A Rational Animal

Props to Matt Yglesias for being the first member of Big Media to recognize what some of us have been saying for months:

Matt clearly has his finger on the MSM pulse, and recognizes that it only flutters into something resembling life when the narrative suits the media’s narrow purposes:

Exactly.  As I keep saying, the Beltway Bookies and Cocktail-Weenie Charlatans of the MSM have decided - nay, decreed - that the narrative shall be a nasty, vicious, and utterly vacuous Hillary v. Obama smackdown.  And they’ll be damned if they’ll let little things like facts get in the way.  Matt describes the phenomenon thusly:

What’s more, the change [in choosing whom to cover as a "serious" candidate] seems driven almost entirely by the national media, which simply decided unilaterally some years ago to only cover people who were already famous.

Although, as Matt also points out with a bit of wryly devastating understatement:

Here’s something else you might expect to garner some buzz: If that same Democrat also found some spare time in January to broker a cease-fire between the government of Sudan and some major rebel factions in Darfur. That kind of person might be someone who understands that these sort of humanitarian tragedies can’t just be ended purely through righteous indignation.

But now we’re getting back to the small matter of qualifications. Traditionally, Americans have turned to governors to serve as president, thinking that experience in executive office and with complicated managerial tasks outweighs the experience with federal policy issues that members of Congress can count in their favor. Happily, Richardson spent over a decade in the House of Representatives before becoming governor. In between, he was America’s ambassador the United Nations, wracking up a level of national security experience that none of the other contenders can match. And did I mention he was also Secretary of Energy? Too bad nobody thinks energy independence and global climate change are important policy areas in which it would be good for the chief executive to have some knowledge. Oh, well.

Knowledge?  Good heavens, why would we want that?  Just because we’ve spent the last six years with a culturally, functionally, and literally illiterate squatter in the Oval Office . . . .

But the MSM demand a serious candidate.  You might be thinking, How much more serious can you get than someone like Richardson?  You might think that.  But you would be wrong:

The point about Richardson is that in many respects he’s exactly the sort of person — a popular governor — who was taken seriously as a presidential contender in the very recent past. The list is long and familiar — Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush. The difference is that Richardson is also super-experienced.

In retrospect, however, Bush was less the last of the governor presidents than a transition to the new era in which, to be president, you need to be a famous celebrity. Mayors of New York City are always famous, because the people who run the media live in New York. Hence, Rudy Giuliani is a serious candidate (and even Michael Bloomberg is considered a more serious possibility than he should be). John McCain spent all of 1999, 2000, and 2001 chasing positive press and became famous in the process — so he’s a serious candidate. Barack Obama has an extremely interesting personal story and was one of the only Democratic successes in 2004, so he became famous and now he’s a serious candidate. John Edwards got famous running on a national ticket, so he’s a serious candidate. Hillary Clinton’s husband used to be president (you may have heard), so she’s famous and she’s a serious candidate. Most absurdly, Mitt Romney happened to preside over the Massachusetts gay marriage controversy, thus becoming famous and, therefore, a serious candidate.

‘Cause, you know, real legislative, executive, and administrative experience, coupled with real-world, hard-nosed, successful foreign policy expertise, are all so unserious. 

However, in his first graf, Matt also raises an issue that presents a huge problem for Richardson and his campaign - and it’s one where I think I can shed a little first-hand light:

Since I wanted to write a column on Richardson, I thought I’d look up the speech. So I popped his name into Google looking for his campaign website only to discover that it ranks below both his official site as Governor of New Mexico and his Wikipedia page. This is the sign of a presidential campaign that’s not getting much attention. 

Back before Richardson officially declared - back in the days, a few short weeks ago, when the grass-roots footsoldiers labored tirelessly to build a state-by-state "Draft Richardson" movement - I inadvertently contributed to a dust-up on one of "Draft Bill" blogs.  I didn’t respond at the time for two reasons, both practical ones:  1) At the time, I was on the road for nearly four weeks straight, with inconsistent Internet access and very little time for much besides work; and 2) it’s not polite to create a scene on someone else’s blog.  Guests shouldn’t make a habit of smashing the crcokery in the comments section.

Creating a scene on one’s own blog, however, is a very different thing.  Although it’s much later, I never intended this to go unanswered, and now, I think it’s time to start throwing a few things.

The first "Draft Bill" blog to come to my attention was Washington4Richardson, run by two ops from Washington State named Ken and Emmett, who are great guys.  On  01/03, Ken posted a notice that Murphy Putnam was rumored to be handling Richardson’s media.  Unfortunately, as Ken noted:

1/4/07 - Update: Murphy Putnam’s website is up and running, click on the link above.

Except that it wasn’t.  And two weeks later, it still wasn’t.  (Now, perhaps you could access something with IE; I use Firefox.  But for a national media firm on a presidential campaign, that’s inexcusable.)  Even now, what you see is useless: 

. 

But what’s really inexcusable is Murphy Putnam’s response.  In response to Ken’s post, I posted the following in his comments:

lilith said…

I’m equally unimpressed with their track record. According to CPI, for ‘03-’04, out of 26 candidates and more than $17 mil, their only wins were incumbents and one open seat. For all of the remaining open seats, their candidates lose, and every single challenger lost.

See http://www.public-i.org/consultants/list.aspx?act=conDetail&id=109515

First, if you’re the media firm for a presidential candidate, isn’t your job 1) to get supporters on board, and 2) refrain from alienating the supporters your candidate already has?

That’s what I thought.  Apparently, I was mistaken.  Herewith, Mark Putnam’s response, which I can only describe charitably as pissy:

Mark Putnam said…

Lilith,

You shouldn’t believe everything you read online.

1) In 2004, we produced the media for challenger John Barrow’s upset win over Rep. Max Burns in Georgia’s 12th District, one of only two Democratic upsets in 2004. John Barrow, for whatever reason, does not appear on the Public-I list of our clients, which is an indicator of the site’s reliability.

There were five Democratic incumbents defeated that year, mostly in Texas thanks to Tom DeLay’s redistricting plan. 2004 was not a good year for Democratic congressional candidates across the country. After 2006, it’s easy to think that Republican incumbents are easily defeated, but that was not the case in 2004. You can go to this CNN website to see for yourself:

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/house/full.list/

2) There are many errors and misrepresentations in the Public-I website that you source, not the least of which is that John Barrow is left off the list of our clients. By using the word "received," the Public-I website leaves the impression that our firm’s compensation was over $17 million in 2003-2004, which is laughable. Ask Rep. Carson if he paid us over $4 million. He didn’t pay us anything even remotely in that universe. Those dollar amounts include media buys and production expenses (at no markup, by the way) that were channeled through our firm.

3) Of the losing challenger races you refer to in your post, some of them never got on the air in any serious fashion or were facing steep uphill battles from the outset. Again, it was a difficult year for Democrats to defeat incumbent Republicans — only two succeeded, one of which was our client.

4) In 2004, we won an open seat special election in one of the most Republican states in the country — South Dakota — with Rep. Herseth’s two-point victory over Larry Diedrich. Her "incumbent" victory cited on the Public-I website was a few months later, when she faced Diedrich again and widened her margin of victory.

In fact, I’d put our "red state" winning record up against anyone, including winning two gubernatorial campaigns in 2002 (TN and OK), another year in which Republicans dominated. One of which, Governor Henry, was a long-shot when he began the campaign. He defeated Steve Largent in what the New York Times called one of 2004’s biggest upsets.

So Lilith, before you cast aspersions, you should really research the whole record.

With regards,

- Mark Putnam

Okay, let’s unpack this, shall we?

First of all, what’s with the condescending opener?  I’ve been on the Web longer than the vast majority of people - at 15+ years, possibly longer than Putnam himself.  As a lawyer, policy and communications consultant, writer, editor, researcher, and pol op who has worked all over the country (including inside the much-vaunted Beltway), I’ve also got a far better grip on what sources are reliable than the average person.  But Putname first assumes that I must be some know-nothing hick, and secondarily assumes that he can talk to me as such.

Second, I really can’t think of a single reason why I would trust CNN’s reporting over CPI’s.  Over the years, I’ve known some of the folks at CPI, and I know their overall track record.  I’d put their data up against that of an entity that employs the likes of Wolf Blitzer and Glenn Beck any day of the week.  Yes, presumably it was a mistake to omit Barrow.  However, one omission doesn’t obviate the rest of the data - nor, in my view, does it particularly alter the track record.

Third, the money:  What exactly does "channeled through our firm" mean?  What it sounds like is what happens regularly in my experience:  The media firm takes care of all media, and the candidate pays for such.  The fact that they allegedly charged "no markup" for "media buys and production expenses" may mean that they made no profit on it, but it doesn’t follow that they weren’t paid.  Which also raises the question as to why there was no markup - if a media firm is good at its job, presumably its candidates are going to compensate them for media buys and production expenses, rather than getting them at cost.

Fourth:  This "steep uphill battles" business:  So frickin’ what?  That’s what media firms are paid to surmount.  I don’t deny that any Dem in Texas was going to face a steep uphill battle, but when you have a track record of loss after loss, you better be prepared to defend it on some basis other than that.

Fifth . . . oh, the hell with fifth.  It’s 3 AM, and I have to get ready to hit the road again, and I think the laundry list so far more than speaks for itself.  I will, however, note the following:

So Lilith, before you cast aspersions, you should really research the whole record.

Besides the missing comma after "So," this statement fails on so many levels that it’s almost - almost - funny.  "Casting aspersions?"  Is that what I was doing?  Funny, I thought I was making a legitimate point about inadequacies in the record, current online availability, or both, of a firm that supposedly makes its living as the expert in these matters - and that, as a supposed player in the big leagues, ought not to be quite such a hothouse flower about a little skepticism. 

And "research the whole record?"  I used a reputable source that is normally known for its accuracy, Putnam’s alleged personal experiences notwithstanding.  I wold have had zero reason to go to a sub-page on CNN’s Web site.  And frankly, if Murphy Putnam had done its job properly, its Web site would’ve been up, running, and flogging its "successes" for all it was worth.

And finally, that sneer of condescension again.  Way to support your client, Mark - by pissing off the grass-roots supporters before the campaign’s even launched.  I won’t stop backing Richardson simply because one of his media guys behaved like a putz, but I must admit that it does make me question his judgment a bit in choosing these guys.  And those questions are getting a whole lot louder and more insistent with every day that goes by that they can’t get Bill’s message out. 

Sure, the MSM are partly to blame.  But Murphy Putnam needs to step up - now.  And if they can’t, Bill needs to find someone who can.

The Village Voice asks:  Is our cover racist?

Which tempts me to respond with some snark like, Does the Pope wear a funny hat? except, of course, that would get Bill Donohue goin’ all Inquisitional on my ass, and who needs that? 

But, really, WTF?  Okay, so I know that the Voice has been nothing more than a corporate shill for quite a while now - and it’s gotten much, much worse since last year’s buyout.  But this falls into the category of Questions You Should Be Too Embarrassed to Admit You’re Stupid Enough to Ask. 

But the real point of this post isn’t the appalling stupidity of the cover.  It’s in the comments to the blog post (which is what this article apparently presumes to be).  After John Aravosis’s racist little ejaculation the other day, followed by his uber-defensiveness at the notion that some might possibly consider him racist, followed by his comment-deleting tantrum, I’m particularly, shall we say, sensitized at the moment to that sort of self-deluding douchebaggery.  So it was with bemusement that I found the first comment appended to the Voice’s blog post:

Via QuakerDave:

"Ten student representatives from the Westfield chapter of DECA, an international association of high school and college marketing students, appeared at a press conference on Capitol Hill Nov. 14 to discuss their efforts in raising awareness about genocide in the Darfur region of Sudan. The event, which hosted reporters from several major metropolitan newspapers, was the culmination of a project conceived just months earlier in the classroom of marketing teacher Brian Thompson.

“’The students in my advanced marketing class choose the topic and plan a public relations event for our DECA chapter and the issue they select,’ said Thompson, the school’s primary DECA advisor. ‘The students in my class overwhelmingly chose Darfur.’”