This morning on Canada A.M. (the clever name for Canada's morning news/features show), they interviewed a political analyst about last night's New Hampshire primaries. (That's a chipmunk eating out of my sister's hand--a photo from a summer up here about 20 years ago.)
Note to CTV and Canada A.M. staff: get a better analyst. This guy, whose name I do remember but don't want to say aloud because I don't want to promote him in any way, said some pretty strange things. (I'm setting aside the fact that he sat with one shoulder forward like a sportscaster, gesticulated a lot, and had oddly big hair.)
For one thing, he said that Jesse Jackson had been the first African-American candidate with a real shot at the White House. Not true. Maybe it looked like it from where this guy was sitting. Maybe it should have been true. But it was never true. The fact that Jackson lasted any time at all in the race was ground-breaking. Then he became something of a kingmaker--that was amazing. Jackson's Rainbow Coalition represented wonderful things and was a real force in politics for several years twenty years ago. All true. Just not the "real shot at the White House" part.
This analyst also said that the Republican race is "just like the Democratic race." That's my head-scratcher for the day. Yes, in both races, people are running for their party's nomination for President of the U.S. And there, my friends, the similarities end.
The Republican race pits the fiscal conservative/war hero stereotype against the Christian coalition social conservative stereotype. The spoiler is a guy named after sports equipment who might win just because he's trying to position himself as an religious-yet-not-scary fiscal conservative, a real plastic compromise candidate. The race pretty fairly represents the largest policy factions within the Republican party.
The Democratic race is about emotion, the "vision thing," the "leadership thing." Senator Clinton had the opportunity to try to shift the race to her strengths--policies and track record--on Sunday. That would make it look somewhat more like the Republican race. She was right that change doesn't come from talking but from hammering out policies and legislation. Whether you agree or disagree (as I do) with her decisions, fact remains: she's got more of them on the record than Senator Obama. What are Senator Obama's long-term key policy issues, other than Change? How are they different from Senator Clinton's or former Senator Edwards's?
In the Democratic race, the correct answer is "Who cares?" Senator Obama is fighting this race on "Bushes and Clintons since 1988; how many more years?" and he's gaining ground. This race isn't about policies. It's about who "feels" the most Presidential.
And a side note to all of those clamoring for Change, for an Outsider President who's not beholden to insider interest groups. If elected, this person will have to govern with all those disdained insiders. Any "Change" legislation has to get through the House and Senate. Sure, they lay down for Bush and his political machine, but the terrorist attack made them afraid. Circumstances are different now. They may see a new President as a chance to develop that spine they've been searching for since 2001.
But about the coverage: I'm not impressed with Canada A.M.'s morning today (though to be fair, I wasn't watching during the early "more serious news" hour). At this point in the race, why not just get spots with campaign staffers? You'd be getting the spin straight from the camp that way. And if you can't get time from the campaigns, because this is Canada, after all, and Canadians don't get to vote in primaries--well, then, maybe covering Canadian politics (what's that Harper guy up to these days?) or even economic news would be an option.
