Taking Stock of Ages

I've been making this point for a while now. Age is going to be an issue if it turns out to be an Obama v. McCain race for the White House.

Not the age of the voters so much as the age of the candidates. McCain's going to have a tough time looking viable up against Obama's vitality.

Last night was a great example. Nets were all on McCain when Obama stepped up on stage. You better believe there was some serious "What the hell do we do?!?" going on behind the scenes in control rooms everywhere. You cut away from McCain mid-sentence, and you sweat the wrath of the inevitable accusations of bias and favoritism. But you know Obama's going to be better TV.

The nets got lucky that there didn't appear to be much substantial overlap. I don't know for sure though because everyone went to Obama, and I don't have much interest in researching the end of McCain's speech online.

And that says something too.

Post Super Tuesday Post

There was a lot to take in last night. States, votes, percentages, delegates, and a whole slew of fancy maps and graphics. We started the eve at a party but rode out the bulk of the results at a smaller intimate gathering and made it home just in time to watch Cali trickle in from the comfort of my couch.

Now that Super Tuesday's passed, I'm turning my attention to the role of superdelegates who - as I am learning - are not just delegates with capes.

Wikipedia's got the best explanation of superdelegates that I've been able to find online so far. And 2008 Democratic Convention Watch is doing a good job of keeping track of Democratic superdelegate endorsements and the uncommitted still up for grabs.

I wonder how much of an impact superdelegates will have this time around, especially since the Clinton/Obama race could be superclose right down to the wire.

On the Republican side, it seems inevitable that McCain's going to bring it home. I was a little surprised by Huckabee's strength last night, particularly in the southern states, but it's probably only because I'd been listening to the media narrative honing in on McCain v. Romney. I felt like Huckabee had been all but written off completely going into Super Tuesday, but a report of his benefitting from a McCain camp push to thwart Romney in West Virginia and then McCain's niceties towards Huckabee in his victory speech (2:13 in) lead me to believe there may be some truth to the rumor of a McCain/Huckabee ticket to come. We shall see.

Case of Solid Parenting

Miss Lindsay's come through with another fresh installment of "Seriously Florida, WTF?"

Case of Beer Buckled in But Not Baby

ST. AUGUSTINE, FL -- Investigators say a woman accused of drunk driving had a case of beer buckled up safely, and a one year old girl sitting in the backseat without a seatbelt or car seat.

On Super Bowl Sunday, a deputy saw a car drive through a red light and swerve back and forth over the center lane on U.S. 1 South.

The deputy stopped the car.

Investigators say the woman, who identified herself as Tina Williams, smelled of alcohol.

According to the report, Williams told the deputy she never had a license and was running out of gas.

The deputy saw a case of Busch beer in the front seat with a seat belt around it, and a baby girl in the backseat.

When asked why the girl wasn't restrained, Williams reportedly told the officer, "I don't know."

Williams told the deputy she had a few drinks. Authorities say she staggered when she got out of her car.

The deputy arrested her for DUI after she failed a field sobriety test.

Authorities also found two silver metal pipes in her purse.

Williams faces charges of driving under the influence, child endangerment, driving without a valid license running a red light and not having a seatbelt or child restraint.

Back That Thang Up

Via Shoptalk, I found this article today about the sad state of political coverage.

From Chicago's Daily Herald, columnist Ted Cox writes:

The quality of political coverage on TV this season has been appalling. Not that I have ever expected anyone but PBS' "NewsHour" to actually deal with substantive stands and parse speeches, but this year pundits on the major broadcast and cable networks have offered little more than flawed polls and political invective.

Cox argues TV pundits are avoiding substance because they're "so obsessed [sic] competing with the blogosphere:"

It's all about hits and eyeballs, and for someone like [Chris] Matthews, who doesn't have the ability to deal with anything substantive and make it matter, being obnoxiously captivating is all he has to fall back on.

I disagree. I don't think Matthews or the higher ups at MSNBC give two sh*ts about the blogosphere. I think they - like any cable or broadcast network - care about viewer numbers and ratings and subsequently, ad revenue. That's why PBS can dig into the nitty gritty. They've got that freedom. Networks are businesses, and ultimately, how many people tune in dictates how much they charge for ad time which dictates how much money they have to pay for staff and gadgets and sets and facilities.

It doesn't excuse TV talking heads' bad behavior and poor judgment. We - as an industry - should ditch the speculation and guesswork and focus more on what matters. But the 24-hour news cycle demands cable nets fill the time.

Just like many are apt to babble to fill awkward silence on a bad date, so sit correspondents and analysts and anchors with hours to kill.

If I had to bring the blogosphere into this debate, I would actually argue the following instead. I don't think TV people are competing with the blogosphere. I think they're a little jealous of the blogosphere (stay with me) because you can speculate online. It is perfectly ok to "voice" your opinion. You've got unlimited space and no corporate accountability (unless you're tied to a larger entity, in which case, that's whatever deal you've negotiated with the powers that be.)

But generally, online reporters and correspondents have the freedom to take the conversation in whatever direction they please. And that liberty disappears when you answer to big business and big money.

So the bottom line is I agree with Cox in that we'd all be better served by more substance on TV, but tying lazy reporting to blog-chasing is wrong.

It - too - is misinformed speculation.

Loaded Question

An old high school friend invented a board game called Loaded Questions. It's been on the market for a while in toy stores, book stores, etc. He once sent me a freebie for doing him a favor, and though I have never actually played the game as intended, I have distributed short stacks of game cards amongst friends and sparked up some seriously engaging conversation.

The questions aren't half as scandalous as you might suspect. Instead, they tend to be just interesting enough to get the ball rolling.

One fun one is (and I paraphrase here because I'm too lazy to go dig up the actual card) "What celebrity do people say you resemble most?"

I'll start. I used to get Kim Raver and Sheryl Crow when I was blonde. My signif looks like the new Brawny guy or Paul Rudd depending on whom you ask.

What about you? Whom do you look like when your friends are loaded?

Truth in Advertising

Reading off of your network's website does not make you an Internet Reporter.

It makes you a salesperson with eyes and a T1 connection.

I'm done pulling punches.

Case of the Mondays

I'm posting just to get rid of the nacho pic lingering at the top of the page.

I started to feel like it was taunting me.

Anyway, it's been a ridiculously slow Monday. Tomorrow's bound to be better. Especially the eve.