Comments: I am SO in love

I love Sorkin, sure, but neither him nor Dowd are actually giving Obama credit for doing pretty much precisely what Bartlett supposedly did: running an idea-driven, responsible campaign against sound-biters and guttersnipers. What Sorkin never really addressed was the role of the press, which he more or less lionized, except when he beat up on tabloidization now and then. And Sorkin's fictional president had a huge advantage: Sorkin wrote the Republican response, too, without a Rove or Cheney.

Posted by Ahistoricality at September 21, 2008 08:25 PM

#1 - Yes, Sorkin wrote the Repuplican response. And as a result, his fictional Democrats were facing Republicans who sounded smarter and a lot more principled than the ones I see on the news every night.

#2 - And while Obama is mostly running the right kind of campaign, I have to say that I've seen more than one example of that "situational honesty" I mentioned in the comments in the post below. Not lies, just--spin.

This leaves him to accusations of "lying" not only from the wingnuts, but from a media scrambling frantically to find misstatements of any kind to use to "balance" the reporting of the McCain campaign's increasingly ridiculous lies.*

#3 Yes, the media Sorkin feared to describe is a real force in campaigns. What they choose to cover or ignore (Bush's history during his first campaign) can make or break a candidate. No candidate can "get his message out" to the majority of the voting population without newspapers and television news. That's not what TWW was about, so it got ignored. I know that.


* Spin can be just a matter of adding context to a statment, so I'm not saying it's a bad or an evil thing. But if you're facing a hostile audience, you have to be careful.

Also? I'm okay with the media calling everyone on saying things that aren't true.

Posted by Anne at September 22, 2008 08:45 AM