Political Journalists As Really Bad Campaign Consultants

A couple of days ago I was watching Charlie Rose, who was interviewing columnists EJ Dionne & Arianna Huffington, some guy from ABC whose name I can't remember (I think he writes "The Note") and Adam Nagourney of the New York Times. In this program Nagourney demonstrated again what a shoddy political reporter he is. During his tour de force of stupidity, Nagourney claimed that Lamont's victory was a disaster for the Democrats, that the Democrats had yet to re-assure the voters on the issue of national security, that John McCain was the prohibitive frontrunner for the Presidency, and that Hillary Clinton's chief rival for the 2008 nomination was former Governor Mark Warner of Virginia.

Now all of these are conventional wisdom. I could say that his tedious adherence to what "everybody knows" in Washington is yet more evidence of Nagourney's banality, but I'll be generous and assume that he is helping shape those commonly held beltway beliefs.

Which actually just makes his idiocy worse. Being a fool is one thing. Being an influential fool is something else entirely.

I'll break his statements down one at a time. As for the Lamont victory being bad for the Democrats because it feeds into a right-wing narrative, I can only say - thanks for regurgitating Republican talking points so wholeheartedly, Adam. Any reasonable analysis of the Connecticut race indicates that it was Lieberman actions on a whole range of issues that got him into trouble - not just the war. Otherwise Hillary would be facing a similar challenge from the even more liberal New York. It was also Lieberman's active defense of the radioactive George Bush that alienated so many Democrats and independents. So the only way that Lamont will be used against the Democrats is if the media lets them. In other words, only if Nagourney continues to act as a useful tool for the GOP.

A similar line holds true on national security. The polls now indicate that the Democrats now have an advantage on the question: who do you trust more in the war on terror? Beyond this fact, the Democrats have had a fairly straightforward position on terror issues for quite some time. What they haven't come up with a simple stance on is Iraq. But why is it that Iraq = terror? Oh, because Dick Cheney says it is, and the always eager to lap it up puppy Nagourney, craving a pat on the head from his masters, has to repeat whatever Cheney says - however absurd.

John McCain as the "prohibitive" frontrunner? When he's not the nominee, when the election is 2 years away, when McCain has been Bush's greatest supporter on the loathed Iraq War, when he has yet to mend his fences with the religious right? Are you kidding me? How is this kind of analysis responsible journalism?

Finally and most amusingly is Nagourney's handicapping of the 2008 Democratic nomination contest. According to Nagourney, Hillary has to fear a moderate pro-business Southern governor like Warner, because Warner will be perceived as more "electable." Okay, let's do some basic analysis, shall we? Hillary has embraced all the centrist positions that Warner would like to, meaning that he has nothing to run on other than his "electability," a standard that many liberals were burned on in the 2004 contest. Warner is also a mushy candidate without a clear message, something else the increasingly frustrated and aggressive Democratic base are tired of. So what issue does Warner really have to defeat Hillary?

More importantly, let's look at the math of the situation. If Warner is the chief alternative, Hillary will have no threats to her left and can roll up big majorities in the northeastern primaries. She can also defeat Warner in his home base in the South because of Clinton's continuing support from African-Americans, who make up a very large share of the primary electorate in the south. In other words, it looks more like Warner is running for Vice-President than President.

Hillary is vulnerable, just not from the kind of candidate that Nagourney likes. From a candidate running from the populist, anti-Bush left, that's where. An Edwards or a Feingold can rally the elements of the party alienated from Hillary's studied centrism. It would still be difficult for them to win, given Hillary's support among blacks, women, and the major institutional players, but I can come up with a plausible scenario for either. Al Gore or Barack Obama, however, would be able to strip Hillary of key elements of here coalition while also appealing to the party's liberal base. I think each would have a clear advantage over her in the race for the nomination.

Now my analysis may not be entirely accurate (lord knows I've been wrong before), but it at least has some grounding in reality. Nagourney just casually trots out the name of the latest "gee-whiz" beltway candidate and thinks this represents some kind of revelation. He seems to struggle with the idea that just because you like someone doesn't mean that supporting or defending it is good analysis. Sometimes the people we like are losers.

So any of you Republican candidates out there? How about you hire Adam Nagourney as your political strategist? I guarantee that it'll be an experience you never forget.