The Occasional Observer

It's really amazing to watch the dynamics of the press coverage of Clinton-Obama over the past few months. It's unbelievable that they literally alternate coverage of stupid comments week to week. This week it's Obama saying that people are bitter and that's why they "cling" to guns and religion; the week before that it was Bill and Hillary's lies about Bosnia; the week before that it was Rev. Wright; before that it was Hillary on NAFTA; Obama on NAFTA; ...

While I enjoy watching the Dems destroy themselves, I can't help but also be disappointed at the lowest common denominator that politics and political coverage has become. While it is certainly true that 200+ years ago American politics was a dirty business with devastating accusations, it is also true that politicians had to present more detailed positions on key topics and the average voter spent more time getting informed. Today, instead of deep press coverage about McCain v. Obama v. Hillary on issues such as Iraq, containment of Iran, broader Middle East, rising role of China in the world, implications of economic policy avoiding tight credit and rising trade imbalances but resulting in a weaker US dollar, Medicare/Social Security, etc., we have never ending back and forth magnification of individual sentences or words.

Don't get me wrong, words certainly matter and when you put enough of them together to see a pattern (e.g., Clintons are prolific liars or the Obamas having unpatriotic sentiments) it's very important. And it's certainly mind-boggling that these candidates can't go one week without saying something stupid or indefensible. Character is critical not just to me, but to a majority of Americans. But at some point so too are policies, and it seems that the press focuses too much on the minutia at times. The statement 'not seeing the forest for the trees' comes to mind.