by Deb Cupples | A week or two ago, Barack Obama's campaign sent out an email offering to let supporters sign up to be among the first to know whom Obama has selected as a running mate. Yesterday's New York Times says that Obama will announce his running mate "perhaps as soon as Wednesday morning" -- meaning perhaps not as soon as Wednesday.
Our nation's presidential race is not an Aaron Spelling TV series -- so why the teasers and cliff hangers? It's like holding up a raw T-bone so one can watch a dog dance on his hind legs.
Treating our political process like a "reality" show or soap opera drains the dignity out of the process -- while insulting the intelligence and testing the patience of many voters (though obviously not all of them).
I would appreciate it if the candidates would stop soap-ifying the process and stop messaging to the public as though they're constructing ads to extol the virtues of hyper-processed, hyper-fatty foods to fans of WWF wrestling or the Cartoon Channel.
Haven't we voters endured enough from media outlets like MSNBC and Fox, which seem to have been put on this somewhat-green earth specifically to track down and obliterate the last shreds of substantiveness and dignity that remain in our nation's political process?
As for our media, they could start reclaiming some of their long-lost credibility if they would stop playing along with the nonsense that political strategists seem so fond of orchestrating.
Memeorandum has commentary.
Other Buck Naked Politics Posts:
* Did McCain Violate the "Cone of Silence"? We Don't Care -- and Neither Should our Media
* Warning Flags: Biden as Obama's Running Mate?
* Dems go Soft on Off-Shore Drilling
* Latest on the Russia-Georgia Conflict
* Many Big Corporations Don't Pay Taxes -- Including Federal Contractors
* McCain Gets Rewards from Oil Companies?
* Tainted Campaign Cash: Why we Need Campaign Finance Reform
..
Both campaigns are well within historical norms here, in terms of the announcement date as compared to the convention. A lot of nominees have been named AT the convention.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/12597.html
The difference this year is not the announcement time, but the amount of media sources buzzing around trying to speculate or get a scoop. It's just media noise - the best thing to do is ignore it and wait for the actual announcement.
The only time either of the campaigns has really pulled any BS on this issue is when the McCain campaign "privately" told Robert Novak that they were likely to announce during the week of Obama's foreign trip. That was pure misdirection, as Novak himself admitted.
Posted by: Adam | August 19, 2008 at 02:00 PM
Adam,
I don't care about historical norms. The media -- with the campaign's cooperation -- is trying to create suspense over the running mate.
I find it manipulative and don't like it.
Posted by: Deb Cupples | August 19, 2008 at 04:05 PM
Oh, sure, absolutely. It's just hard to really fault the campaigns here for simply trying to maximize positive media exposure. Even the blogosphere, which presumably is less slavishly devoted to ratings, gets caught up in the VP speculation frenzy.
Posted by: Adam | August 19, 2008 at 06:07 PM
Adam,
I DO fault the campaign for even trying. That's my point.
Posted by: Deb Cupples | August 19, 2008 at 10:08 PM
Hi Deb - Did you sign up for the text message delivery of vp pick?
Just wondering how many people fell for that - like hey "you're going to know first!" I'm so sure! A major juvi move.
It shows lack of experience and selfish motives are at play. Barry is sure loser.
Posted by: Danny | August 19, 2008 at 11:36 PM
Deb, if you fault political campaigns for trying to maximize their media exposure, you're going to be very disappointed from May through November of every even year. I mean, this is just the way the world works. And as far as I can figure, it's not that big a deal.
Danny, I know every piece of political news is a reason that Obama is terrible and/or a sure loser to you, but just to make it clear:
1) Obama's campaign surely will text out the news in advance of any press releases or other announcement.
2) The text message sign-up was another way for them to attempt to expand their voter file. THAT was the goal of the move.
Posted by: Adam | August 20, 2008 at 12:39 AM
Hi Danny,
No, I did not sign up for the "advanced notice," but Damozel did -- so if they really tell a select few-million in advance, Damozel will likely tell me.
Posted by: Deb Cupples | August 20, 2008 at 01:00 AM
Adam,
I've been invovled in campaigns for much of the last decade (including my own once).
I understand the importance of media attention. I just think that Obama's repeated teasing over the VP is cheesy and contrived.
Why not garner attention over real issues, instead of creating a non-issue (announcement) -- when he has control over the release date of that info?
Posted by: Deb Cupples | August 20, 2008 at 01:02 AM
This is almost entirely a media-generated frenzy; the stories lately have been about things as trivial as what Biden said in his driveway (couldn't "the guy" he was referring to have been Obama?) and what pronoun Obama used (wasn't it clear he was talking about Cheney?).
It seems silly to blame this on Obama's campaign when they are not really encouraging it. The only thing they can do to end it is to announce the pick. So, essentially, what you're saying is that when the media starts chattering loudly enough, the Obama campaign has some moral obligation to give them what they want. That way they can cover... whatever stupid crap they want to cover next. It's not Obama's obligation to shift the media's focus!
Again, I really think you're making a mountain out of a molehill here. The reason this is the story is because it sells copy, not because Obama's campaign is manipulative.
Posted by: Adam | August 20, 2008 at 10:34 AM
Adam,
Here you go again. :)
The NY Times got its info about the announcement coming "as early as Wednesday" FROM OBAMA's AIDES. Period.
(Note that "as early as" makes the statement technically correct even if they later move the date.)
If the Obama campaign had NOT wanted to encourage suspense and create a drum roll, it DID NOT have to announce on the spot.
The OTHER CHOICE, which would have preserved secrecy, was to simply say "We plan to announce the VP on Day X." Period.
Instead, campaign aides kept going to the press and moving the deadline. (Yesterday, the announcement moved from an implied Wednesday to an implied Saturday, though that might change today.)
I can't do a better job of showing evidence of intention to create a suspenseful drum roll.
As for me: I didn't blow it out of proportion. I wrote ONE POST 2 days ago.
Then I WAS DONE with it -- except to respond to your defensive claims.
Your most recent one is slightly inconsistent with one of your earlier ones, incidentally. YOU SAID:
First, that it's historically consistent to delay the announcement. (Fine, though that wasn't my point)
Second, "Oh, sure, absolutely" (in response to my saying that the media WITH OBAMA's HELP is manipulatively teasing the public).
Third, you offered, "It's just hard to really fault the campaigns here for simply trying to maximize positive media exposure." ("Trying," by definition, involves intent.)
NOW you're saying it's "almost entirely a media- generated" thing? It just happened to and around an unwitting Obama?
That doesn't gel with your prior use of the It's-hard-to-fault-the-campaign-for-TRYING defense.
Anyway, you're right that it's NOT a real issue, which is why I haven't posted about it again -- and why I feel only very mild disgust over the campaign's attempt to play the voters like they're stupid soap-opera viewers.
Posted by: Deb Cupples | August 21, 2008 at 02:22 AM