ESPN does Obama better than MSNBC

I think what's interesting about the entire Obama Era (well the last year of it), is that D.C.—as always—missed the point. The TV heads and hacks on CNN, MSNBC, and Fox always seemed to talk about Obama and his politics and ideas or lack there of and so on and so forth. They see that Obama inspires people, but they can't tell us why.

But most of us, even us Policy Wonks, didn't really focus on Obama the politician. He always was BIGGER than social issues or health care or even—eventually—the economy. The Obama Era is a phenomena, not in a political sense, but rather in a cultural arena. Yet the Beltway types always missed this. The newspapers once in a while came close, but since Obama is an Arts feature that happens to be on the front page, they never nailed it.

News is constant and instantaneous in the 21st century, the need for information isn't as great—we don't have to watch the 5 o'clock news to see what happened during the day—we already know. But TV news hasn't changed, it continues to give us the same story over and over and over again until something new happens (TV news is, after all, completely reactionary; thus I personally find it boring). Newspapers have somewhat changed in that it gives us context of what happened and attempts to look to the future (because we already know what happened). But newspapers are stuck because they are being pulled between the Old Guard and it's 'what happened' and the newer guard attempting to look at what will be.

The media talk of Obama only as a politician, what he did and what he hopes to. This is necessary, but it also misses what people in bars and on the bus are talking about. Obama has transcended the political realm... as I said, he's an arts feature that happens to be front page news every day. And in all that I've read, all that I've heard, all that I've watched... the best conversation or piece on Obama and what he is and means just happens to be on ESPN.com.

Crazy I know, but the conversation between Bill Simmons and J.A. Adande about Obama is fantastic. They capture what he means to the general public, not some 'pretend to know it all' hack on TV inside the Beltway. Those types are treating Obama like they treated Clinton—but that's the wrong way of looking, studying, and reporting on Obama.

Anyway, here is the conversation/podcast, they kick off talking about the NBA but about 20 or 25 mins in they switch to Obama and it's fantastic (the podcast is on the right hand side of the page, download or play from there).

Palin and Newspaper editorials

No Con Con talk here... just a few articles that I thought I'd pass along.

Newspapers and policy go hand in hand, mainly because it's historically been the easiest place to start to make a case for a policy. Editorial and Op-Ed pages are filled with policy ideas every day. Therefore, I check out a lot of opinion pages every day.

And in this process I couldn't help but notice the number of newspapers endorsing Obama. But what's truly shocking is that most of these editorials read the same: 'Obama is thoughtful, introspective, and pragmatic. While we liked John McCain, but he's has run as the guy we liked, and nothing proves that more than his decision to take Sarah Palin. And we really don't like Sarah Palin'. In fact, the Chicago Tribune who had never endorsed a Democrat for President choose Obama—in what my opinion was the best written endorsement—in part because of the Palin pick. But for a look at a lot of other papers, I turn it over to the Reader here in Chicago:

Alaska’s largest newspaper, of course, also endorsed the Obama-Biden ticket. “Despite her formidable gifts,” said the Anchorage Daily News of the state’s own Sarah Palin, “few who have worked closely with the governor would argue she is truly ready to assume command of the most important, powerful nation on earth. To step in and juggle the demands of an economic meltdown, two deadly wars and a deteriorating climate crisis would stretch the governor beyond her range.”

Palin was a godsend to editorial writers penning Obama endorsements for Republican papers. The Courant: “Most worrisome, however, is Mr. McCain’s choice of a running mate . . . who is not yet ready for prime time.” The Record: “[McCain’s] selection of Palin as a running mate was appalling.” The Eagle: “She is a candidate of little intellectual curiosity who appears to be hopelessly unready to be president.” The News-Register: “What could McCain have been thinking . . . ?”

Without Palin, some historically Republican editorial pages might have struggled to find words to reject McCain that their readers would accept, and perhaps even endorsed him against their better judgment. But now they can make the argument they believe in, knowing they’ve got Palin to nail it down. She signs, seals, and delivers the case for dumping the GOP. She’s the closer.

Ouch. From a political stand point, assuming that McCain does lose tomorrow, it will be interesting to see how the Palin pick goes down in history. Was it increditably stupid? Short sighted? Obviously transparent? Did it cost him the electin? Or did the Fall 2008 Credit Crisis hurt McCain more than Palin?

No matter what, it should be a fun topic of discussion for years to come at cocktail parties.

Oh, and check out the differences between the Guardian and Economist endorsements of Obama. Oh wait, there isn't one. Weird.