CNN Debate in Austin on Feb. 21, 2008
Here’s David Remnick in the New Yorker:
The 2008 Democratic race was not just good sport; it also made both Obama and Clinton better.
Huh? Where did that come from?
It sounds reasonable, kinda, and it fits in with his expressed desire that Hillary Clinton have serious competition in the 2016 Democratic rimaries. But . . . is that how political reporting has to be done? You have an opinion and then you say fact-free, reasonable-sounding things that line up with that opinion?
I mean, sure, don’t get me wrong, I’ve seen a lot worse. Some political columnists seem to make a career out of promoting clearly false claims. In contrast, Remnick’s claim — that the 2008 campaign made both Barack Obama and Clinton “better” — is not obviously false.
But I still don’t like it. I think that what Remnick is giving us is the grown-up version of the famous five-paragraph essay from high school, where you take a position, then you give three arguments in favor, then you conclude. It doesn’t matter if the arguments are true or even if they are supported by any evidence; they just need to feel right.