Bad Talking Heads

Some of these guys are starting to get on my nerves with their faulty snap judgements and their certain poses while making misstatements of fact.

On the Case of Robert Novak

I regularly read Robert Novak's report because I want to know what the evil people are saying to each other (and I read Newt Gingrich to see what they're saying to themselves). Novak irritated me with the following:

"A dreadful performance by New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson on NBC's "Meet the Press" deflates speculation that he could rise from the "second tier" of Democratic presidential candidates. "

The judgement of the "performance" is Novak's (though no doubt corroborated by a couple of his like-thinking buddies); the deflation of speculation may be factual but is by its speculative nature of limited, short-term interest. In other words, it may reflate again, even to breathe in and out on a regular basis. I agree that Richardson is not in the top tier, but he did not suffer a knockout blow running the Tim Russert gauntlet (unlike, say, Wesley Clark in '04--see below).

Russert got in several jabs on weaknesses and inconsistencies in Richardson's record, but nothing that seemed to surprise Richardson at all. Instead, he deflated the overeager Russert by conceding the point each time--what else could he do?--and showed he'd learned lessons from the experiences. To pundits focused on the tug of war and scoring gotcha! points, this was "dreadful": Richardson didn't fight back. He didn't look "presidential" and tower above the sniping reporter. To viewers, Richardson showed a skill something very few of his fellow politicians have mastered: the ability to admit a mistake. It's called "humility", Novak.

Richardson plays a very critical functional role in the race, even if he has little chance (due to low recognition) to win the nomination. Until the middle of January, he should be able to hold down the role of principal centrist challenger to Hillary: he has a large potential constituency to which he can make a unique appeal (i.e., Hispanics and others in Western states), he has backers (though not the super-elite), and he has a resume that beats everyone else's currently in the race from either party.

Unless something new drops on him (and Russert seems to be the most likely source of aerial attack he'll face), I say he stays and has a significant effect. His delegates will be truly swing votes in the HRC vs. anti-Hillary showdown we can all expect after the Unofficial National Primary. Sen. Clinton would no doubt consider him a hole card in the showdown, but I don't consider him throwing her support to be automatic (without the offer of the major Cabinet job/VP slot).

Of course, his unique role in the race will have no significance if someone can get a majority blowout result. If he can stay in and stay competitive, that will become less likely.

On the Case of Chuck Todd

Unlike Novak, I have nothing against the NBC political director. I have to comment on his performance today on the Saturday MSNBC Tim Russert show (the one that tries to reach for entertainment through exploring ideas, whereas "Meet the Press" is the formal fulfillment of network TV's "role in the constitutional process").

Todd was on a "dream panel" (Russert's) with Andrea Mitchell and David Gregory (who recently found out he did have enough balls to take on the President in a press conference, after all). On Russert, Mitchell scored well, Gregory looked good and said some bright things. Todd seemed much too jaded as he spouted a couple of howlers:

1) He claimed the Fred Thompson story so far looked a lot like another one "that turned out badly--Wesley Clark". Late entry, tapping substantial reserves of hidden financial strength, "but then he couldn't answer the fundamental question on Iraq" and went down quickly. Clark did fall, but it had nothing to do with weakness of his Iraq policy--Wesley Clark has been able to dance around all others in terms of his knowledge of the country, the military scenario, alternatives that make sense and achieve more of our objectives.

I may not believe that Al Gore wouldn't have invaded Iraq, though I would "hope" it's so. But I'm absolutely certain that Wesley Clark wouldn't have done as bad a job in strategizing the Iraq war over the 2005-2007 period than what we got. For one thing, he wouldn't have allowed the force capabilities of the Army and Reserve to be ground up the way they have been.

What actually happened--I was paying very close attention to this one, as I was indeed a Clark backer--was that Clark got sandbagged by the Washington journalists for refusing to disavow the support of Michael Moore after Moore called Bush a "deserter". The crucial appearance was on "Meet the Press", his last chance to denounce Moore's something-or-other (let's call it "an exaggeration") and refuse his support.

This appearance "deflated speculation" that he would be accepted by the opinion-makers as the defender of establishment values. He also made a serious error by skipping Iowa entirely (he was too late to field a strong organization), which allowed tactical advantage to slip to Johns Kerry and Edwards. The rapidity of the sequence of events following--to New Hampshire the next week, then soon to Super Tuesday--didn't give him the chance to reverse Big Mo--besides, the pundits weren't having it. A la Howard Dean, for that matter.

2) Todd has apparently taken credit for coining "Tsunami Tuesday" for the Feb. 5, 2008 wave of primaries (too cute for me), but then one-upped himself (fighting the last war again) by suggesting the preliminaries will decide the main event in 2008, as they did in 2004. It could happen, but I'm still thinking that California will be the critical battleground, and that's squarely in the Unofficial National Primary. Oddly, I've heard little in the past few days about Florida--either too little polling data is available, or the party functionaries haven't yet let on how badly candidates may be penalized. I'm looking for that one to end up being a "beauty contest"; still significant--because Florida's so important in the general election--but not decisive. It will be more like a final, accurate indicator of what's going to happen a week later.

3) Todd's assessment of Fred Thompson's resume (the subject of my next post, I think; he's just becoming unavoidable, plus it's a major new development) is that the only thing he's known for is his acting career. I agree, his Senate career wasn't so great, but the original source of his fame was as Minority Counsel in the Watergate hearings. He had good training to play a lawyer on national TV, by being a real lawyer on national TV. Todd is no doubt too young to remember when that happened, but it is part of the shared consciousness of half the electorate or so.

4) Todd seemed to think that Al Gore was going to run for President on a 3rd-party ticket--must be this week's talking heads flavor (see below). This because Al told him there were still "500 days until the election". This meant to Todd that Gore would run if Hillary clinched the nomination in the primaries and then lost momentum. I've got a different thought: Gore is laying back in case Obama can't rally the anti-Hillary forces after Feb. 5 and there's still something to be done (i.e., HRC hasn't locked up a majority of delegates). He could then try to sweep in and get a draft movement behind him. Obama would gravitate naturally to the VP slot, and we'd have the true "dream team of 2008": Gore-Obama. Contrary to Todd, I see absolutely no way Al Gore would desert the Democratic party and run against it.

On the Case of John McLaughlin

McLaughlin devoted his whole show this week to building a case for his "dream team" 3rd-party candidacy of Bloomberg-Hagel. McLaughlin seems to have been seduced; he wanted to show that this crew could actually win the election! It's his show, so he kept coming back to this theme, even though every other panelist shot him down from every angle.

The panelists granted him two points: one is that this ticket is a real possibility under certain circumstances; second, that it could wreak a lot of havoc, particularly since the impact on the race of a man who could spend $1 billion of his own is hard to put boundaries around. Someone even ventured that Bloomberg could put the state of New York into play for the Republican candidate by splitting the votes of moderates and liberals with HRC.

I'm used to McLaughlin's craziness and his trying unsuccessfully to impose it on his colleagues, but this last suggestion was a bridge too far for me. First, I can't see any reason Bloomberg would still run if Hillary got the nomination: what, is one liberal New Yorker in the race not enough? To me, it's much more likely Bloomberg would enter if the Democrats selected someone more to the left, such as Obama or Edwards.

Second, in any significantly triangular race with Bloomberg at one vertex, the only possible winners of the state of New York would be Bloomberg and the Democrat. Conservative Republicans are no more than 20% of the statewide vote. Depending on the matchup, Bloomberg could indeed deny the state to the Democrats, but that doesn't mean he can fix it or somehow throw his electoral votes to the Republican.