Hardball

by: Chris Bowers

Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 22:56


I am pretty shy, and as such I have turned down every television interview request I have received since February of 2005. However, I sucked it up today in order to appear on Hardball. You can view it here. Right now, I can't seem to get the html embed code to work with soapblox.

The sheer number of media requests I have received on the Obama transition stuns me. An hour before I appeared on Hardball, I was interviewed by NPR (again, and on the same subject). Apparently, Fox News quoted me over the weekend (ugh). Al-Jazeera sent an interview request as well, but it came one day too late after leaving New York. There have been twenty-five hits on my name in Google News over the last eight days, even though I didn't even blog for four of them.

I have several thoughts on all of this:

  1. First, it is really difficult to blog when you are always receiving media requests. This has happened to me twice before, in October of 2006 and July of 2007. Then, just like now, I remember thinking how the publicity generated from blogging was, ironically, keeping me from actually blogging.

  2. Second, if I have become one of the go-to interviews for progressive dissatisfaction with Obama's transition, then either there isn't much progressive dissatisfaction with Obama's transition, or I am in a more prominent leadership position for the ideological left than I realized. Either way, it has given me real impetus to make my arguments more specific, informed, and attached to potentially positive resolutions.

  3. Third, it does not feel comfortable to be in disagreement with such a large percentage, probably a majority, of the progressive blogosphere. It doesn't feel very good to stick out from your family like that. Maybe I know how Clinton supporters felt during the primary now. I just hope that people take what I write at face value, rather than as the product of some sort of ulterior motive.

Anyway, that's it for tonight. I think my arguments on the Obama transition are improving, and I can also see clearer paths forward. This is a transition for Open Left as well, so any suggestions on where we go from here are welcome.

Update: Oh, and since some people are asking over email, yes, my eyes move on an involuntary, horizontal pattern. It is a rare condition I have had from birth, and is known as congonital nystagmus. I would probably be a bad spy. :)
Chris Bowers :: Hardball

Tags: , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Hardball | 50 comments
embed? (4.00 / 2)

Is this thing on?

I just cut and paste the embed code into a comment.

Also (4.00 / 4)
I think Mike being picked up by the transition team may have something to do with OL's newfound media glare.
[ Parent ]
Mike (4.00 / 4)
Yeah, Mike has been a huge help. We also have helped him, too. We give each other cred in our respective communities.

This was one of the main reasons we teamed up in the first place. Glad to see it working so well now.

Wonder why the embed didn't work in the text of the post.

[ Parent ]
Good job on Harball Chris (4.00 / 2)
Just remember to keep talking and don't let Tweety run you over. Matthews loves guests that give him a hard time.

Tweety gave free rein last night for Christopher Hitchens to babble like a mainiac, while Salon's Joan Walsh barely got a polite word in edgewise.

Not that you need to babble like crazy, but you get the point.

[ Parent ]
I thought you did a great job. (0.00 / 0)
I have no doubt that delivering a good performance on TV is much harder than it looks.

miasmo.com
[ Parent ]
Understanding the media (4.00 / 10)
 What the media likes is high levels of conflict. So, of course, they would see you as the go-to guy since you are the most contrasty right now. They think right now given your views that you will be the most likely person to produce the sparks they believe their viewers want to see.

They want guess who are going to argue. They don't want guess who are going to see complexity.

I am reminded of a media person who said she was not choosen recently as a media consultant because she tended to consider the complexity of issues rather than focus on contrast.

Right now, the press is searching desperately for ways to contrast with Obama because otherwise the next 4 years for them will mean lower ratings, and lower ratings means the advertisers will not buy ad spots. They are also , by the way, searching for "diversity" because it didn't occur to them that a black President would mean they might want to become a little more diverse too. Nevermind that the management level remains highly undiverse.  But that's a bit of bitter ranting.

I once had a rather big director of TV (if there is such a thing) say to me "if they could sell white noise in between the commercials they would." He wanted me to understand his place in the machine.  Since, they can't they go for the next best thing- "high conflict. "  You are high dramatic (or comic if you have a sense of humor) conflict. Other progressives would be low conflict.

Oh, I see... (4.00 / 1)
So now it's "media likes conflict" (in the abstract) rather than people actually being curious what progressives think about Obama's transition team.  Because it's not possible for such "extremist" views to otherwise break into the center-right Versailles bubble, right?  On the other hand, is it possible that there is an actual groundswell of support for checking Obama's mad dash rightwards, largely composed of those who voted for him in the hopes that he would actually execute the progressive policies reflected in his rhetoric.
[ Parent ]
I wrote a critique about the media. Not Bowers. (4.00 / 10)
You think this same media that didn't care about all your ideas before now cares about them? Come back to reality. They will use you just like they do anyone else.

The media's first job is selling advertisment. Not progressive politics. They are now interested in progressive ideas because that's the "in" thing. They are now searching for more "diverse" correspondents (read black)  because Obama won.  Just like before when they were all trying to emulate Fox because that was the "in" thing. The in thing means more eye balls to the TV, and more dollars in ad revenue. Not sure how that's a surprising fact.

It says nothing about Bowers and his positions. It says everything about the media, and how it operates. Drama sells. Bowers is interesting right now because he's contrasty.

Think of it like Rachael Maddow's show (which I like) they were using polling data before election day that was clearly more of an outlier in part for proprietary reasons (they conducted some fo the polls) but I will guess also because some of the polls made for dramatic tension. Just like the 14 points made for dramatic headlines.

[ Parent ]
Selling the Narrative (4.00 / 5)
Yes, the media enjoys conflict.  But conflict in of itself is not enough.  The conflict must sell the media narrative.  Surely Chris Bowers could have provided a wealth of conflict for the media throughout the Bush regime, but how often was his dissenting voice requested in the past eight years?

Following the 2006 mid-term election, a popular media narrative was that the Democratic gains were somehow Republican gains because some the Democratic victories belonged to Democrats right-of-center.  Sound familiar?

Similarly, much attention and rhetoric post-election has been offered to suggest that Obama and his administration will govern from right-of-center, therefore the Obama victory is somehow more of a victory for conservatives than progressives.  It is a popular media narrative along with the narratives that progressives and bloggers are angry, bitter, mad, and feel betrayed.  I recall a couple of weeks ago Markos of Daily Kos was a guest on MSNBC to discuss Obama's cabinet selections.  Despite Markos insisting that bloggers aren't angry or mad, but rather quite elated and hopeful, MSNBC provided a "Bloggers Angry" banner.

When Bowers is invited on Hardball to discuss Obama's team too far right, it's quite obvious the hope is that he will play along in reinforcing the narrative of the betrayed progressive.  Just as it's no mystery what narrative they want reinforced by inviting Christopher Hitchens to discuss Hillary Clinton.  To his credit, Bowers voiced his disappointment without strengthening the narrative.  Hitchens on the other hand was happy to play along.      

 

[ Parent ]
this is exactly right (0.00 / 0)
It's not that the media can not be used, but you have to understand media for what it is.
[ Parent ]
This is true (4.00 / 1)
Anyone watching Hardball yesterday knows that Christopher Hitchens has caught onto this.

I'm not sure but I think Matthews has a soft spot for hardcore, true believer progressives.  So he lets people like Bowers come on.  He let Amy Goodman on too, but then she asked him if Donahue was fired for opposing the war.

[ Parent ]
Hey, you did a good job on the teevee (4.00 / 6)
You should do it more often.

Well, I think you're absolutely right to criticize Obama on these issues, and this sort of media interest just goes to show that what you say in this corner of the internets can and will affect the broader political debate in this country.

It's particularly good that this is the area where your voice is being heard. Indeed, considering the role of the military-industrial economy as a positive feedback loop for conservatives, the intrinsic conflict between defense spending and domestic spending, and the intrinsic conflict between high defense spending and a safe and peaceful world - not to mention the fact that the pentagon seems to be itching for a fight with Obama over defense spending right out of the gate - and this seems like an area where the left needs to focus like a laser; indeed, without pressure from the left, Obama has no chance to stand up against the ever-greater entrenchment of the MIC.  

Just a couple of notes (4.00 / 4)
You did very well -nice manner, nice attitude and no attitude (not that I expected any) and just as eloquent in person and off the cuff as when you write.

Keep it up, if you want its a lot of info that doesn't sound angry or insincere or any of that crap. This is a job you can do. If you don't want it, then just keep writing. If you do want it, or just see the usefulness, you will become a known goto guy.

On the nystagmus, it seems less if you look down or relax your lids, dont know if its causal, or if you have any control, but whatever -it seems to be no more distracting that Colbert's asymmetrical ears lol. So forget about it. We need information and analysis, thats what you have in spades, make it available whenever you can.

Well done.  

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

Congrats on getting a word in edge wise (4.00 / 2)
I do not know why Tweety interviews people--if you agree with him, he lets you talk; if you don't, he interrupts.  Why am I not surprised that he is a conspiracy theorist?

We need to  move beyond Obama's appointments hurt our feelings after all we've done for him mode.  We need to talk about what will happen as a result of his insistence on what Sirota calls 'pragmatism'.  We need to talk about how we get what we want--what most Americans voted for.  We need to organize at the local level and build pressure from below.  Maybe United for Peace and Justice will get off it's ass and organize a peace disarmament march (anyone part of the coalition?).  Maybe the unions will organize a demo to demand the elimination of tax credits that allow jobs to be off-shored and demand that union living standards be maintained.

We cannot be passive whiners--it's time to organize.  As the great Mother Jones said:

Don't mourn--Organize.


I live in a true blue state--I will have a choice in November
Tweety is a conspiracy theorist? (0.00 / 0)
which ones?
[ Parent ]
The Logic Of Celebrity (4.00 / 4)
First, it is really difficult to blog when you are always receiving media requests. This has happened to me twice before, in October of 2006 and July of 2007. Then, just like now, I remember thinking how the publicity generated from blogging was, ironically, keeping me from actually blogging.

The Paris Hilton Syndrome: Famous for being famous.  Doing stuff just gets in the way.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

Hey just get staff, increase the size of your organization. (0.00 / 0)
As the demand increases make sure there are monetizers to pay for the extra staff necessary to get it all done, to get even more done. Build an organizing based media communication think tank interactive policy creation and democracy fomenting publishing house. Assistants are a good thing.

I have often wondered what a left wing Tony Robbins could do.  Grow the organization. Find like minded people you trust to fill out and expand, find peo[le who also know lots you don't, like how to create a money stream out of thinking and being committed and spreading information. And I don't mean sell out or become People Magazine.  

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

[ Parent ]
Chris Bowers = our Paris Hilton (4.00 / 1)
heh.
[ Parent ]
Iowa geezer (4.00 / 2)
Does that mean that some Iowa geezer will present future candidates with a picture of Chris Bowers to indicate his (the geezer's) preferred hairstyle?

One cycle it's fashion tips to Hillary and the one before it is Dean being lectured on being a "neighbor" to George W. Bush (that one was a Republican plant).  

[ Parent ]
media standards of newsworthiness (4.00 / 5)
indicate that controversy within a political party is more newsworthy than a person from one party criticizing the other party. I am trying to remember the book--maybe Democracy Without Citizens by Robert Entman? that showed how the media covered Carter-era "scandals" more extensively than bigger "scandals" from the Reagan presidency. The argument was that because Washington Democrats were happy to criticize Carter, that was newsworthy. Republicans closed ranks around Reagan, so the media moved on quickly.

When Reagan's labor secretary became the first sitting cabinet official to be indicted (this happened shortly before the 1984 election), that generated a lot less media coverage than Billy Carter or Bert Lance during Carter's presidency.

My point being that you are a liberal Democrat criticizing Obama, so that would be considered more interesting and newsworthy than some conservative blogger criticizing Obama.

Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.

that's about right (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
to put what just said another way (4.00 / 1)
its more interesting to bring lieberman on to criticize other democrats than a republican. thus lieberman got a lot more aire time.
[ Parent ]
That's fantastic news for pushing things to the left (0.00 / 0)
so long as we can keep the Lieberdems as close to under wraps as possible.
[ Parent ]
hence the double egded sword (0.00 / 0)
live by the media, die by it.
[ Parent ]
great job chris (4.00 / 3)
you'll be a media pro in no time and even if it takes you away from blogging i think its great that you are getting this kind of exposure.  matthews is clearly playing nice with you though to win your favor during his 2010 run for senate.  in the village parlor game that is our political system, that signifies a huge shift in the perception of the left's power.  
on going against the blog herd (4.00 / 7)
Good luck to you. I didn't have a dog in the Obama-Clinton primary fight, but I was continually amazed by the intolerance shown to Clinton supporters at Daily Kos. It was so ridiculous. Yes, there were also some very obnoxious Clinton supporters, but the howling mob of Obama fans were extremely alienating and, because they were so dominant in numbers, did more damage to the respectful exchange of ideas on Democratic community blogs. It was as if they didn't want there to be any space for Hillary supporters on Democratic blogs.

To this day some people complain about "Clinton shills" at MyDD, as if it was a crime for a major Democratic blog to have a couple of front-pagers who preferred Clinton.

Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.

Chris, Your concerns are reasonable and well stated (4.00 / 5)
And I know how you feel...as a Clinton supporter it was more than just swimming against the tide..it was painful...

And I often hedged what I said...very often.  And some of the insights you and David Sirota are having now, I had then.  Though I was always careful, no matter the venue, to couch them in the most innocuous manner possible. So neutered were my comments that the points and inferences I would make became so attenuated that they often didn't make the point well enough.  Don't do that.  It's harder than you think to truly speak your mind when so many people who are in the community with you,  disagree with you, sometimes vehemently and nastily.

Have the courage of your concerns and intelligence.  You will do the principles you're fighting for a real service by just going on.

By the way ...very nice haircut  :) :)

 

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

[ Parent ]
Oh, for fuck's sake. Get over it already. (0.00 / 0)
You have been bitching about Obama supporters since 2007.  Really, you need to let it go.
[ Parent ]
Great show! (4.00 / 5)
I think you did fantastic.  It's so important for the "angry left" to have a showing on the TeeVee if for no other reason than to show how level headed and calm the netroots are.

It's great to see a show with so much insight.  If there was more shows like that segment, I might have to go buy a TV...

Yes, impressive! (4.00 / 3)
Great performance! You looked great, your voice is very likeable, and your ability to produce well phrased statements "on the fly" is a big advantage on TV. Much too often there are people in interviews and roundtables who can't voice one single sentence that would still look good in the transcript.

And then, you made all the right points, of course, as had to be expected. Really, a great job at representing the progressive blogosphere!

Let it be said by our children's children that when we were tested, we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back, nor did we falter

[ Parent ]
Great Appearance, Chris (4.00 / 2)
You should do that more often.  

"Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra
One of the most impressive debuts I've seen (4.00 / 9)
Bravo. This is probably my first comment here but after catching the last few minutes of the Hardball segment on replay I felt compelled to congratulate Chris Bowers on his performance. It was relaxed, specific and conversational, with just the right amount of input, the answers neither too brief or overly rambling.

Cross overs to a different media are normally so awkward I cringe and often turn away. I've experienced that in Las Vegas when I recommended very sharp guys to appear on sports radio talk shows, only to see them freeze to the point of unrecognizable. There have been netroots TV examples, including recently. But Chris was remarkably calm with immediate sensible responses. You could tell Chris Matthews was impressed when he asked for specific alternative candidates, then failed to nitpick the names. He ended the segment with the demeanor he reserves for someone whose opinion he genuinely respects.

You'll be asked to return. Frequently.

I wondered about the eyes. Somewhat upward glancing was my primary thought. Thanks for the info on the medical condition.

BTW, it was never uncomfortable to support Hillary. There was tons of valid rationale for it. Dominating Obama in the vast majority of the debates was hardly trivial. On one site a staunch Obama supporter emphasized to me early last summer that Obama "won several of those debates against Hillary." LOL. I certainly couldn't argue with that, not among a sample of 20+.

I think I'd freeze up (4.00 / 1)
I'm plenty articulate when I'm bullshitting around with my friends and family, but if I had to go on teevee and do it I'm pretty sure it would mess with my mind. I'm always impressed when "normal" people can manage to do it.
[ Parent ]
Yep. It's nice to see an introvert done good. n/t (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
seriously good job! (4.00 / 1)
if this is what cable tv were normally like, i might actually watch it (except... i dont have cable).

end the blurring--vote steve novick for u.s. senate in oregon
No residual forces? (0.00 / 0)
No, it's not a moot point.  That's TODAY'S message, only.
Useful (4.00 / 6)
I watched you on Hardball and the points you made were very helpful in understanding some of your posts here.  Your blog posts are more polemical, often reactive of posts by other bloggers, and often assume that the people reading the post have read everything that you are writing in response to.  On Hardball, Chris Mathews asked you to explain yourself at a simpler level and you did well.

The point you made was a good one about how Defense and State are huge sprawling bureaucracies and that Barack Obama will not be able to micro-manage them from the left.

If one were to focus on reforming over the next couple of months these bureaucracies and turning them into progressive organizations  you would certainly want to have a reliably progressive Secretary of State or Defense to ride herd.  That is certainly what Reagan, Bush I and, especially, Bush II did with conservatives -- getting them to ride herd and corrupt the agencies, especially EPA, Justice, Interior, Homeland Security and Labor.

But that would be unrealistic given their current state.  What Bush and his predecessors did to these bureaucracies is a big part of the problem Obama faces.  Republicans have made them much more conservative than they used to be.  Tons of great, dedicated civil servants have quit or retired in disgust and been replaced -- in civil service positions -- by Republican hacks.  These bureaucracies are now far to the right of even the Clinton retreads Obama will be appointing to lead them.  

The entrenched conservative operatives in these agencies would cut to pieces an inexperienced but progressive agency head.  They would delay, and leak and just play dumb, and then leak some more.  Much of Obama's time in office would be spent kneecapped by career conservatives, especially at State, Defense, Homeland Security and Justice. We got a glimpse of what this can be like in the performance of the Forest Service in response to Bill Clinton's attempts to make it (slightly) more environmentally friendly, and at Defense when homophobe bureaucrats kneecapped Clinton's attempt to let gay men and lesbians stay in the military out of the closet.

Republican hacks may still do an effective job of frustrating Obama's initiatives.  But by appointing people experienced with these bureaucracies to lead them, Obama is putting people in place who will have better prospects for rooting out the movement conservatives, of effectively getting rid of them, of preventing them from leaking to undercut Obama and to coordinate their leaks with the Republican noise machine and with Republicans in Congress.  

Rooting out, sidetracking or neutralizing these burrowed Republicans will allow Obama more room to focus on his agenda.  It will also increase his prospects for using the bureaucracies to further that agenda.  This process is better implemented by people who know how it's done and who themselves have extensive media contacts and who are themselves practiced at the art of the leak.

As you noted, these agencies are giant, sprawling bureaucracies.  That means they don't shift direction on a dime, no matter who is appointed to lead them.  Republicans faced this dilemma twenty-eight years ago.  Reagan had to tread gingerly, dancing with entrenched Democrats when he got into office.  Democrats at EPA leaked a stream of embarrassing information about, for example, Ann Burford and Rita LaVelle at EPA and about James Watt at Interior.  But as the Republican reign proceeded, each successive Republican was able to be more aggressive at corrupting the agencies and getting them under Republican control.  Each successive Republican president was able to appoint more and more movement conservatives as agency heads and those agency heads were increasingly able to make their agencies effectively dance to the Republican tune.

Barack Obama is just at the beginning of reversing this process and he faces daunting odds in a time of national economic emergency.

This isn't the best of all worlds, or even one we may like.  But it is the one we have after 20 years of Republican rule.  And Obama's approach of taking the Regent U grads as a threat is a reasonable one given what he's been handed.

depends on the underlings (0.00 / 0)
Normally Cabinet secretaries have only limited control of who serves under them.  If he wanted to, Obama could appoint plenty of progressives at the deputy assistant level.  There's been some talk, though, that Hillary Clinton negotiated for and got the right to choose her own staff, a right not usually given to cabinet secretaries.
[ Parent ]
I think the material on the site has improved a lot recently. (4.00 / 1)
You know, actual, even-handed, thoughtful analysis based on reality, with some keen insights, rather than "Obama is a secret conservative and you are all conspiracy mongers". Keep it up.
Co-sign (0.00 / 0)
And nice work on Hardball, Chris.  
[ Parent ]
Thanks for the good interview. (4.00 / 1)
I too thought you were relaxed, informative and easy to listen to. Being prepared with your own ideas of who Obama could have appointed is one area where guests often get tripped up. Bravo, Chris!  

Jeff Wegerson - Prairie State Blue
Join your local Toastmasters club!!! (4.00 / 1)
I'm 100% serious about this.  I improved my public speaking and confidence 100 fold by learning and listening to my fellow peers in my local Toastmasters club.  Don't waste time.  Join one today.  This shyness stuff will disolve away.  I'm telling you, you'll thank me 1000 times over. Join.  Google toastmasters right now. It's really cheap too!!!  
keep doing what you do (0.00 / 0)
natasha is very lucky
I thought you did great (0.00 / 0)
That was a great first appearance.

Anyway, your opponents are always going to throw exaggerated rhetoric about you being the angry voice of the disaffected left.  

But who cares?  There is no bad publicity.  I'm came here to get another perspective besides Dailykos's mindless Obama cheer leading.  You are right for saying that he doesn't put conservatives in the cabinet so he can govern from the left.  If others are to caught up in Obama propaganda that they have to attack you for making reasonable points, fuck 'em.

Saw you last night (4.00 / 1)
Chris, I'm probably one of the people most likely to complain about OpenLeft "whiners" with you and some others at the top of my list of offenders.  But, I also have to give you credit for wisely considering an "ask" when you headed down to DC, and I will happily endorse your role as media darling if you always show up with a specific ask - especially one that lines up with Obama's campaign promises.

Congratulations! :)

QT

Visit the Obama Project


WindOnWater.net



Awesome (0.00 / 0)
Bowers was great. I give him a B+.

Wow. Chris on Hardball, and then in the next section Tweety goes on to argue the position of my old bumper sticker: "I don't live in the homeland, I live in America." I may have to get expanded cable again if this is the face of things to come.

good job (0.00 / 0)
I thought you were great. Keep it up. Much better than the usual idiots I see on hardball.
Kudos to Chris (0.00 / 0)
Also, interesting that the interview with Jack Reed that followed brought up the bogus "pragmatism vs. ideology" meme as the supposed "counter balance" to what Chris had to say about the lack of policy-diverse perspectives among the Obama appointees thus far. That comment was very quickly glossed over by Matthews, and the rest of the typical Versailles discussion followed. So while it's great to see progressive bloggers featured on the MSM, these news shows have yet to attain "must-see" TV, IMHO.  
Moving to the left (0.00 / 0)
I enjoyed the interview. The points were well made and full of information, so I think that was an impressive debut.

The one thing I'd raise is that you didn't really define moving to the left. Obviously, Obama is moving to the left from Bush, but that's because Bush was crazy right wing. The question is not whether there was change, but whether there was enough.

Insofar as you're the voice for those left out on the left, this might be a good point to raise. Thinking of things as left vs. right just gets us shut out via the Overton window. Thinking of it was left, right and centre, with us needing ideas from the left to balance out the vast input from the right, might be a better way of thinking of it.

Although to be fair, you were sort of making this point when you got on the Team of Rivals idea.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

Congrats Chris (0.00 / 0)
Great job. Even though it might have been because of your contrariness like bruh pointed out, you did a good job and I'm sure you will be invited back at some point. Very nice bringing up the military spending too, I'm sure that isn't getting much play elsewhere on TV.

First Chris on Hardball, then Tina Brown suggested Greenwald to host MTP...perhaps one day we could turn NBC into OpenKos TerritoryBlogPAC Network. Then we could really give the right some liberal media.

Hardball | 50 comments
Donate to Open Left









QUICK HITS

Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.

blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS
STATE BLOGS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2009, Powered by SoapBlox