Anyone Else Feeling a Bit Grumpy Today?

It's my own fault, really.  In periodic moments of weakness over the past few weeks, I've allowed myself to see the endgame of this Democratic primary, and entertain with some relish the dozens of ways Obama will whup John McCain in the general election.

So as I was taking my morning constitutional through the political links of the elite press, I was in no mood to confront the pile left by the LA Times' Andrew Malcolm at his "Top of the Ticket" blog.

Malcolm is a veteran reporter.  His "immigrant parents repeatedly stressed the importance of active participation in a democracy. Early lessons included learning the alphabetical list of states by watching televised roll calls of national political conventions. That childhood exposure led to a lifelong fascination with politics, including 40-plus years of covering them and a brief stint practicing them as press secretary to Laura Bush in 1999-2000."

The title of his entry today was, "Dead actor Roy Scheider donates to Barack Obama campaign anyway."  So, here's Mr. Malcolm's witty bit of shoeleather journalism, excerpted --

Sen. Barack Obama does come from the Chicago school of politics, where historically voter turnout has been unusually high for residents of certain graveyards. And he has been unusually successful raising money.

Now, he's raising money by raising the dead.

The Times' campaign finance expert Dan Morain has found Obama campaign records reporting a $50 donation by Roy Scheider, who lists his occupation as actor and his home as Sag Harbor, N.Y.

[snip]

According to the campaign records, Scheider made the donation March 10.

Trouble is, Scheider died exactly one month before that, on Feb. 10, at age 75. Just another example of Hollywood's undying affection for Democrats.

[snip]

Scheider was unavailable for comment. However, informed of the deceased donor's generosity, an Obama campaign spokesman said late Tuesday it had come under a monthly credit card donation program and that it would be halted this month. The $50 March donation would be donated to another cause, the spokesman said.

[snip]

-- Andrew Malcolm

Now, I'm sure there are other examples this morning of reflexive Obama-bashing, pieces so lacking in intellectual nutrition that whole quadrants of our brain fail to fire upon reading them.  But on this day, I read Andrew Malcolm's.

So I felt I owed him a brief reply, because my parents also instilled in me the importance of active participation in democracy.

Here we have, once again, a gratuitous hit piece on Obama and progressive Hollywood, filed under "campaign gaffes", no less.

All candidates, and most non-profits, use a monthly debit system, as you well know, Andrew. But given this nugget of non-news, you take the opportunity to fill Obama's bag with "the Chicago school of politics", "graveyards", and "another example of Hollywood's undying affection for Democrats".

Since Mr. Scheider can't defend his modest monthly donation to Obama in person, allow me to respond on his behalf.

Many millions of us, truck drivers, teachers, home caregivers, mechanics, salespeople, and yes, actors, think this country is going down the rat hole, and we hold the country's elite press responsible as enablers of the Bush administration's extraconstitutionalism, war-making, corruption and economic mismanagement. Suffice it to say, when we voters have to slog through this kind of pap to find nuggets of useful political coverage, we tend to lose our sense of humor.

We know this type of dumbed-down, tribalizing content is Tribune's way of doing business, we know your newshole is shrinking, we know you lose principled editors about once a year, that your publisher wants to "localize" your content with celebrity pap and "news you can use."

We have known this en masse for a while, actually, going back to the successful grassroots battle against media consolidation in 2003. But today, we have a national candidate who is calling for "a new politics", and we take him dead seriously. And a part of that new politics will be to marginalize this example of political coverage, which remediates our compound national crises not one iota.

Now, having vented a little, I appeal to your conscience and your sense of professionalism: please cease stereotyping a candidate and political movement earnestly seeking to pull this country back from the abyss of recession, privation, endless war and division.

You remember 1968 as a professional journalist. Obama and many of us who support him don't romanticize 1968. We want to prevent that political climate from returning. But we stand at the cusp of repeating it.

George Bush yesterday secured the highest disapproval rating in the history of the Gallup organization. That's no mean feat, and frankly, it should scare the pants off anyone plying their trade in the public square. And yet, we read from your fingertips today about Roy Scheider's $50 automatic donation exemplifying corruption on the part of Sen. Obama? If I didn't know any better, I'd think you were trying to incite a riot.

As your professional valedictory, would you please consider filing political correspondence that bridges and not exacerbates divides, that teaches rather than inflames, and that addresses specific problems instead of contrivances? C'mon, Andrew, go out on the good foot.

With regards,

If he favors me with a reply, I'll be sure to append it.