I can't decide whether I want to scream for about five minutes, or throw an entire set of dishes across the room.
That's my general reaction to the presidential campaign, already in full swing one year prior to the election.
There is so much nonsense, insanity, dishonesty, and ugliness. There are so many dirty tricks, and media attempts to make mountains out of molehills, that the entire process of choosing a president seems tawdry and unbecoming a powerful and (supposedly) educated nation.
What bothers me the most, however, is the media's unending focus on trivial things. Last week, for instance, there was the story about McCain laughing when a woman at one of his speeches asked him how to "defeat the bitch." Then there was the story suggesting that the Hillary camp was playing the gender card. Then there was the debate in Las Vegas where CNN convinced a questioner to ask Senator Clinton if she preferred diamonds or pearls.
I am tired of hearing about John Edwards' haircut, or Hillary Clinton's laugh, or Mitt Romney's Mormonism, or Barak Obama's ancestry, or Mike Huckabee's Chuck Norris endorsement, as if these have anything to do with how good a president any of them would be.
In the meantime, the media doesn't pay nearly enough attention to things that are significant, such as Rudy Giuliani's actual record as mayor, Hillary Clinton's record as senator, Richardson's record as governor, and Edwards' work on behalf of the poor.
Because scandals and nonsense are easy to report and supposedly get ratings, the media seems unwilling to focus intensely on the candidate's positions on issues of importance, like the economy, jobs, health care, trade and foreign policy. We hear a little, but not nearly enough.
But, then, the media has decided the public isn't really interested in policy. They're convinced the public looks at political campaigns they way they read People magazine, or watch Entertainment Tonight. To the media, the people care about Hillary Clinton the same way they care about Brittany Spears, and so they call them both by their first names, and spread gossip about them in equal measure.
With this approach to covering campaigns, I can see it now – how two match-ups might play out in the media.
Rudy Giuliani vs. Hillary Clinton. A battle between the adulterer and the "bitch." A fight between a straight man dressed in drag, and "Nixon in a pantsuit." A contest between a guy who exudes enough testosterone to defeat the enemy, and a woman who is scary precisely because she's as tough as Giuliani. Giuliani and Clinton are the two candidates with the most baggage – he as a tough talking mayor who has been with a number of women (three of whom he married) - which is also a comment on his testosterone, she a perceived manipulator who, though married only once, chose to forgive her husband even though he has also been with a number of women. Rudy may be a cad, but he knows how to attract women - which makes him a guy's guy. Hillary may be forgiving, but she doesn't know how to keep her man interested, which reflects poorly on her as a woman. (These things might not be said, but they are implied.)
His claim to fame is walking around looking competent after 9/11 (even though the firefighters would say otherwise), hers is a failed health care plan in 1994 (even though she has been an exceptionally competent Senator for eight years). This would be an ugly race with an enormous amount of disgusting advertising about things that have nothing to do with the actual responsibility of the presidency. As such, it is the race the media wants, the one it promotes daily.
The other possible race that might appeal to the media is one between Mitt Romney and Barak Obama. The media would spin it this way: the Mormon vs. the son of a Muslim. Since neither candidate has the baggage of a Giuliani or a Clinton – both have been married once, both have limited experience in government, and much less media visibility – the campaigns would, I suspect, appeal under the radar to racist and religious bias. One side would appeal to anti-Mormon sentiment, the other to anti-black prejudice.
In spite of the ugliness that might appear in a Romney - Obama race, I prefer it over the Giuliani - Clinton race. Both Giuliani and Clinton have become caricatures, and a race between them would not be good for the country, nor would it be good to have either of them as president. While I think Clinton would make a relatively good president, in terms of ability, the radical right would do everything it could to destroy her and would thus cripple her presidency. Giuliani, on the other hand, would be a disaster even worse than Bush.
A Romney - Obama race, on the other hand, even with its potential for fueling all of our prejudices, might actually stretch us a little. It took JFK to finally convince people that a Catholic could be a good president. It might take Romney to convince people that a Mormon could be a good president or Obama to convince them of the same thing regarding an African-American. (And isn't it a shame that the people have to be convinced.)
How I long for a unifying leader, someone with integrity, someone who can appeal to a large enough group of Americans to overcome the partisan ugliness. On the other hand, maybe it isn't our candidates, maybe it's us. After all, there is no perfect candidate. If our media focuses only on their imperfections while it ignores their abilities and their platforms, and we let the media get away with that and vote on the bases of our prejudices, we will never again have a strong and competent leader.
Maybe we really do get the leaders we deserve.
