Chutzpah thy name is Halperin

[babylonsister]

Chutzpah thy name is Halperin


Mercy me. Mark Halperin makes a lateish run for Most Incriminating Column of the Year with this entry, published in today's New York Times in which he laments how terrible it is that the media have confused campaign froth with the stuff that might actually indicate whether or not a politician is capable of performing the duties custom and the constitution assigns to the President of the United States of America.

Halperin, formerly Political Director at ABC News, argues that:

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.

But now I think I was wrong. The “campaigner equals leader” formula that inspired me and so many others in the news media is flawed.

Well, this is, of course, true. But who helped make it so? Well, media bigwigs such as Mark Halperin himself. To read this preposterous column you might think that Halperin was but an innocent bystander rather than a major player in a media climate he did as much to foster as anyone else. Really, it would take a village to do this nonsense the justice it merits, but someone needs to make a start...

Mr Halperin continues:

Case in point: Our two most recent presidents, both of whom I covered while they were governors seeking the White House. Bill Clinton and George W. Bush are wildly talented politicians. Both claimed two presidential victories, in all four cases arguably as underdogs. Both could skillfully serve as the chief strategist for a presidential campaign.

But their success came not because they convinced the news media (and much of the public) that they would be the best president, but because they dominated the campaign narrative that portrayed them as the best candidate in a world-class political competition. In the end, both men were better presidential candidates than they were presidents.

First thing to note here is the massaging of the historical record. Show me someone who thinks Bill Clinton was the underdog against Bob Dole and I'll show you someone whom I'll welcome to my poker game. Equally, George W Bush may have done his best to destroy the advantages of incumbency in his tussle with John Kerry but it's still quite a stretch to suppose that he was the underdog.

more...

http://debatableland.typepad.com/the_debatable_land/2007/11/chutzpah-thy-na.html

Halperin is getting savaged today from many quarters for this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/25/opinion/25halperin.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin

And here's Kevin Drum's take:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2007_11/012566.php

[vireo]

1. Bush is "wildly talented'?

So why then did he have to hire a "brain"?

[blm]

2. The RNC stole 2000 and 2004 for Bush and the media helped them at every step

and the DNC looked the other way sitting on their hands the entire time.