Professional Pundits are so Out of Touch and Clueless

[illinoisprogressive]

I was watching cspan and they had on Bob Shrum. no fan of his but, he did say something that caused me to pause and think that the so called beltway pundits are the most clueless bunch.
he said that the pundits complained about Barack obama on the debate last night because he would not take cheap shots at Hillary. he zinged back at Edwards when Edwards tried to score some points but, it is not Obama's personality or style to take shots.
And just because Hillary was the front runner and made some mistakes on the war, he was not going to take a shot for the sake of it.
So, the pundits thought he missed his opportunity and blah blah.
I would think if you report on candidates you'd at least take the time to learn alittle about how they operate.
the dems are trying not to take shots. Edwards probably needed to for some needed press time since they usually ignore him. unfairly.
I think the pundits are just silly. It is not 2003 and crossfire mentality. The country has moved past the one upsmanship thinking of cheap politics.
any way, just found it interesting and kinda childish. Makes me laugh.

[earthlover]

1. Most pundits were clueless in 04, 00, etc....

They will continue their cluelessness in 08, as a whole I am afraid.

Yet they are listened to, and this gives them their clout more than the qualities of their ideas. So maybe we should just ignore them? Paying attention to them is the only reason they exist.

I have this dream of a great debate, the people watch it and decide for themselves what they liked. Without ANY commentary from the pundits telling us what we heard through their viewpoint.

[Egnever]

2. I am quite shocked really

At what is passing for political pundits these days. Many here on DU do a much better job with far n more honesty. The fact that CNN is recycling almost the same crew from last time around really bothered me. Candy crawly? Carvil? Dona brazil?

Come on theres a lot of talent out there get some thinkers on there.

[RethugAssKicker]

3. Professional ?.... They're all out of touch !!

As for Obama.... He's trying to be Hilarys choice for VP.

[gratuitous]

4. Childish is just it

Politics is their vocation, their hobby and their toy. It doesn't matter what happens as long as it entertains them. Think of the popular clique in high school; the people who could make others' lives as fun or (more likely) as miserable as they wanted. Some kid could be reduced to a sniveling, sobbing heap, and the only reaction from the popular crowd would be high fives about his humiliation.

The same goes for the professional punditry. The real world results of what happens are far less important (if thought about at all) than whether or not they had a good time. Check out Bob Somerby's The Daily Howler; the reporters dismantled Al Gore and dwelled on such trivia as earth tones and living at the Mayfair Hotel not because it mattered in any real world sense, but because it was fun to do. Endlessly carping about whether Gore went to a hurricane site with the Director or Deputy Director of some federal alphabet agency was more important (as measured by how much time was spent reporting) than the consequences to actual voters of the various policy proposals.

As long as the pundits are entertained, they don't give a rip about policy or all that wonky stuff. Whether Obama has the opportunity to rip on another candidate is less important than that he does rip on another candidate, fairly or unfairly. The pundits, of course, reserve solely to themselves the role of detemining "fairness," but they have to have the show first. For Obama to pass on a chance to rip Clinton deprives them of the spectacle, and therefore they will, in their inscrutable wisdom, blame both Obama for not taking the cheap shot and Clinton for not receiving the cheap shot.