NYT editorial on the New Hampshire debate: Whose Century Is It Anyway?

[DeepModem Mom]

Whose Century Is It Anyway?
Published: January 7, 2008

The general election for president is still a ways off, but the New Hampshire primary campaign is providing a preview of the ultimate contest. So far, it’s not looking so good for the Republicans.

On Saturday night, ABC News held back-to-back debates among the candidates for each party’s nomination. The contrasts were vivid. The six Republicans, who came first, were a study in grays, hunched over their desks like the officers of some restricted men’s lodge. The only signs of life came when they all poured disdain on Mitt Romney — Iowa’s big spender and big loser — or Ron Paul, who is so far behind in the polls we wondered why they bothered. Then came the four Democrats: the woman, the African-American, the Hispanic American, the coiffed Southern lawyer. They seemed younger, livelier and clearly to be living in 21st-century America....

On domestic policy, the Republicans offered trickle-down bromides, with the exception of Mr. Paul, who wants to scrap the tax code. The others touted the power of tax cuts to boost the economy, an odd dissonance when Americans see economic woes all around them. They spoke reverently of unregulated business, when Americans know the Bush administration’s failures to regulate are at the root of the mortgage crisis that is driving the economy toward recession and are the reason they have to worry about lead in their children’s toys and poison in pet food.

The Democrats fell over each other proclaiming their opposition to continuing those tax cuts. Unlike the Republicans, who never mentioned it, the Democrats took on the mortgage crisis, saying it demonstrated the need to regulate the banks that made irresponsible loans and the investment firms that profited from them.

Except again for Mr. Paul, the Republicans tried to outbid the others’ commitment to staying the course in Iraq....The four Democrats debated ideas for ending the war, a service to American voters who overwhelmingly want it to end....

It is too soon, in our view, to call either nominating contest, much less the fall election. But in a year in which voters are fed up with Washington (even Mr. McCain said on Sunday that his base was disillusioned), the Republicans have a long way to go to grasp the mood of the electorate in this 21st-century election.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/07/opinion/07mon1.html?hp

[JDPriestly]

1. Interesting how the New York Times cleverly avoided naming

Edwards.

[Cha]

2. They call Edwards, "the coifed Southern

lawyer"?! what the hell!

[Anouka]

3. I know, why not 'the white guy'? why is he allowed his profession named?

seriously.

and they didn't bother racializing or genderizing or AGING the republicans at all. what's 'gray' supposed to mean?

why is hillary only 'the woman', instead of 'the First Lady' (a title, even if it was only earned through a marriage certificate)

why are obama and richardson -- two men who are half-white themselves -- only distinguished by their non-white parents racial designation?

and then, not as 'attorney' (a profession) or 'Governor' (a title)?

I wouldn't complain about how Edwards was designated AT ALL.

[DeepModem Mom]

4. The intent was to compliment Democrats on the diversity of their candidates --

in contrast to the Republicans, not to diminish Clinton, Obama or Richardson. The piece is clearly favorable to Dems. The description of Edwards, I think, could have been better.

[Anouka]

5. Except that it doesn't. It reinforces that 'white' and 'male' are defaults.

You can't treat people as people if you're stuck on their race or their gender......... as long as that race is non-white, or that gender is non-male.

Soft racism/sexism is still racism/sexism.

If that piece really wanted to compliment the Democrats versus the Republicans, it would have done better by those Democrats by refusing to allow the only 'certified' Anglo male in the group a triple-generic description (region, hygiene and profession) to his rivals' singular-loaded.

Nothing's changed. I want them to.

[Anouka]

6. and I apologize for being snippy towards you, by the way.

this is just something that has always, always bugged me. that's all. i do not mean to take it out on you. i take it out on the writer/editor.

[DeepModem Mom]

7. Not at all -- I'm afraid I was snippy myself.

I think we're looking at the piece from different perspectives. I understand, and appreciate, yours -- and the points you've made.