The Hollywood Debate
By Brian Lambert
Can we agree, once and for all, that Wolf Blitzer is a putz? And a stupendously overexposed one at that? Even accepting that every cable news "personality" is paid for their most cartoonish qualities and that none of them, even Keith Olbermann who I generally enjoy, hold up that well on regular nightly viewing, Blitzer is something else—something less. Does the guy understand the concepts of humor and irony?
(On Olbermann—Keith, baby, we know you're a damn smart and clever fellow. But try boiling your questions down to one or no more than two sentences. Those blank stares and long pauses you get from guys such as David Gregory and Michael Wolff? It's because they don't know what in the hell you just asked them.)
God knows every cable news "host" is overexposed, but CNN has the lights on Anderson Cooper and Blitzer so often, both are starting to look parboiled. Somebody needs a deeper bench. It'd be different if either gentlemen were uniquely gifted in some way—a deeply-versed student of foreign affairs, a fluid and gracious moderator, a uniquely curious intellect—but neither ever seems capable of pursuing anything but the most thuddingly obvious line of questioning and, in Blitzer's case, playing the clumsiest of gotcha games. In front of a big Hollywood crowd last night, a gang that knows a few things about playing your audience, timing, and tone, it was not surprising that the biggest reaction was the loud booing Blitzer got for trying to get Hillary to cop to being "naive" about her Iraq War resolution vote. Smooth move, dude.
Last night's well-behaved love fest between Obama and Clinton—(Is this that third phase of the classic Hollywood romance? You know, boy meets girl, boy loses girl, boy gets girl back?)—undoubtably drew a large audience, one that had to have CNN smacking its lips in anticipation of boffo ratings. But really, was it necessary to pepper the screen with all those cutaways of Stevie Wonder, Steven Spielberg, Rob Reiner, and George Costanza? I mean, why not a remote of Britney Spears from her hospital bed?
Somewhere, some Democratic strategist was groaning about how this was playing with the "What's the Matter with Kansas?" crowd who already thinks Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie dictate policy to the Democratic National Committee. It was Hollywood, we get it. Tickets were reportedly going for $1,000 a pop—proceeds to some homeless shelter, I'd like to hear. Could it ever be possible for CNN not to overplay the celebrity card?
We all know the answer to that question. Cable news can't resist any grab for the glamour of a movie star in the audience any more than it can modulate its frenzied hyperbole over what rational adults regard as nothing more than garden variety campaigning. Like last week. What I saw was nothing much at all like the "bruising," "bitter," "nasty," "warfare" that the cable kids would have us believe had broken out between the Clinton and Obama camps. To listen to Blitzer in his nightly Situation Room (the image of Wolf Blitzer guiding crisis strategy from an undisclosed location is laughable), last week's "out of control" Bill Clinton-ignited apocalypse was second only to the Russians opening up on the Germans from the Seelow Heights. Does this guy remember Lee Atwater?
Confronted with cable news' aggressive-to-hyperbolic marketing of these "themes of the day" (whatever it takes to goose that night's show and hold the eyeballs), I always see an irony. Blitzer and Cooper and Chris Matthews and Olbermann over at MSNBC are supposedly pandering to an obsessional interest in politics on the part of their junkie viewers. Yet at the same time, they cover this stuff with such farcically hyped and overreaching "analysis," they undermine their own credibility as "learned" and "experienced" in the ways of the political game.
Finally, I thought Obama—who, let's face it, has now fully acquired the ineffable quality of "A Cool Guy," something that millions aspire to and can't be faked—soft-pedaled what could have been a straight and fair shot at the fringe of the movie industry when he slipped into inoffensive gobbledygook on the topic of Hollywood's responsibility to the broader culture. He did make brief reference to slasher movies. But he could/should have been far more pointed (those credulous Kansans would have liked to hear it). The celebrities in the Kodak Theater are hardly the problem, and the real sleaze merchants most likely weren't watching. The guys cranking out Saw 12 ... this time with real decapitations! don't hang out much with the likes of Spielberg and Reiner and Leonardo DiCaprio. Taking a specific whack at the bona fide "culture predators" would have been a shrewd and timely thing to do.
Of course, if he did, Wolf Blitzer would come back with something insightful such as, "So you're saying you're in favor of censorship?"
© 2008 MSP Communications, Inc. All rights reserved
What a snoozer that debate was! How I longed for the day when James J. Kilpatrick and Shana Alexander used to go, as it were, mano a mano. Just imagine how delightful it would be for Obama to refer to Hillary as an ignorant slut and for her to return the fire by calling him a liberal windbag. Perhaps they're waiting for the general election when they have to wake the ancient mariner from his nap.
LAMBERT: I feel your pain. It's Hollywood damn it! Put on A SHOW! Maybe if Hillary slapped his face, or made fun of his ears. Then he'd make a crack about "cankles". Give the people what they want.
Posted by: A Son of Mississippi on February 1, 2008 at 1:37 PM
I don't agree with you very often Lambert, but you are pretty accurate on this one. The Daily Show did a wonderful compilation of cable wonks hyperventilating over the Romney and Bill Clinton "melt-downs" last week. The pundits hype of the non-event(s) was unreal; and Stewart was great at shining a light on their pomposity. The don't seem to understand, it's not about them.
LAMBERT: "Don't agree with me very often"? How do you live? How do you function? Can you walk upright?
Posted by: KTG on February 1, 2008 at 1:43 PM
You will never get an argument from me on the value of Wolf and Scooter Anderson (who was so out of place sitting there that he sat with folded arms the whole time). But a debate is still won and lost on the field, and no doubt a good umpire/referee is the one you barely notice and that is why all of these celebrity wonk blowdriers make terrible moderators, because they feel their job is to interject instead of to moderate.
But, our role as voters is to try to get beyond all the hype, spin, and distraction, and toward that end I was happy to have the two candidates calmly discussing their case without the excesses.
It was a pitcher's duel -- or better, it was a low-scoring defensively played hockey/football game or soccer match, boring only if you don't understand the nuances and importance of field position. In other words, in the game of politics, this debate played louder than what the score (of TV's instant coffee punditry or their ratings) can reflect.
Try this summary to pick up more of the nuance and field position value, written by non-blowdryer-laden pundits, with a bit more time and thought than TV allows us--
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/02/01/628327.aspx
Yes, was boring theatre last night with little or no drama. Hollywood was only the scene, not a character or producer...and in politics, I think we need more of this kind of nuanced discussion and less drama.
LAMBERT: I am in complete agreement. I thought both candidates came off as thoughtful adults last night. THAT is a big step forward.
Posted by: The Other Mike on February 1, 2008 at 3:01 PM
It will probably surprise you that I watched the debate last night. I wanted to learn more about the Dem candidates, they aren't that far from McCain in my book.
You nailed this one. The questions were terrible and Wolf Blitzer's attempt to adlib questions was even worse. I felt like I was watching a lovefest, not a debate over some very serious issues.
The CNN shots of celebs in the audience was the topper. Watching those, I realized that no real business was going to happen during the debate.
Brian I am sure you were up all night wondering what I thought of the candidates. I credit Obama for standing by his principles. Clinton reminds me of Fonzie on Happy Days, she can't admit she has been wrong. I hope there is substance behind Obama - at face value he seems to have his act together (in relation to his beliefs).
So when are you going to write about a Republican debate on Fox Brian? (Sorry had to get the jab in there)
LAMBERT: Anything with Mitt Romney is liking shooting fish in a barrel. But just for you, I'll give it a try.
Posted by: Dave on February 1, 2008 at 3:29 PM
Uh, don't let this unravel your world but "George Costanza" is not a real person. You might want to switch off the TV now and then...
LAMBERT: I suppose the next thing you'll tell me is that Jerry Seinfeld is not a real person.
Posted by: Frogman of Grant on February 1, 2008 at 3:46 PM
I'm rarely a glass half full guy when it comes to so much of this...but I was struck by the contrasts between the two debates this week. The GOP was notable for the usual lack of substance ("no I like Reagan more!" "I do, he gave me jelly beans once!")and watching McCain and Romney battle over the semantics over "timetables" - I mean, I generally liked McCain in the past, but he's not aging gracefully, is he? Leave it to Ron Paul to cut through their asinine battling over Iraq and cutting to the truth.
Meanwhile, the Kodak theatre looked like a Beatles concert. Doubtful that you'll see any of the sheer enthusiasm on the right like that on the left this season - heck the GOP just simply isn't pulling enough people to come close to that - but its exciting.
I was a little bit surprised to see both Hil and Obama playing SO nice. Its like both were playing for a VP nod (somebody should since Bill Richardson is gone).
LAMBERT: NBC's political chief, Chuck Todd, can't see any reason why Obama would run with Hillary. I don't see it either. Her with him? Hmmmmmm. A stretch. Being even junior senator from New York is pretty good duty. Although a lot of her cachet may be tied up in ... what she might become.
Posted by: essar1 on February 1, 2008 at 6:19 PM
You forgot the many cutaways to Pierce Brosnan who — can he even vote in America? — the young CNN studio dude called Pierce Bronson.
LAMBERT: That's what I mean. Imagine the commotion if Paris Hilton showed up.
Posted by: Charlie Quimby on February 2, 2008 at 7:07 PM