it stands at these forums, as there's no real point in delivering the message of your candidacy or your policy ideas (curtailing free trade, creating a state-run, not-for-profit health care system, expanded civil rights for homosexuals, repealing the Bush tax cuts, etc), because they aren't going to recount your ideas/arguments on any news programs later in the day or throughout the week, so only the few thousand viewers and the few dozen in the audience will ever hear it. Which is not to say you don't deserve to be heard, quite contrary, I think every candidate deserves an equal and fair hearing, instead of incessant coverage of whether Michelle Obama is taking veiled shots at Hillary Clinton, questions about Obama's "blackness", or the never-ending "Just testing the waters" drama of the Fred Thompson non-campaign, but if you're not going to get a real shot to lay out your message for the people, then at least attempt to open people up to the idea that the process itself is something that must be fixed, regardless of who becomes president.

Ruben Navarette of the San Diego Union-Tribune wrote about the long shot candidates today.
Excerpted:
Long-shot presidential hopefuls may not get elected, but they do tend to grow on you – especially when they're being marginalized, insulted and picked on by everyone else. With the first primaries about 150 days away, the front-running candidates and the media elite no doubt prefer to simplify things by getting rid of those who are given no chance to win.

And I thought the job of thinning out the crop of candidates went to voters, not to the powerful and the power-brokers.

Try telling that to George Stephanopoulos. In a recent interview with Ron Paul, a Republican congressman from Texas, the host of ABC's “This Week” asked the candidate for his definition of success. Paul predictably responded that it was to win. “That's not going to happen,” Stephanopoulos informed him. The candidate then asked the host if he was willing to bet “every cent in your pocket” that Paul couldn't win. Without hesitating, Stephanopoulos said, “Yes.” Ouch.

Then it was Mike Gravel's turn for a reality check. In an interview, Stephanopoulos asked the former senator which Democrat he intended to ultimately support. “I'm going to vote for myself,” Gravel responded. “But you're not going to be president,” Stephanopoulos told him. Double ouch.

Apparently, not even John Edwards needs to apply, despite the fact that he usually comes in third in polls behind Clinton and Obama. In fact, in an extra dose of humiliation, Stephanopoulos introduced the candidates with their standing among Iowa voters in a recent ABC News/Washington Post Poll. Obama had 27 percent, while Clinton and Edwards each had 26 percent – statistically a dead heat. Several weeks ago an open microphone caught him whispering to Clinton that “we should try to have a more serious and a smaller group.” Now, poetically, some folks in the media aren't taking Edwards seriously.

This will all sort itself out. But what's the rush? The field will be winnowed down soon enough. So why speed up the process? It's not fair to the candidates, and it's not healthy for our democracy. That's the message we hear over and over again from the long shots. And by spreading it, they're making a valuable contribution. Campaign 2008 would be much duller without them.

1 comment:

Benjamin said...

More interesting still is the media's so-so coverage of the Edward's campaign. He's the mystery third candidate in the top-tier of Democratic candidates, which, oddly enough, isn't a bad place to be with all this drivel inundating the campaign process top to bottom. I think Edwards straight up scares most of the media and the establishment (in general) because the most hard-charging socialist out of that tier. Perhaps they don't cover him in hopes that their non-coverage will affect his polls. Too bad for them - he's way out in front in Iowa.

But, having said all that, I'm tired of the campaign season already. Because I know that the long shot is just a long shot, I can't really invest any emotional capital in them because it would be futile to do so. And I find it incredibly odd, those who keep maintaining that the likes of Ron Paul can win a general election. Perhaps that makes me part of the establishment... I'm not sure. I am sure, though, that as great as he is as a candidate, he's got a snowball's chance and nothing more.