Thursday, December 25, 2003

Merry Xmas from Eric Alterman

Remember all those "people just don't like Al Gore" articles? Remember, when John Kerry was the presumed frontrunner we had all those "people just don't like John Kerry" articles. Remember, briefly, when Clark entered the race and surged ahead we had all those "people just don't like Wesley Clark articles." The reasons sometimes varied a bit - but, it's always some combination of too aloof, too elite, too abrasive, too ambitious, etc...

And, so, yes, the "people just don't like Howard Dean" articles are just the same. I don't know why they just don't skip to "people just don't like Democrats" and be done with it. And, contrary to what some thing - if Joe Lieberman were the frontrunner we'd have a bunch of "people just don't like Joe Lieberman" articles.

These articles are never based on any actual facts, any actual reporting, or anything that can be inferred from polls. It's just the reporters' inner Heathers believing they speak for the world, or occasionally, Friedman style, finding "man on the street" quotes which fit their preconceptions. Here's Alterman:

While the Post editors and Brooks speak for hard-line neocons, Dean receives no less abuse at the hands of many genuine liberals. My colleague at the Center for American Progress, Matthew Miller, attended the speech and found it lacking, not in substance, which he thought properly Clintonian, but in presentation. "When Dean barked it out, it felt smaller and shabbier, as if he were lecturing us on simple facts we ought to have known." Miller worries at length about what it means that Dean accidentally thanked US soldiers for their "services" rather than "service." Jonathan Chait, so obsessed he now operates an anti-Dean blog at The New Republic, also admits that the position that so exercised the Post pooh-bahs is "narrowly true." Chait's problem with Dean, and I quote, is that the Vermont governor "gives off the vibe that he likes to equivocate about the bad guys rather than recognize them for what they are" (what a bummer that Dean dude is...).

ABC's Sam Donaldson made the same silly point, admitting that "in context, you know what he's saying," but when normally perspicacious pundits like Miller and Chait talk in terms of "feelings" and "vibes," something more than policy disputes are at work. Howard Kurtz, the Washington Post's walking conflict of interest and barometer of conventional wisdom-- named by the American Conservative Union as one of the most reliable reporters--offers up a clue to the journalistic zeitgeist when he complains of Dean, "Reporters who have spent hours with Dean express surprise that he never asks a single question about them." (Would Kurtz feel better if Dean said, "So, Howie, does CNN pay you more to report on the Post or does the Post pay you more to report on CNN?")