I’m too young to have observed at first hand the way the US media was [supposedly] swept up in a love affair with John F Kennedy. Sure, I’ve read contemporary accounts like LIFE magazine fawning over the Kennedys etc, and looked at the phenomenon historically, but that ain’t the same.
As an observer I was struck by Ronald Reagan’s polish and communication skills, at the time. But he left me cold. He seemed canned and scripted and I could never see the reason for the enthusiasm about him. Later it emerged that he had been a Democrat and a union boss (oh the horror!) who changed horses midstream and … well, the rest is history. Only someone with a defective moral compass (or Alzheimers?) could have justified and approved the Iran-Contra oil for arms deals clandestinely run by Oliver North. Those actions were, literally, criminal.
I did however observe the fulsome gushing which Bill Clinton provoked in elements of the media. Some reporters seemed to be in love and didn’t care who knew it. Others affected a faux ‘balance’ beautifully skewered by Garry Trudeau in a Doonesbury cartoon which placed intrepid reporter Rick Redfern on a campaign bus, writing a glowing report of the then candidate Clinton’s speech at an event and the enthusiastic reception it provoked.
As I remember the cartoon, after two or three frames of Rick (who was based on Bob Woodward apparently) pounding out glowing copy about the candidate, he pauses, stares into space and types: ‘Still, character issues persist…’
It was the best they could do to try to counter the charisma.
Clinton’s political skills, his apparent empathy (or real? how do I know?), his beguilingly simple but at times nonetheless inspirational ‘Let us come together’ oratory, were all undeniably attractive and effective. Something felt right about him. Clinton so badly outclassed George HW Bush and to many in the GOP he appeared to have ‘da media’ on his side, something Republicans seem to have bitterly remembered to this day, eight years of George W Bush notwithstanding, since they’re recycling the same whinge about Obama and treating the media with contempt and shameless lies a la Lyin’ Ryan.
Rumours about the younger Clinton’s er, appetites and’indiscretions’, rumoured-then-explicitly-revealed sex scandals (remember the obvious roll-out of Gennifer Flowers?) and concerns about his ‘lack of discipline’ took second place to his performance. He was jus’ so darn likeable. (I’m not saying he’s a saint, and we’ve discussed the Dick Morris sessions and influence. Enough said.)
So anyway, I wasn’t surprised at his tour de force at the Democrat Party convention yesterday. (Full speech on youtube via CSPAN) Quite a speech — as the NY Times analysis demonstrates.
At the Atlantic Wire website you can read Clinton’s prepared speech notes marked up with the insertions, deletions and elaborations he ad-libbed. See: What Bill Clinton Wrote vs. What Bill Clinton Said I found it very interesting and impressive … a political master’s performance, using simple, plain language, including this:
“Though I often disagree with Republicans, I actually never learned to hate them the way the far right that now controls their party seems to hate our President and a lot of other Democrats.”
Yes. Politics can become partisan to the point of hateful sectarianism. Yuk. God knows we suffer that here.
Wherefore John Key?
As likeable as New Zealand’s current prime minister John Key is (or has been?) he’s not an orator. In fact, he’s currently being mocked, unfairly in my view, for his public speaking performance.
Speech impediment aside, John Key is a good communicator as I’ve said before. The more-successful-than-you-guy-next-door schtick is still working for him. But Mr Key’s own lack of discipline and occasional ill-considered remarks (e.g. words to the effect of: ‘We can always ignore the Waitangi Tribunal’s recommendation’) risk wearing out his welcome with the media and some of the public. Perhaps it’s a deliberate risk he’s willing to take for the sake of dog-whistling to his ‘base’.
Remember Mr Key told the country he’s ‘not moaning’ nor ‘bent out of shape’ about the ‘aggressive, antagonistic and hostile media‘ he feels he faces now. (Obviously, raising the issue in those terms would inevitably be seen as a complaint, as a smart guy like him knows, so his obfuscation on that point failed.)
Indeed, according to some, the NZ media’s alienation process started in earnest in response to Mr Key’s double-talk and overwrought reaction to the John Banks Teapot tape affair. Remember him raising teen suicide and News Of The World? Pfft.
TV3’s political editor Duncan Garner described Mr Key as losing his shine through the debacle … and the historic-for-all-the-wrong-reasons impression of police taking orders from the Prime Minister then raiding Radio NZ and the Herald on Sunday offices and libelling, then persecuting a cameraman. (Oh, to be clear: it’s me, not Duncan after ‘debacle’ in that last sentence.)
Bill Clinton still has his shine.
Perhaps it will be the same for Mr Key.
One day.
Or not.
– P
UPDATE: Barack Obama’s ‘acceptance of the nomination’ speech was a knockout too. (But you’ll already know that if you care.)
Why Is There No Republican Bill Clinton?
http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/09/why-is-there-no-republican-bill-clinton.html
You have just highlighted your ridiculous bias again.
Your comparing the Teapot incident which was a result of an idiotic incompetent sound guy nothing to do with Key. Who then decided to release the source on his own.
No you think The PM’s attempts to get the private convo blocked. Just as any person with a streak of privacy in them would.
You then compare that to Clinton’s Impeachment. Peter I know that columnists post comments to get a reaction. Your not doing that
Your obviously an intelligent person far more than I. Facepalm.
Obama speech was a knockout because hes a great speaker. Go to church Obama where you can preach all you like.
Last time I checked great Presidents were remembered for what they do not what they say. Sorry he did do something he Won a Nobel Peace prize. ROFL.
I didn’t mention Clinton’s impeachment.
You do know he was acquitted, don’t you? And that the votes taken in the House & Senate were largely along partisan lines? In other words, it was a political stunt pushed by elements of the GOP.
Did Clinton commit perjury and obstruct ‘justice’? Yeah, probably. He certainly admitted to misleading people about his sexual conduct while in office, even his own wife.
But if you recall, Ken Starr’s
witch hunt‘investigations’ started out as looking into the alleged murder of Vince Foster, then alleged corruption around Whitewater real estate. Both came up dry (ha!) Starr ended up clutching the Monica Lewinsky ‘affair’ like a fevered prurient & partisan.Did Clinton act any more ‘corruptly’ than, say, this?:
http://www.thepaepae.com/read-this-and-tell-me-it-doesnt-remind-you-just-a-little-bit-of-john-keys-skycity-casinos-convention-centre-deal-for-extra-pokie-machines/25280/
You tell me. (I guess we’ll wait for the Auditor General’s report.)
As for your defence of my mild-as-milk criticism of Mr Key’s occasional blunders and ill-considered words, and his (in my view) clumsy over-involvement with the ‘Teapot tapes’ police investigation — regarded by many as a misstep — read NZ Herald veteran John Armstrong’s view at the time. His reasoning is expressed in more overt language than mine or Duncan Garner’s:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10766874
Craig, your comments here at thePaepae.com have lately descended into bitterly intolerant, angry bites — some of them offering us little coherency or value.
You’re welcome here, as always, but I wonder what you seek from your participation here?
– P
Even President Obama goofs in a speech now and then. John Key is in good company …
http://www.nbc12.com/story/19465690/president-obama-takes-on-many-topics-in-one-on-one-interview
But that said, I still think John Key’s unguarded remarks about the Waitangi Tribunal genuinely reflect what he thinks. (Call me cynical if you like.)
– P
Interesting question because I often wonder myself.
I think its because our interests seem to align scarily.
Technology, Property Investment, Politics, esp US politics, and the Media in General.
I can take both sides of an discussion/argument.
Every psychology/personality test I have participated in resulted in my type to be Middle of the Road. A “Mediator” if you will someone who is generally unBias (as a person can be) thinks realistically rationally.
As I have red this Blog more and more and having the viewpoint of being able to sit on the fence.
It pisses me off when you come from the same Bias positions every-time and CLAIM you are not doing it (if you did in fact not constantly claim you are being righteous and that you are fairly minded I would not react) For example your dislike for Cameron Slater is mirrored by yourself in so many ways just from the other side of the fence. sure he can go real low by slanging Abuse etc which is very not respectable (but does not make him any more wrong), but I am sorry that’s where the differences stop. You claim to have evidence with your link fodder when all you often do is reference other Blog entry’s of your own (which often I have a chuckle over) or someones else’s column/opinion.
I do apologize for the lack of coherency, I am a busy person and proof reading my entry’s does drop away sometimes. Sorry.
However lacking value. I make no apology for that. I feel your reaction there would be different if my views which I put across were from your angle or maybe one of your Cult member’s.
Value is always subjective and when viewpoints don’t meet with someones expectations the value to them may seem very cheap.
Sometimes they need to remove their heads from the sand on their side of the fence and check the view out from the other side.
I listen to this podcast often it may answer where a lot of my angst towards the Media comes from and views from US politics.
If you do listen, sure some of the topics are BS Adam is a huge conspiracy nut. I switch off there. However he was the first person to say in public Michael Jackson was likely Murdered, he wasn’t far off. But these 2 have NO agenda they come like me from a neutral standpoint and have worked in Media a Long time and they are on the ball more than most.
http://www.noagendashow.com
If you after a while think they are completely anti Obama. Believe me they gave Bush just the same scrutiny when he was in Power.
Thanks for your reply … and food for thought.
I’d be grateful if would point to where I make these [alleged] claims of unbiasedness, righteousness and fair-mindedness.
– P
Most powerful(at present) Nation on this planet … and governed by humans. Gee thats novel.
Until they get free of this slavish determination to never embrace anything of a socialist nature …they will keep repeating economic boom and bust cycles, starting wars they cant finish (unless the old world intervenes)and being victims of “Presidential Worship” … which is almost a cult.
Roosevelt had it off with another woman / Kennedy dipped his pen in any ink available (as long as it was blonde and had big tits) LBJ was probably in the pay of others and played a banjo and married a cousin somewhere in texas / Nixon had a mother fixation and a problem with a liking for corruption …. and while never president, J Edgar Hoover was a fruit in a suit who effectively ruled a nation via its law enforcement. And the list goes on.
Some of them cancelled out their failings by great acts of humanity. Others were just in it for the pussy (except J Edgar of course – he liked horses) and the power.
Do we ever have any serious doubts about the people we ‘elect’ to govern us. I know i do about John Key.
Craig says:
“It pisses me off when you come from the same Bias positions every-time and CLAIM you are not doing it (if you did in fact not constantly claim you are being righteous and that you are fairly minded I would not react.”
It is obvious to me that Peter is clearly pro the Democrats (see the consistent cheerleading for Mr Clinton or Mr Obama, and obvious support for the Labour Party in NZ). Peter doesn’t seem to like the Republicans such as Nixon or Romney much, or National politicians such as Mr Key, udging by his blogs.
To be fair, I don’t think that Peter attempts to disguise these views, or claim that he is not biased. He just thinks he is right, and links to various evidence. I think for Peter, it should be obvious to anyone that Mr Obama would make a better President than say Mr Romney, unless they are a reactionary racist type. Of course, I wouldn’t agree with this assessment…
Obviously, poormastery has pretty much the opposite views regarding both American and NZ politics than Peter’s views. He always seems to be pretty fair to me in terms of allowing alternative opinions to be posted here, so I am not really sure what your problem is with this?
Rgds,
*p*
Um, gee, thanks poormastery. May I comment?
With respect, I don’t think I’ve reached the pro-Labour position you infer — but I long ago copped to being a sickly white liberal.
Early exposure as a young reporter covering local body politics and observing the loathsome backstabbing, politicking and scramble for power demonstrated by politicians of the left and the right put me off partisanship.
I greatly respected Doug Graham and came to see Jim Bolger as a social democrat who, for electoral purposes, portrayed himself as a farmer when he was a professional politician — and a competent one despite the heckling.
The 1980s Rogernomics revolution showed us it’s not the label but what’s actually in the tin,
Criticising the government of the day and its machinations and machinists does not make me automatically (nor actually in my case) a supporter of the Opposition … and vice versa.
Call me wishy-washy if you like, but I ain’t in a political camp. Sorry.
On the US election, here’s one of my favourite right wing vixens …
Here’s how Louise Mensch sees the US election … an excerpt from her Times article … via http://www.theweek.co.uk/opinion/48889/louise-mensch-republicans-have-missed-their-chance-win
– P
“I’d be grateful if would point to where I make these [alleged] claims of unbiasedness, righteousness and fair-mindedness.”
“I don’t think I’ve reached the pro-Labour position you infer.”
And your not pro-National so that implies neutral unbiasedness standpoint? No?
“Call me wishy-washy if you like, but I ain’t in a political camp.”
So you say your not in a political camp. So logic would suggest if are not in a political camp you would treat all views with no unbiasedness and fair-mindedness as you have no reason to side either way.
Well, that’s making it easy for you Craig!
Not quite the same thing, in my view, but unless you feel motivated to ‘prove’ I claim to be a saint (which I don’t) … ’nuff said.
See you around the village. – P
Here’s another Louise Mensch article re the US presidential campaign
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/features/article4527034.ece
Het Poormastery, re your comment:
“I think for Peter, it should be obvious to anyone that Mr Obama would make a better President than say Mr Romney, unless they are a reactionary racist type. Of course, I wouldn’t agree with this assessment…”
Here’s some grist for the mill from (not your favourite propagandist) Michael Moore … Is he right to say that in the 2008 election Obama “lost every white age group except young people (18-29)”?
“President Romney” – How to Prevent Those Two Words From Ever Being Spoken [Huffington Post – a bastion of liberal media disinformation.)
Let’s say he’s right. What does that say to you? Anything? Nothing?
– P
Michael Moore now? Hmmm. It’s like a nightmare, getting worse and worse…
Has Mr Moore proved that “a good 40% of the [US population]” really are reactionary racists?
No, he hasn’t proved this at all. I am rather surprised that you are falling hook. line and sinker for this Michael Moore propaganda.
Correlation doesn’t prove causation.
Mr Obama is on the left side of American politics.
In statistically significant proportions, lower socio-economic groups tend to vote for the left. In statistically significant proportions, higher socio-economic groups tend to vote for the right.
White people are on average more affluent than non white in the US. White young people are poorer than older white people.
QED,
*p*
Disraeli’s “Lies, damn lies and statistics” seems apposite about now.
(Psst: I was kidding about MM. He’ll say anything. Like Andrew Breitbart, I don’t gobble up his, um, his … um, … his output.)
– P
Well what on earth do you “gobble up” or are you too busy crawling up Poormasterys anointed swiss arsehole?
Quoth he…
Ivan, my reference to Michael Moore was part of an earlier conversation b’twixt mahself and poormastery.
I know he doesn’t exactly venerate Mr Moore as a documentarian.
For my part, I appreciate his work and and his courage … and I regard him, as I said, as akin to Andrew Breitbart: a political propagandist and ‘culture warrior’ of the highest order.
But Moore, it seems to me, HATES less than Breitbart did. see: Poisonous Andrew Breitbart – the attack was everything, the details nothing. Maybe it’s just the presentation suits me better, or I appreciate Moore’s ability to tease out the ludicrous. Like Borat, in a different way.
Both, for slightly different reasons, suffer from Dan Gilmor’s ‘negative credibility’, where the SOURCE becomes a reason to further question the veracity of a claimed ‘fact’.
See: http://www.thepaepae.com/negative-credibility/17134/
– P
To the 3rd person Poormastery… which way do you vote … why do you think poor vote left … and rich vote right?
I’ve always seen Moore as on the side of goodness and truth. What side is poormastery on.
Wow Peter you are developing as quite the columnist by sparking debate.
Mr terrible,
Third person poormastery has voted three times.
I voted for Labour in 1990 and 1993 (they lost both elections), and for the Association of Crooks and Thieves (ACT) in 1996 (they lost). I haven’t voted anywhere since (I left NZ in 1996).
If I were voting in NZ now, it would grudgingly be for National.
Rgds,
*p*