Liberal New York Times columnist Bob Herbert is probably a fine man, but he's the latest Washington pundit to fall for this shtick (or else he's in on the con). On Sunday, Herbert published a piece headlined "Campaign Candor," praising the honesty and policy substance of Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards. Now, I supported Edwards over John Kerry in the 2004 primary, and I feel just awful about the cancer of his wife, Elizabeth (by all accounts an amazing woman), but these days the guy spends more time telling people how honest he is than actually being honest. "I just find it easier to be more candid now," this candid man candidly told the Times last month, even though he wasn't being candid (login info). Earlier, when asked by Nantucket millionaire Tim Russert whether Hillary Clinton was being "open and honest" herself, Edwards replied, "I don't know the answer to that question. Honestly. I don't know what's inside her head and her heart about this. I can't tell whether there are political calculations going on. I just don't know." Hey, did he mention he was being honest? Now that's honesty!
Just as Herbert mistakes an Edwards talking point about candor for the real deal, he also gets tripped up by the Edwards campaign's emphasis on its own supposed policy substance. Yeah, Edwards is the only candidate thus far to detail the specifics of his health care policy, standing up (laudably) for universal coverage. However, announcing this plan was likely at least in part a political tactic. There's no reason presidential candidates should have to go into such detail on health care nearly two years ahead of an election; indeed, liberal blogger Matthew Yglesias has even argued that vague rhetoric is probably better in a general election, citing the example of Bill Clinton, who used just that. Americans tend to support universal health care in theory, but they tend to oppose specific proposals. However, by making his own proposal so early, Edwards has been able to use the issue as a political cudgel against fellow Democrats. "They've probably got a bridge they want to sell you, too," he said (no doubt honestly) about his rivals at last weekend's health care forum, calling for, hey, more specifics. (In reality, Barack Obama has pledged to back universal health care, as well.) But you know Herbert: Edwards "has, in fact, put together what is probably the most coherent plan for universal coverage of all the candidates thus far," he enthuses.
Ppl find poop in their stairwells here guys srsly.
In the music crit vacuum, one continues to come across artists all too glad to vouch for their own authenticity. Rappers seem especially prone to this, ostensibly because the illusion of authenticity is exactly what their audience, suburban or street, likes to think it's buying. "This is reality rap/ I really go through it," rapper Prodigy of Mobb Deep assures us on his forthcoming Return of the Mac, which is actually a pretty awesome album-- but if he's so hard, why does he have to keep reminding us? A couple of tracks later: N-word, N-word, N-word, "I rap what I live." Like just in case you're wondering, man, Prodigy has a gun, definitely isn't white, and is totally going to shoot somebody. Um, you better watch out. OK? Then there's Young Jeezy, who I'm told kept making noises about keeping shit real at a listening session for last December's The Inspiration (Pitchfork review), a pop album that only sounds better as other guys not named Lil' Wayne keep killing rap (the one-two-three of "I Luv It," "Go Getta" and "3 A.M." still just towers). Pretty soon, if you haven't already, you'll probably hear "White Girl," Jeezy's new single featuring USDA, from the forthcoming Young Jeezy Presents USDA Cold Summer. Apparently the title is slang for coke. "I wanted to do it mixtape-style 'cause I wanted it to be something for the streets," Jeezy recently told MTV News. "It's a street album, just raw." MTV News is totally street.
These nice young go-getters are so gonna go get 'er DO YOU SEE???
All of which leads us, naturally, to the junior senator from New York. Two things here: No, she's not my preferred candidate, but at the same time most of the dirt against her is overblown. The New Republic's recent feature (subscription req'd) purports to look at "the real reason she won't apologize," and most talking heads act as if there's a whole bunch of uncertainty about her position on the war, but there's not. As early as 2004, again with Jack Welch neighbor Russert (who sells books touting his blue-collar Buffalo roots), Clinton said, "If we had known then what we know now, there wouldn't have been a vote." If anyone should apologize here, it's the pundits and rival candidates complaining about what she hasn't said without acknowledging what she has said previously. Meanwhile, a recent New York Times Magazine piece breaks down her body language (Can reporters mind-read? One nod for "disbelieving," two nods for "empathetic"). Its language oozes fakeness-- Clinton "shapes" her image, she's "trying hard," she's got an operating "conceit," she's giving us her latest "unveiling"-- much like the "reinvention" media buzz surrounding Al Gore's every wardrobe decision. Such trivialities govern our discourse when it comes to leading Dems, particularly those associated with big blow-job Bill (think of the children!). John McCain has taken new stands on a wide range of issues, but he's still typically described as an honest, admirable, maverick hero. And a Straight Talker-- honestly!
And yet, and yet... Well, Clinton ain't easy. According to current polls, she's the front runner, so the benefit of the doubt is piled high in her favor; no longer is she required to prove why she's the best candidate, but rather, her detractors must be able to show why someone else is better. Apparently. (Good a time as any: Pilooski's "Nobody But Me" edit from a few months ago is still great.) In an article in the American Prospect, Garance Franke-Ruta recently suggested (and her colleague Ezra Klein spelled out) the argument that men who don't support Hillary Clinton are probably sexist. Again, all due respect all around, but: DUBYA TEE EFF???!!! I would passionately support Clinton against a Republican, whether poll leader Rudy Giuliani (less progressive than you think) or anyone else, but I find her willingness to seize upon baldly pandering conservative notions (flag burning amendments, cracking down on sex/violence in entertainment) and the simple political fact that she's more moderate than is required to win in this environment, yet perceived as more liberal, both to be compelling reasons to support another potential nominee-- specifically Barack Obama (or possibly, um, that dude from New Mexico with all the experience and the alleged woman problem). Just because a bunch of people (or a bunch of donors, who are like people, only wealthier) say Clinton's great doesn't mean I have to fall in line. A bunch of people in Iowa didn't even like John Kerry, but voted for him because they thought he was "electable." (Yglesias, from whom I probably stole some of these ideas, has more.)
Photo: Attila HardyA more troubling trend these days than artists packaged as "authentic" are those whose music is suffused with its own importance. I already ranted at great length about the new Arcade Fire album; these unfun Dexy's lookalikes are hardly the first rock 'n' roll artists since the discovery of reverb to seem more significant (and require more obeisance) than they actually deserve. In recent years, even rappers have bought into this false glamour, Sean Fennessey writes for Vibe. 50 Cent and Timbaland have paid undeserved homage to Coldplay, he points out, and I seem to remember lots of cool dudes saying nice things about my boy John Mayer (aww, that's him above). Mr. Cent even borrowed a hook from Mr. Paltrow. In addition, Young Buck has turned to "Lose Yourself"-esque rock agression for the finale to his new album (a track Sean streams). Dudes, rock doesn't inherently matter. The future of our democracy does.
Unless the rock in question is by Daughtry, who's totally a band not a singer/songwriter even though his band is named after just him and in fact the album was recorded with session musicians not the touring band. IT'S NOT OVER! *swoon*
P.S. Eric Harvey has an essay at Pitchfork on Rear Window an' stuff.
UPDATE: Note to the Baltimore Sun: I love Christian music when it doesn't suck. Whoops! Also, do your research.
