Print This Post
Feb
12
This run-down of how the candidates performed in their Plain Dealer editorial endorsements by political reporter Mark Naymik backs up the idea that people who might risk supporting Hillary Clinton also risk looking like the party-pooper who asks partying neighbors to be quiet, as I referenced last night in this post that highlights the perspectives of political consultant Morra Aarons.
Naymik writes:
No endorsement is based on the interview alone. Editors are already familiar with candidates’ positions and have an idea of whom they like. They just want a glimpse of the person behind the policy. They are not looking to share a beer with a candidate, but they like to be offered one.
Really? What if the candidate is someone who has triumphed over alcoholism and has to work to stay sober, like, say, George Bush?
Anyway – this attitude about liking candidates who offer beer could not resonate more with me. During a job I had many years ago, I discovered that someone junior to me had wrangled a pay raise. I was irate. There was no question, based on numerous other measures, that I churned out the work and met or exceeded expectations and was more credentialed.
So, having an excellent relationship with the head dude at the place, I went in to have a chat. What was this all about? This is just plain wrong.
And you know what he asked me (general memory):
“Do you ever go out to lunch with her [the supervisor]?”
“Not so much.”
“Well, you need to spend more lunch hours with her buying shoes.”
You are effing kidding me, right? is what I thought then and I have continued to think after all these years. It’s also what I told the head dude.
We won’t go to the place where I talk about how superficial I thought that activity was or the people who engaged in it.
The reality was that I had a young child and was pregnant with my second. When I came to work, I worked. I had to make every hour count because I needed to spend my lunch hour time going to get my child from preschool and I had to leave on time at the end of the day to relieve the sitter. The other employee was newly married with no children. I had neither the wiggle time nor the discretionary income to go to lunch or buy shoes at the mall.
And to be penalized for it, when there was no relation to the work I produced, was and is insulting.
Expecting people to be human, to be more than an ambitious projectile trying to hit every mark with little time for stopping and schmoozing along the way is not unreasonable.
But the constant parade of excuses as to why Hillary Clinton isn’t human is ridiculous.
She shed a tear? It’s fake. She treats a telephonic endorsement interview like an oral exam? She’s a smarty pants.
When Mark Naymik suggests that the kind of glimpse behind a person that is preferable to one in which you hear how much someone wants something and how hard they’ve been working to get it is to be offered a beer, excuse me while I say, you have got to be effing kidding me. We are talking about the president of the United States, not the president of the fraternity or sorority. That is just plain shallow.
If you prefer Obama, then you prefer Obama. People accept that -why all this mincing of Clinton? I think thou doth protest too much. As do a lot bloggers in particular, ad nauseum.
Two final points:
1. Now I understand how it is that the PD could endorse George Bush, since the “nobody likes a smarty-pants” measure means so much to them.
2. While you’re talking about listening to the message of the voters, how about realizing that the assertion that nobody likes a smarty-pants reinforces the often-voiced concern of voters that Obama may be no more than a vision of change?
Note to self should I ever run for anything and need to sit for a PD endorsement interview: Take Susan Goldberg out for lunch and shoe shopping first, bring a six-pack with me and leave my brain at home.
By Jill Miller Zimon at 8:31 am February 12th, 2008 in Barack Obama, Campaigning, Elections, Hillary Clinton, Media, Ohio, Politics
Comments
14 Responses to “Naymik: Clinton lost PD endorsement because “nobody likes a smarty-pants””
Leave a Reply
2010 WE Magazine 101 Women Bloggers to Watch
Category Specific RSS
Pepper Pike Cleveland+ Politics Women Ohio Elections Law Jewish
by Tips and TricksNews Now
…or take them out to lunch, buy them a beer, AND engage your brain. They’re not mutually exclusive. Joe and I do it all the time.
WLST says: What if the candidate is someone who has triumphed over alcoholism and has to work to stay sober, like, say, George Bush?
Really? Bush is a dry drunk who turned to religion instead of seeking real help.
Eric – I agree with you – but that’s not what Naymik wrote. He’s just being very sophomoric.
Jimmy – My understanding is that George Bush continues to drink alcohol but in moderation.
Jill:
On point 1 you made me laugh – how true that is.
I just wrote a comment on Connie Schultz’s article in this morning’s PD on my blog. Its a bit brutal but I have to be consistent. There was a time in my life where, if I had been you in the situation you described, I would have been beyond rage at the unfairness of it all.
And it IS unfair. Really it is and I understand being mad about it. But in the end, as I wrote in my post, you have to come from the perspective that you are going to have to be shrewd and cunning and play the game when necessary to get what you want.
When I didn’t play the game, I lost careers in both radio and print journalism. Looking back on it now, its hard for me to say that I regret what I did. But in retrospect, I think I might have moderated my speech and actions a little bit. Who knows, I may have had a syndicated radio show now that so much of the electorate has come around to my way of thinking.
I did learn one thing from all of this – it was helpful to illustrate to my young son the way the world really works. Daddy took a strong stand and paid the price – someday you’ll probably find yourself in a similar situation and you’ll have to make your own decisions about what hill you want to die on.
On this subject, Naymik did make it sound like the PD made their decision based on superficialities. I don’t have a lot of respect for the PD editorial board anyway, so none of this nyahh-nyahh stuff in his column is the least bit surprising. But I think I hear you saying that the PD should have chosen the candidate who is putting forth the best policy platform for the country. And instead, they chose the candidate who seemed to articulate the best vision in a manner that made them ‘feel good’ about the candidate. In that way, they behaved like the American electorate.
This is why I think Obama has been a brilliant politician and I do not expect him to fail at this.
As for newspaper endorsements, well, in this case I believe the PD made themselves look silly, which is par for the course. John McCain seemed to have little time to humor them which says a lot about the respect, at least the right, has for newspaper endorsement. I think print endorsements make much of a difference anymore. Most people hardly pay attention to newspaper views anymore anyway, sad to say. Get a celebrity endorsement and it will have longer legs and more reach.
I’m beginning to think I may have missed my calling as a political consultant.
It’s not too late, Keith. You have a blog, after all.
Thanks – very good observations – I agree.
Glad to see others were put off at that article as I was.
God bless you, Eugmc.
Seriously. I keep thinking Mark can do so much better. But maybe either he can’t or he just doesn’t want to because, well, he actually believes that you choose candidates who want beer over candidates who want beef.
I choked on my coffee while reading his column this morning. It was pretty lame. But then again, so was the endorsement of Obama. Compared to what’s being written by other editorial boards, the PD’s was just more of the same — lame.
Coming from someone whom I know is very supportive of Obama, that means a lot. If people want to read some wonderful posts about how Obama’s candidacy has impacted Wendy, start here.
[...] Naymik: Clinton lost PD endorsement because “nobody likes a smarty-pants” | Writes Like … [...]
[...] talking Hillary Clinton, we know you aren’t there because you like her because remember – nobody likes a smarty-pants and she won’t be offering you beer. Why else would you go to a high school auditorium on a Friday night in cold [...]
[...] I took issue with Mark Naymik’s beer v. smarty pants metric back in February. Maybe if I frequented bars more often I’d get it? [...]
[...] lambasted Mark Naymik’s Who Offers You A Beer litmus test for the Plain Dealer editorial board’s nod when it was choosing between Hillary Clinton and [...]