Everyone knows about John Edwards' haircut, how many people outside of the 'sphere know about Thompson's rented red pick-up truc? Thank god Krugman mentioned it, but if Thompson were a Democrat, the phrase 'rented pick-up truck" would be used within a dozen words of the first mention of his name in any political story.
(Cillizza on Countdown last night referred to Thompson as "handsome", just a few minutes after Stewart more accurately described him as "Frankenberry".)

Wrong, wrong, and wrong.

Authenticity is fundamental to winning trust. And trust is fundamental to winning votes.

Progressives tend to think that checklists of issues and programs win votes. Wrong. What wins votes is having voters trust you to do the right thing. That's why so many people who largely disagreed with Bush's positions voted for him anyway in 2000 and 2004--they trusted him to do the right thing. And a large part of that has to do with authenticity.

Authenticity, here, means that you're perceived as having your actions in congruence with your values.

Can anyone seriously argue that Gore or Kerry came across as authentic in their campaigns? To the contrary, isn't it true that Gore is now be lauded and applauded for being true to his innermost values and convictions--in a word, for being authentic?

Yeah, I want single-payer health care, withdrawal of troops from Iraq, electric powered cars, and a redistributionist tax on estates and incomes above a certain amount. But no candidate is ever going to get elected to do all those things--or even ONE of them--unless they're perceived as authentic.

And that's a big reason for the surge for Obama, and for the passion people have for Edwards--they're perceived as authentic. And isn't that the biggest rap on both Clintons--that they are perceived as being flexible on their values, as being inauthentic?

Edwards's haircut has nothing to do with authenticity--but his inability to come up with a meaningful response speaks volumes about his lack of clarity about certain of his values, and is a vulnerability in his claim to authenticity.

The point is not that the public should or shouldn't care about authenticity - if they do, then you have to worry about it, whether or not you think it's fair.

The point is that the MEDIA has set itself up as the arbiters of authenticity, and it's absurd for them to fill that role. If people watch Gore and think he seems inauthentic, that's their right. But other people are going to draw different conclusions, and it shouldn't be for the media to say "Boy, Gore sure looked inauthentic tonight!" It's a purely personal judgment that they have no right to dictate to the rest of us.

Can anyone seriously argue that Gore or Kerry came across as authentic in their campaigns?

What does this mean? And how can modern candidates "come across" without the mediation of their coverage?

I will once again point this out: people who watched the debates thought Gore one. People who only watched the coverage didn't. Why didn't his alleged lack of "authenticity" matter before it was invented again and again?

Scott-

The "mediation of their coverage" is irrelevant if the candidate can't demonstrate his or her authenticity in the first place.

Authenticity comes across--or not--in every aspect of a campaign. If a person is comfortable communicating his or her values in public, that will come across as authenticity.

I'm not arguing that the media doesn't act as gatekeepers, interpreters, and high priests/esses. Obviously they do. And Gore is a case in point. At some point most of the media decided that they didn't like Gore, and so they ended up as an echo chamber for the vast right wing noise machine.

But they couldn't have done it if Gore had been true to himself in his campaign. Instead, until the very last days of his campaign, he ran as a fiscal conservative, he ran on Medicare, and he ran on continuing Clinton prosperity. He didn't run on the environment, for God's sake! How much more inauthentic could he have been? Yes, he switched to a populist approach in the very last days of his campaign, almost in desperation, and it was working--I think because it was more authentic.

Kerry ran a poll-mediated campaign from the get-go; I was involved in a minor way, and I have it from people who were in the room with Kerry and Shrum. He just wasn't portraying his true values in his campaign; he was trimming his jib to fit the (poll-driven) wind.

So, sure the media provide mediation. And there are other factors, like the weakness of progressive media, compared with Rush, etc. But it only worked because Kerry and Gore gave them so much inauthenticity to work with.

Oh, and the fact that Gore won the debate is irrelevant to authenticity--it just shows that Gore is a better debater. Debates are not particularly relevant to authenticity. You're arguing that without the media mediation, Gore was perceived as the better candidate. I think that argument's wrong--it only shows that in a highly limited and structured format that played to Gore's strengths, he did better.

Authenticity comes across--or not--in every aspect of a campaign. If a person is comfortable communicating his or her values in public, that will come across as authenticity.

Your analysis is the very idea Somerby and many other bloggers have been railing against. Communicating to the public involves the media in all but the tiniest minority and if they decide you are "inauthentic" then there is little you can do to counter it. Gore was savaged in almost every media venue up to the front pages of both the Washington Post and NY Times. Who was he supposed to turn to to change the perception? Go door-to-door speaking to every voter? You invalidate your entire premise when you concede that he won the debate (no media filter), but lost the post-debate spin (only media filter). The same thing happened with his convention speech. Lots of voters liked his speech and he got a strong bump in the polls, but the Broders of the world found it "boring" or "wonky" and proceeded to trash him for weeks.

Note to Guano: Gore did go door-to-door, in New Hampshire in 10/99--and the predictable occurred. In the NYT, Katherine Seelye wrote about the way this annoying man had bothered the Mulligan family, who grumbled about the way he had caught them by surprise.

This is a fascinating example of the way a reporter can tilt any "news report"--as long as she is allowed to record her subjective impressions. I'll post on it tomorrow at The Daily Howler. Seelye was a hired killer, start to the finish. No detail was too small to spin.

Moral: If we let them write about subjective things like who is "authentic," they can tell any story they want.

Mr. Somerby, I didn't remember that report on Seelye (although I've read the Howler every day since sometime in 2000). Too many folks still seem to believe there is an image of a candidate that is separate from the narrative the media presents

Col Bat Guano and Scott Lemieux-

Let's cut to the chase here. Do either of you really think that Gore or Kerry ran on the values they deemed most important? Do you think they were authentic in that way?

My point is that I NEVER heard anyone among any of my progressive/liberal/Dem friends and activists say anything like, "You know, when I hear Kerry speak, I feel inspired. I feel like he's talking from his heart." I hear people say that about today's Edwards. I hear people say it about Obama.

And that lack of authenticity is what the media LEVERAGED against Gore and Kerry (remember the stories about Kerry hunting? He wasn't hunting, he was pandering against his core values).

As for the debate, just because people thought that Gore won doesn't mean that they were willing to vote for him. You argue that the absence of the media filter made the difference; I say that of course it made a difference, but is only a part of the puzzle.

In Mark Schmitt's words (slightly edited), "It's not what you say about the issues you choose - it's what the issues you choose say about you." The issues Kerry and Gore--even Gore's very running mate, for God's sake!--showed that they were inauthentic.

There are authentic candidates and "authentic" ones. There are those human beings who represent themselves truthfully and say what they mean, and there are people who've learned to act that way to get others to like them.
My hunch is that media figures relish their roles in bestowing the label of "authenic" onto candidates. It gives the media figures power. So yeah, true authenticity matters to me, but I'm only going to find it by working hard: studying background, reading speeches, exposing myself to a variety of media sources. If I'm not willing to do that, I should dismiss the concept and vote only on issues.

Let's cut to the chase here. Do either of you really think that Gore or Kerry ran on the values they deemed most important? Do you think they were authentic in that way?

Does any politician? I think they chose to emphasize the values they believed in AND would generate votes. Do you think George Bush ran on the values he really deems important? Remember he is the candidate that was judged "authentic" by the media when in fact almost his entire campaign was a fraud. Paul Krugman showed it wasn't difficult to show he was lying, but the media ignored that fact. The idea that "authentic" is some intrinsic quality that the media devines is naive in the extreme. This years version is Fred Thompson. The man had a 20 year career as a D.C. lobbyist, 8 years as a senator and the rest in Hollywood. Yet all he has to do is trot out his cornpone accent and media are all over themselves about his "gravitas".

Col Bat Guano - if that really is your name - I just wanted to say that I heartily concur with all of your points. That, and I couldn't pass up a chance to quote Dr. Strangelove.

vorko,

the point is that a professional journalist is in no better position to determine whether a candidate would be nice to have a beer with than you or i would. presumably, journalists are paid for their expertise and their ability to explain things clearly to their readers. but what special expertise does chris matthews (or katherine seelye) have about "authenticity" that you and i don't have?

rest assured, vorkster: whichever candidate you think is authentic, if they are progressive, you will soon read about reasons they are not.

What wins votes is having voters trust you to do the right thing. That's why so many people who largely disagreed with Bush's positions voted for him anyway in 2000 and 2004--they trusted him to do the right thing. And a large part of that has to do with authenticity.

This is not "authenticity." This is successful marketing.

The trouble with "authenticity" is that it can be faked.

[I]f Thompson were a Democrat, the phrase 'rented pick-up truck" would be used within a dozen words of the first mention of his name in any political story.

Are you kidding? If Thompson were a Democrat, a group called "Pickup Truck Owners For Truth" would appear out of nowhere and immediately get lots of face time on the cable networks with Matthews, Blitzer, and the rest of the sock puppets.

Lee Baby, watch it or you'll have to answer to the Coca Cola company!

Col. Bat Guano. Good to know you are still around. Can you spare any change? Give my regards to Pres Muffley.

Unbelievable. When we vote for president, we're not voting for American Idol, for God's sake. We're choosing a chief executive, a competent administrator, the head beaurocrat of government. If you're looking for a friend or hero in a candidate, you might want to reassess your
view of the political process.

zwetjbaro bmuyczoki ikcxawvno zwfdlvs wghrivfe arhkjxov bycwphun

qjfobrpnh brnkmxclo ginqkrl rjtbdx vdqhapw yekq molabxvs http://www.ybrxzgf.ichsrzm.com