Ticket to ride
Why Obama must love the Letterman show
Ticket to ride
Dick Polman, Inquirer National Political Columnist
Put yourself in Barack Obama's shoes. What a relief it must have been yesterday to sit with David Letterman, in front of some fawning New Yorkers, and parry a handful of questions that barely even qualified as softballs.
Hey, that's why the president was appearing on Late Show in the first place - precisely because he could pitch health care reform without any concern that he might be substantially challenged to explain anything. Letterman's show is all about the power of celebrity, not the fine points of policy (the late-night shows haven't been substantive since Dick Cavett in the early '70s and Jack Paar a decade earlier); and, besides all that, Letterman as an interviewer is generally as dogged as an adolescent with ADD.
Not that I'm telling you anything new. Still, it was fascinating to watch Obama punch his ticket for a free ride. Here, for instance, was the sum total of the health care reform discussion:
Letterman began by asking, "What is it I don't understand about this?" That kind of question basically gives a president (or any politician) a license to say whatever he or she pleases. Obama naturally obliged, at length.
He framed the stakes as he sees them, noting that there are "at least 30 million people" who lack health insutance, that those who have health insurance are more imperiled than ever before, and that "if we don't do anything about it, then five years from now, 10 years from now, far more Americans are not going to have health insurance, far more businesses are going to say 'I can't afford to deal with our employees,' and in the meantime those government programs like Medicare, Medicaid, the VA...if we don't bend the curve overall, we're going to go bankrupt." He then restated the goals he has stated so often: to help the uninsured by making it possible to buy some, to protect those who already have it, to make the system more efficient and thus to save money. He said, "There are a lot of folks in Washington who have a stake in the system staying as it is...It's hard to (change). If it wasn't hard, it would have been done 40 years ago."
He paused. At that point, Letterman could have conceivably summoned a substantive query - perhaps along the lines of, "So, how do we get there?" After all, the Senate Finance Committee on this very day is preparing to debate the Max Baucus compromise package. Without getting too wonky for midnight TV, Letterman could have asked Obama whether he has given up on getting Republican support; or perhaps whether he would support a long phase-in of a government-backed insurance "public option"; or whether he will ultimately support the Baucus proposal of fining those Americans who would defy a new requirement that they buy insurance. (On Sunday, ABC News questioner George Stephanopolous had suggested to Obama that such a fine would be tantamount to a tax. Obama strongly objected, even after Stephanopoulous recited the dictionary definition of "tax." Perhaps Letterman could have brought up that issue...assuming he and his staff were aware of it.)
Anyway, after Obama reached the end of his basic health reform pitch, here was the sum total of Letterman's follow-up:
"Your job is harder than my job. That's what I've learned here tonight."
And minutes later, after Obama talked about how other western leaders express amazement at America's hesitance ("they don't understand why it is that Americans would not want to set up a system that would save money over time, that would work better and make people healthier"), Letterman replied with a quick Palin joke about death panels. That concluded the health care discussion.
Next up was Afghanistan. Obama said that he wants to move deliberately on the issue of whether to send more troops. He said that we need "a coherent strategy that can work...we're not going to make a decision about any further troop deployments until we know what exactly is our strategy, what are the tactics, how would troops be used, can we justify taking those steps. I'm going to be asking some very hard questions."
At that point, it would have been helpful - to at least some of the show's three million viewers - if Letterman had asked the obvious question. Yesterday morning, Obama's Pentagon had leaked a story to The Washington Post, making the military's case for a troop buildup and warning that, absent a buildup, disaster loomed in Afghanistan. Clearly, the military is trying to force Obama's hand; assuming that Letterman's staff monitors the news in a timely fashion, the host might have asked about that leak. (It would surely have been too much to ask the even more substantive question, one that will grow more urgent as the Afghanistan issue heats up: should a president generally heed the advice of the commanders in the field, or, as the constitutionally-designated civilian in charge, should he act as a check and balance?)
Instead, Letterman seemed satisfied with Obama's stated goal of destroying the bad guys who remain in Afghanistan, and the applause took us to commercial.
I know, there's no point in lamenting that Letterman as an interviewer makes Larry King look like Mike Wallace. Obama clearly sought his couch for that very reason, but I wonder whether the president got any mileage from it. Were Letterman's viewers swayed his way by what passed for substance, or did they click off entirely upon realizing that there were no long-legged actresses on the bill of fare?
Celebrity likeability is an asset, but once the novelty of a president appearing on late-night TV wears off (as it already has), the substantive political conundrums remain. And I doubt that Senator Olympia Snowe - the only potential viewer who mattered - even bothered to TiVo.
-------
In case you missed the weekend's most priceless news paragraph, here it is. It concerns our favorite addled lothario, John Edwards. A former Edwards aide, Andrew Young, has written a book proposal, with the intention of telling all:
"In the proposal, which The New York Times examined, Mr. Young says that he assisted the affair by setting up private meetings between Mr. Edwards and (Rielle) Hunter. He wrote that Mr. Edwards once calmed an anxious Ms. Hunter by promising her that after his wife died, he would marry her in a rooftop ceremony in New York with an appearance by the Dave Matthews Band."
No word yet on whether Edwards has asked wife Elizabeth for an updated prognosis, so that, for booking purposes, he can give Dave Matthews a time window.
Or perhaps he'd be willing to try something else. The Times reports that Rielle is planning to move herself and the baby to North Carolina, taking up residence close by the former power couple. Perhaps, while Edwards' wife is still alive, he could plan a welcoming party and hire David Crosby as his musical act. Crosby could sing one of his old compositions, entitled "Triad":
You want to know how it will be
Me and her or you and me...
But I don't really see
Why we can't go on as
Three.
Nigel- You can't beg for civility and evenhandedness while you are lambasting your political opposition. I suggest you re-read your post. You openly accuse conservatives of incendiary tripe while turning a blind eye to the rhetoric of the democrats.- No I didn't, SMike. I accused ONE conservative of incendiary tripe. And I would do it again. Beck's comments were disgusting, and were based on nothing factual or true. I have often said that a particular liberal's comments were uncalled for too. For example, anyone accusing John McCain of having an affair with an aide I found completely disgusting. The NY Times broke the story during the3 presidential campaign before they had documentation and/or proof. That's just bad journalism. Others took up the line and used it in speeches, etc. That's just plain wrong. You're so blinded by your extreme ideology you can't be fair. It's not OK with me for either side to do it, but when they do, I will sometimes call the more repugnant ones out, and Beck simply played upon the most base emotions of his "base." You're one of the angriest people on here, and have lost the ability to be reasoned and reasonable.— NigeltheMastiff
- No I didn't, SMike. I accused ONE conservative of incendiary tripe. And I would do it again. Beck's comments were disgusting, and were based on nothing factual or true. I have often said that a particular liberal's comments were uncalled for too. For example, anyone accusing John McCain of having an affair with an aide I found completely disgusting. The NY Times broke the story during the3 presidential campaign before they had documentation and/or proof. That's just bad journalism. Others took up the line and used it in speeches, etc. That's just plain wrong. You're so blinded by your extreme ideology you can't be fair. It's not OK with me for either side to do it, but when they do, I will sometimes call the more repugnant ones out, and Beck simply played upon the most base emotions of his "base." You're one of the angriest people on here, and have lost the ability to be reasoned and reasonable.— NigeltheMastiff
- It's about tume to admit that we pay for the healthcare now anyway !!! It is not just MEDICARE savings. If someone goes into the emergency room and is treated without insurance those costs are shifted !!! They have to be. And for anyone who does not believe the insurance companies need regulations and active regulators either has never been sick, doesn't know anyone who was ever sick, or is just being willfully ignorant.— ModerateMarge
- Smike, you better go back and read Nigel's post ( and all her others) She reffed one person - Beck - and she never makes the broad generalities that are so prevelant on this board. There's nothing about calling people racists. This is as crazy as the claim about "liberals did a movie pontitificating the assasination of Georeg Bush."— JimR
- Thank you, Jim. I really dislike unfairness, and I find I REALLY dislike it when it's directed at me, funny as that may be.— NigeltheMastiff
- JimR and Nigel- Nigelthemastif posted "That's just incendiary tripe for the sake of it, and certainly doesn't advance anything but the Fox hate agenda. " Sorry that's a little more than an indictment of one person. Bob Beckel, Heraldo Rivera, Juan Williams, and Kirsten Powers would be disappointed you paint with such a broad brush ( they are all Fox News Contributors) . You clamor for civility and evenhandedness yet only espouse your brand of passive aggresiveness for conservatives and Fox news. Sorry I call it how I see it.
- "The big turbines that stretch for miles along these rolling, grassy hills have churned out clean, renewable electricity for two decades in one of the nation's first big wind-power projects. SeaWest Windpower wind turbine generators stand near Tracy, Calif. By Ben Margot, AP But for just as long, massive fiberglass blades on the more than 4,000 windmills have been chopping up tens of thousands of birds that fly into them, including golden eagles, red-tailed hawks, burrowing owls and other raptors." UH OH! sounds like a liberal condundrum! Liberals never think of their unintended consequences.
- How often does Polman publish something without his picture by the byline, (or is my computer merely having another hiccup?) I really think this was ghostwritten, since I can't believe he wrote this. Or is it the first day of April instead of the first day of Autumn?— spd017
- Unemployment is going up, Obama has quadrupled the deficit, even his own CBO says he will had 10 trillion in debt, and young men are dying every day in Afghanistan while this President dithers over the polling data so he can make a decision to send more troops to Afghansitan. For a man who pranced around on the campaign trail asking as if he had all the answers the first 8 months surely indicates he has no answers. Just lofty rhetoric and teleprompter speeches.
- Smike...and if you don't see it, then do you make it up??? That refference was to Beck. If you didn't get it, it was clarified by the author. BTW, now that you mention him, Geraldo Rivera is a great example of what we need. Here's a guy who is a darling of the conservative media - a guy who was removed from the battle theater for divulging troop movement. This is an action, that in previous wars, usually gets you shot in the head by the nearest officer.— JimR
- Nigelthemastiff- Civility and evenhandedness is a two way street. President Carter and President Clinton accusing the people who oppose Obama's policies as racists do no favors in advancing the cause of civility.
- JimR- I posted excerpts from Nigels post. She refered to Fox as having a " hate agenda". Sorry. Not gonna get away with this one. People who go nuts about Fox News don't watch Fox news. In view the debate is very civil on Fox News. O'Reilly and Hannity routinely have the liberal contributors on. I am quite tired of liberals painting with such a broad brush. You control all of government and since things aren't going so well you want to bit$ch about Fox News. How riduculous! Becks' comments are no more ridiculous than Clinton and Carter accusing anyone who dare oppose Obama as racist. But of course save all the vitriol for Beck but no critisism whatsover of Clinton and Carter. You and Nigel are flat out phonies on this.
- Both former presidents' rants have been neutralized by the current president...and neither has added to the civility...and now we are hearing the complaint "butwhadabout" Maybe they have good screen names but I wasn't aware that either posted on this site.— JimR
- Under Bush, I believe, the criticism would have been shrill. It's great to see Democrats talking about the need for civility in the Capitol -- so much so that the House passed a resolution reprimanding Rep. Joe Wilson, R-S.C., for "a breach of decorum and degraded the proceedings" when he yelled, "You lie," to Obama as the president addressed a joint session of Congress earlier this month. You see, it is more civil when a number of lawmakers boo and heckle, as they did to Bush during his 2004 and 2005 State of the Union addresses, than for one man to shout out the president. (Just kidding -- as I in no way defend Wilson's rude behavior.)
Cited by the Columbia Journalism Review as one of the nation's top political reporters, and lauded by the ABC News political website as "one of the finest political journalists of his generation," Dick Polman is a national political columnist at the Philadelphia Inquirer. He is on the full-time faculty at the University of Pennsylvania, as "writer in residence." Dick has been a frequent guest on C-Span, MSNBC, CNN, NPR and the BBC. He covered the 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004 presidential campaigns.
ARCHIVES
All commentaries posted before April 18, 2008, can be accessed at www.dickpolman.blogspot.com.
- American Spectator
- David Limbaugh
- Free Republic
- Glenn Reynolds
- Hugh Hewitt
- Human Events
- John Hawkins
- Matt Lewis
- Michelle Malkin
- National Review
- Opinion Journal
- Power Line
- Red State
- The Brody File
- The Daily Caller
- Town Hall
- Weekly Standard
- Center for American Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- Daily Kos
- David Corn
- Huffington Post
- Media Matters
- Mojoblog (Mother Jones)
- Open Left
- Political Animal
- Salon's War Room
- Talking Points Memo
- Tapped
- The Democratic Strategist
- The Grey Matter
- Unclaimed Territory
- Andrew Sullivan
- Attytood
- Chi Tribune's The Swamp
- CJR's Campaign Desk
- CNN's Political Ticker
- CQ Politics
- FactCheck.org
- Gail Collins
- Howard Kurtz
- Mickey Kaus
- NBC's First Read
- Obit
- Political Wire
- Politico
- Politics Daily
- Pollster.com
- Real Clear Politics
- The Atlantic Wire
- The Fix
- The Moderate Voice
- The Plank
- USA Today On Politics
- Wonkette
