political news

New Yorkers crowd White House field
By LARRY McSHANE
Associated Press Writer

NEW YORK - New Yorkers: They're smug, egotistical, and already think they run the country (if not the world). So what's the rest of the nation to do now that three of 'em are mentioned as White House hopefuls, ready to swap Penn Station for Pennsylvania Avenue?

Cringe? Clap? Or just consider somebody else?
...
The specter of an all-New York November 2008 was raised when Bloomberg, a titular Republican since his 2001 mayoral run, announced last week that he was quitting the GOP to become an independent. His predecessor, Giuliani, is running for the Republican nomination for president, while second-term New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is among the Democratic hopefuls.

While New Yorkers are all too aware of the differences between the Big Apple's big three, folks beyond the Hudson River were not as certain.

"I think basically they are the same candidate," said Bob House, a Republican from Des Moines, Iowa. "We all love New York. But when our options are New York, New York, New York, I think people want to see a different life experience."

These kinds of news stories always bother me. They encourage thinking about something rather important in superficial, largely fabricated terms. I mean, why not write an article on how many of them prefer tennis to football?

The crux of my irritation is that the mainstream news coverage tends to set the tone and topics for the national discourse. It's not that this kind of reporting encourages what could be strictly defined as ignorance. There is information being conveyed. The mainstream media habitually focus on irrelevant details to the exclusion of reporting on relevant issues, but these outlets do convey information to the public - information which includes such hard hitting facts as knowing where each candidate lives, what the candidates' spouses' names are, how many children each has, and what the candidate's favorite sandwich is.

Strictly speaking, I suppose someone with a head full of this sort of detail is debatably (at best) "ignorant". However, I feel very comfortable applying the term "fucking moron" to a person if these superfluous bits of fluff and stuff are all he knows and (crucially) all he cares to know about the candidates and the upcoming presidential race.

For the sake of argument, let's entertain the subject of this article, briefly. Consider Senator Clinton - a "New Yorker" according to this story. She didn't live in New York until she was running for office. Before that, she lived in D.C. for the two terms of her husband's presidency, and before that she lived in Arkansas for something like 17 years. She was born and raised in Illinois, went to school in MA and CT. So how the hell does a couple of years living in Chappaqua make her a New Yorker? It doesn't. Dubbing her such reflects a desire to group candidates based on one superficial, personal aspect of the candidates.

This grouping and the story about it has got fuck all to do with any substantive similarities or differences between these candidates. Further, the subtext of this article reinforces some truly moronic (and ignorant) views of New York - that NYC is the same as NY. NY is essentially two different states - economically and culturally speaking. You don't believe me, go visit places like Elmira and Candor NY, then go to NYC.

I'm gonna get preachy for a second here. If you want to research the potential presidential candidates, look for older news stories about them - from before they were considering running for president (or in Clinton's case, before Bill was running for president). If they've held public office (and they almost invariably have) look up their voting records, their campaign donations, and summaries or texts of speeches they made before they started a national campaign. Also, consider putting a little of your attention on the other races where your vote really is a vote. The press pushes the presidential race like it pushes the olympics. It's a fucking dog and pony show, barely better than a season of American Idol. It's certainly important, but not so much so that we should only know about this race. If ever you are in doubt regarding the possibility of other branches of government making newsworthy fireworks to rival any presidential campaign, recall that the Senate shares responsibility for staffing some of our courts (take Supreme Court nominees Rehnquist, Thomas, Alito, Scalia, please). The exclusive and silly focus on the presidential race and office has helped to create an uncomfortable consolidation of executive power, and that has gotten us nothing but trouble.