Here is what the New York Times editorial page said yesterday, in a piece titled "Running for Dollars," regarding the $129 million raised thus far in the 2008 presidential race:
[This race] is setting a new low with a ludicrously premature handicapping
of the race based on the ability to raise cash. It is 19 months before
the election, and the quarterly fund-raising data were treated this
week like the dawning of poll results from Dixville Notch, N.H.
Meanwhile, on the
same day, the front page headline
reads:
Obama Shows His Strength in a Fund-Raising Feat on Par With Clinton
So the editorial page bemoans "handicapping of the race based on the ability to raise cash" while the front page, um, handicaps the race based on the ability to raise cash.
It doesn't take an editor-in-chief to see the hypocrisy here. And it's no wonder that the public--and, apparently, editorial writers--grow increasingly tired with the length, nature, and cost of campaigns.
Lest you think it's just one paper, here's the Washington Post editorial yesterday:
But a more important question is whether it's possible to fix this mess... a
system in which candidates without the ability to raise enormous sums
never get a chance to have their messages heard; in which candidates
are increasingly beholden to well-connected financiers; and in which
the quest for cash crowds out campaigning. In short, it is the current
system, unpleasant for candidates and unhealthy for democracy.
An eloquent and important point: A system "unhealthy for democracy" and in which the lesser candidates "never get a chance to have their messages heard."
Well, let's flip back to the
front page above-the-fold headline on that same day:
Obama's Campaign Takes In $25 Million
He Nearly Matches Clinton, With Twice as Many Donors
Bravo. Your editorial page laments the focus on fundraising, the horse-race overwhelming both the dialogue on issues and the voice of the lesser candidates, while your front page screams "Horse Race! Obama vs Clinton! Who Can Raise the Most?!"
One way to avoid this would be to run front-page stories such as, "Where each candidate stands on
health care" or "How the candidates spend their time on the
campaign trail." But apparently we can't count on the New York Times or Washington Post for that sort of coverage.
