John Kennedy's assassination was 43 years ago, Part II

For thinking and planning for what we can do for 2008, this post by Bob Somerby, The Daily Howler, is one that everyone should read and re-read from time-to-time, and re-circulate whenever possible. Somerby properly takes to task a liberal writer who gets involved in the Hillary makes this-and-that impression nonsense:

. . . . We’ll take strong issue with this M. J. Rosenberg post—a post Kevin Drum unwisely semi-seconded. . . . . Here’s the heart of what Rosenberg said. It concerns Hillary Clinton:

ROSENBERG (12/21/06): I just watched Hillary Clinton on "the View." And I realized something. Every time she lets go a little (like when she jogged into the room), she is very appealing. And every time she discusses things like engaging in "a national conversation" about whatever the hell it was, she is terrible.

In this passage, we see a writer at a “smart” liberal site getting into the press corps’ favorite game—making judgments about appearance and body language, and about what is “very appealing.” Needless to say, he had a judgment about Obama too—and a thought about (groan) “authenticity:”

ROSENBERG (continuing directly): Barack Obama, on the other hand, never seems programmed. . . . Now I'm not saying that either Barack or Hillary is authentic. I don't know either one.

But I'll say this. Obama is great because . . . he does not seem to be measuring every word and gesture, calculating whether they will get him into trouble. That is what makes him so cool and so appealing. . . .

For liberals, this sort of thing is spectacularly foolish. Here’s why:

First and most obvious, . . . when we talk about what is “appealing” and authentic,” we enter extremely subjective territory. And oh yeah—we validate the type of discussion the mainstream press corps is eager to have. Once we allow this type of discussion, they can create any novel they want about who’s “authentic” and who isn’t. And surprise! As an upper-class and corporate institution, the press corps will increasingly tend to judge that Republican candidates seem “authentic”—and that the Dems do not. Indeed, that’s precisely the way this group has called it in our last two White House campaigns—Bush and McCain were authentic straight-shooters, the hideous Gore and Kerry were not. . . . Once we let them start making such judgments, they’ll quickly craft the story they like—and whatever it is, they’ll recite it in unison. . . .

If you’re a Democrat or a liberal, Hillary Clinton has died for your sins. That doesn’t mean she should be the nominee, but she deserves your respect, as does Gore. Each has taken a ton of shit—while our “liberal leaders” have stared into air.
Which of the hopefuls is most authentic? We have an answer to that: . . . If we Democrats have an ounce of sense, we’ll steer the discussion toward serious topics

The more we succumb to the temptation to unduly personalize the race for the Presidency – worrying about who bores us or who excites us, who is “authentic” or “comfortable in his (or her) own skin,” who is “ambitious” or dynamic, who we might “like to drink beer with,” who follows supposedly elite passions like windsurfing vs. down-to-earth ones like NASCAR, who is a great speaker, or hunts or is a phony, who can use religious imagery better in speeches -- the more we play a game that the Republicans have been using for a generation to their benefit. Republican right-wing conservatism is dead as a political philosophy. It has absolutely nothing to commend it for the benefit of the American people, not even the rich who get dragged down like everyone else when the weakest link in society is, indeed, by design in that philosophy, very weak. (The right-wing rich, however, bite off their noses to spite their faces because they are unable to comprehend anything more than the most simplistic concepts of cause-and-effect.)

Yet five times since 1980, Republicans have managed to get themselves elected President by playing the personality and character game in the mainstream media (while pursuing racism under the national radar), attacking the Democratic candidate – whether it be Carter, Dukakis, Gore or Kerry – for personal characteristics that have little do with the kind of government we will have.

The point has been made here before: John Kennedy died over 40 years ago, and it’s time to deal with it by not searching desperately for someone who will re-create a Camelot that will ease our lifelong ache over what could have been. What matters is not what clothes are worn, or how authentic the smile is, but what policies will be followed, what will be the governing philosophy of the thousand or so people who will be appointed to important government positions, what constituencies will be cared for, and who will have the ear of the President’s people. The journalism profession – indeed, its most highly visible and best-compensated members -- has joined the right-wing in dragging us all into the personalities game. It has effectively put utterly worthless and dangerous officials like George Bush and Richard Cheney in charge of our lives, causing the loss of thousands upon thousands of lives, and has disgraced itself in the process. Whenever we see such irrelevancies being raised in the media, we should be taking the time whenever we possibly can to heap ridicule on the publications who so grossly violate their charter as the so-called “Fourth Estate.”