Chris Matthews -- our nation's finest?

There are political pundits and there are political pundits. It would be beneficial to the US body politic if the broadcast media started hiring a few who knew what they were talking about. If they were to regard politics as of some importance -- well, heck, that might be a start.

Here's the wonderfully acerbic Jamison Foser of Media Matters reporting (http://mediamatters.org/items/200804110009?f=s_search, where there's lots more) on a recent piece of television poltical analysis between two highly paid pundits, one of whom (Matthews) reportedly earns some $5 million annually for dragging our nation's political discourse to a level considerably below where even that drunk guy in the bar who insists on talking to you can take it:

On last night's Hardball, host Chris Matthews and David Shuster focused like a laser on the things that really matter:

MATTHEWS: He's [Sen. Barack Obama] not that good at that -- handshaking in a diner.

SHUSTER: No --

MATTHEWS: Barack doesn't seem to know how to do that right.

SHUSTER: -- he doesn't do that well. But then you see him in front of 15,000 people in some of these college towns, and that's why, Chris, we've seen Chelsea Clinton and Bill Clinton in Bloomington and South Bend and Terre Haute. I mean --

MATTHEWS: What's so hard about doing a diner? I don't get it. Why doesn't he go in there and say, "Did you see the papers today? What do you think about that team? How did we do last night?" Just some regular connection?

SHUSTER: Well, here's the other thing that we saw on the tape, Chris, is that, when Obama went in, he was offered coffee, and he said, "I'll have orange juice."

MATTHEWS: No.

SHUSTER: He did.

And it's just one of those sort of weird things. You know, when the owner of the diner says, "Here, have some coffee," you say, "Yes, thank you," and, "Oh, can I also please have some orange juice, in addition to this?" You don't just say, "No, I'll take orange juice," and then turn away and start shaking hands. That's what happens [unintelligible] --

MATTHEWS: You don't ask for a substitute on the menu.

SHUSTER: Exactly.

MATTHEWS: David, what a regular guy. You could do this. Anyway, thank you, David Shuster. I mean, go to the diners.

. . . These discussions of bowling and beverages may be stupid, but they aren't pointless. They are part of a broader pattern of media portraying prominent progressives as elitists.

Matthews routinely asks if Obama can "connect with regular people." Apparently, all those people who have been voting for Obama are irregular. And, just so you don't have to wonder exactly who it is Chris Matthews considers irregular, he spelled it out for you, continuing: "Or does he only appeal to people who come from the African-American community and from the people who have college or advanced degrees?"

. . . Most people understand that in a time of war, with the nation teetering on the edge of recession (if one hasn't already started), and the housing market collapsing, and an administration that views the Geneva Conventions as "quaint" and the Bill of Rights as optional, assessing candidates based on who would be the most fun to have a beer with is not the way out of this mess; it's the way we got into it in the first place. Most people -- but not political journalists.

Which isn't to say that there is nothing candidates can do to avoid having reporters relentlessly mock them as out-of-touch elitists: They can run for office as Republicans.

George W. Bush and Al Gore were both sons of successful politicians, both attended private schools and Ivy League colleges, but only one was portrayed by the media as an out-of-touch elite; the other was a "regular guy." Bush owns $13,000 worth of bicycles -- a fact that never seemed to come up when the media were portraying John Kerry's windsurfing as the pastime of the wealthy. Kerry was skewered for ordering a cheesesteak with Swiss cheese -- and when Bush lied about ordering his with Cheez Whiz, the news media politely stayed silent. John Edwards' expensive haircut was endlessly portrayed by the media as evidence that he was an out-of-touch elitist dandy --but how often have you seen a reporter menti on that George W. Bush handpicks the cloth for his $2,000 suits?

During the height of the media frenzy over Edwards' haircut, New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd made fun of him for visiting "the Pink Sapphire spa in Manchester, which offers services for men that include the 'Touch of Youth' facial, as well as trips 'into the intriguing world of makeup.' " But, as Bob Somerby pointed out, John McCain has also taken a trip "into the intriguing world of makeup" at the Pink Sapphire. Somehow, Dowd forgot to include that in her column -- and the rest of the media (except for the New Hampshire Union Leader) forgot as well.

. . . Last year, CNN's Wolf Blitzer called Hillary Clinton a "flip-flopper" because she sometimes drinks her coffee black, and sometimes with cream. The very same Associated Press article from which Blitzer learned this completely irrelevant fact also reported that Rudy Giuliani drinks his coffee with "Sweet'n Low or Equal, whichever is available," and that John McCain likes "[c]appuccino or coffee with cream and sugar." Blitzer saw no troubling insecurity in Giuliani's or McCain's preferences

What the hell kind of democracy can we expect when we tolerate such complete garbage and pretend that it constitutes a source upon which we can base our democratic judgements? Television will always, for obvious reasons, be a less satisfactory medium than print for conveying the matter of democracy; but that is no good cause for it to seek, deliberately, standards lower than even the wildest of fantasists could imagine were they not to be demonstrated nightly.

Matthews is a misogynistic oaf who properly belongs on an analyst's couch; there is something desperately wrong with the guy's wiring. Blitzer . . . well, it's hard, really, to talk about Blitzer without being accused of prejudice. I blame no one for being stupid (hey, ask my wife how stupid I can be), but I do think there's something detectably rotten about thinking that stupidity and political ignorance are somehow irrelevant to one's qualifications as a commenter on the political scene, which is apparently what Blitzer does -- not to mention the CNN bosses who pay him the kind of salary that makes it a waste of time to buy lottery tickets.

That salary is, of course, in truth paid by us -- by you and me. Every time we buy something in the supermarket or appliance store, we're paying for ads that are in fairly large part funded by the salaries of second-raters like Blitzer and Matthews. There's a way we can improve this nation's political discourse. It's a long and a slow way, and for many an age it might seem as if our individual contribution to it is achieving nothing, but, guess what . . .?