By Jerry Lanson
Quick: Which of these two is true?
One: Sen. Barack Obama’s victory in South Carolina was one more marker of a sharp generational divide in the Democratic Party this presidential primary season, with Obama consistently swamping Sen. Hillary Clinton among 18- to 30-year-olds and Clinton consistently outpolling Obama among the AARP set.
Two: Sen. Barack Obama was swept to victory in South Carolina on the backs of black pride, taking four of five African-American votes in a state in which half the Democratic voters are black.
The answer, of course, is that both are true. But which one the news media chooses to emphasize could in the end play a significant role in determining who wins the Democratic nomination this year. The race is that close.
That’s right: The press, long a kingmaker and not merely a bystander in presidential politics, has a particularly sensitive and influential role in this election in how it interprets the numbers and to what extent it reports rather than merely echoing campaign spin.
Fascinating stuff. So let me weigh in early in an effort to influence that decision: Barack Obama’s strong victory among young voters is not a one-time phenomenon. It happened in Iowa. It happened in New Hampshire. It happened in South Carolina. And like it or not, despite the best efforts of the Billary Clinton campaign to churn the issue, race wasn’t even a factor in those first two largely white states. Or, as James Carville might say (were he not backing the Clintons), “It’s the generational divide, stupid.”
First, some context. That the media does more than “report the news” in presidential politics is not news. That became clear again when the Project for Excellence in Journalism reported that Clinton (first) and Obama (a close second) had each received roughly five times the press coverage of former Sen. John Edwards during the week of Jan. 14 to 20.
Given that Edwards lagged behind the other two in voting in the first two contests (though he barely edged Clinton in the Iowa caucuses), one could ask, “What came first, his poor showing or the poor coverage?” But most of this survey was taken before Edwards disastrous showing in Nevada. And he most assuredly received far more than one-fifth the vote of either Obama or Clinton in Iowa and New Hampshire combined. So I would say the press wrote him off early – perhaps hastening his departure from the race.
I don’t believe this was out of malice or a plot to kill a populist’s campaign. The news media merely love a good story, and Edwards, the third wheel, got in the way of the first serious woman presidential candidate and the first serious African American presidential candidate going head-to-head.
But right now this country needs more than compelling narrative, more than a proliferation of political blogs and journals with headlines such as, “Is America Ready for a Woman or an African-American first?”
Besides, there is a better and more honest story line here. This is a campaign between the past and the future, between an earnest warning that Americans need experience (35 years worth “from Day 1”) and a call for change and hope and government that can cut across party division. It is a campaign between managed, tough, pragmatic government and the poetry of promise, the rhetoric of common good.