Politicians on both sides of the aisle constantly lambaste the media. While one side laments its inherent liberal bias, the other condemns the ridiculous antics of Fox News and Bill O'Reilly. Campaigns have grown to the point where they pander to TV news formatting, speaking in one-line sound bites and engaging in outrageous attacks to attract attention. To some extent, the biggest challenge is to gain the maximum quantity of exposure, whether it is positive or negative.
Think back to Dick Cheney's accusation that a vote for John Kerry was a vote that would make another terrorist attack in the United States more likely. The media panders to the shrinking American attention span, where each scandal has a short shelf life. Remember the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth?" In a matter of weeks, they disappeared from the headlines in favor of the current furor over the authenticity of the memos describing Bush's National Guard service, or lack thereof.
Kerry is, by all accounts, a verbose candidate made in the Al Gore policy wonk mold. He speaks in long, thorough sentences with multiple and complicated clauses. It should be no surprise that he is struggling to clarify his campaign platform in terms that will reach the American people. Try to think back to the last time that Kerry had control over the message during this year's presidential campaign.
With a blip around the release of Bush's recent National Guard documents, Kerry has effectively been in response mode since the Democratic National Convention. Beyond finding himself increasingly boxed into the rich, New England, "windsurfer" stereotype, he has repeatedly allowed his statements to be taken out of context and spliced to create the appearance of hypocrisy.
As a longtime legislator, Kerry's record is full of nuanced positions that don't translate well to one-minute news segments. His infamous opposition to the bill providing additional funding for the American troops in Iraq is a perfect example. Whereas Kerry opposed the final version of the bill because it required further deficit spending, he supported an earlier version that drew upon available funding.
Given that President Bush excels within the confines of the current structure of the media's campaign coverage, Kerry must learn to refine his message in order to have any sort of chance in this November's election. In a recent interview on NPR, Kerry's old opponent, Howard Dean, asserted that while he believes that a large majority of Americans are convinced the Bush does not deserve another term, Kerry has yet to provide any clear reason why he deserves a first one. Clearly the debates are one of his final opportunities to outline his candidacy as a valid and distinct alternative to the president's.
It isn't necessarily that Senator Kerry isn't presenting himself as a viable candidate for president; like Al Gore, he is energetically outlining his message and criticizing the president's record. However, he is failing to effectively do either in succinct, marketable terms that can succeed in the highly restrictive environment provided by the American media.
While his struggles may be a sign of the lamentable shallowness of the American electorate, if Kerry cannot master his rhetoric to control the message, he will lose badly. Given the current state of the war in Iraq, the economy, and the fiscal status of the federal government, he has a wide field on which to run; the question is whether or not he can take advantage of it.