More

Jane Smiley

Jane Smiley

Posted: January 14, 2008 10:31 PM

Match Race


As long as the press is determined to look at the Democratic primary as a horse race, then let's talk about horse racing. One thing I do every single year is tune in to the Breeder's Cup. The Breeder's Cup used to be six big races in one day. Now it has burgeoned to ten races run over two days, and they all have big purses. When you are watching Breeder's Cup day, you can thrill to the beautiful horses; you can enjoy the human interest videos about improbable owners or heroic horses. The other very enjoyable thing you can do is laugh at the handicappers. Before every race, the announcers themselves, plus a few hired "experts", stand around and opine about which horse is going to win. Most of the time, because conditions for the Breeder's Cup are unusual for almost every horse, the handicappers are dead wrong. Often, out of nine races, the professionals will pick the winners of one or two. For a fan of racing, this produces the utter delight of watching the experts wax more and more eloquent and more and more stupid at the same time. The races are always more interesting that the pre-race analysis. But we racing fans forgive the pundits, partly because the pundits know that whatever they are saying is more or less a joke, and so they say it with a sense of fun, and partly because the Breeder's Cup lasts for hours and hours, the races last for a minute or two apiece, and they've got to fill the time somehow.

A good horse race has a lot of horses in it. Big American races usually have between eight and fourteen runners. Too few, and the race is too hard on the horses, too many, and there's too much traffic. Having a number of horses in a race means that horse and jockey are tested in several ways -- not only speed and stamina, but intelligence, strategy, and luck. There are horses who are not so fast who are able to stare down other horses and intimidate them. There are horses that take a while to get going who run down the quicker ones. There are horses who love to be out in front of the pack, and on a good day run away from everyone. There are jockeys, like the late Willie Shoemaker, who can take a horse through a tiny opening almost before he can consciously perceive it. A good race tests many aspects of horse and jockey, and then, in the end, often awards the victory to the one who managed to avoid bad luck.

What no owner or trainer wants is a match race -- that is a race between two great horses in which they compete only against one another. The reason for this is that great horses are highly competitive, and in a match race one or the other of them can be run, literally, to death, as happened to the great filly Ruffian in 1975. Even after Ruffian broke the sesamoid bones in her foot 3/8s of a mile into the race, she ran as hard as she could for another fifty yards, breaking the hearts of everyone who saw the race.

One of the virtues of the primary electoral system is that in good years, it avoids the problems of the match race. The candidates' competitiveness is dissipated by the large field, and the candidates' positions influence each other. Ideally, what comes out of the primaries is more than the sum of all the positions going in. If I like this from candidate A and that from candidate B and something else from candidates C and D, I can give my money and support and suggestions to more than one of them, and see them, together, come up with a consensus that represents most of the party. As each amasses his or her their delegates, he or she also learns something. Positions can't harden because there will be -- guess what -- horsetrading at the end.

Unfortunately, what we see among the Democrats now is what happens when the fans start wanting a match race and the owners start talking about giving it to them. Clinton is pressing Obama and Obama is pressing Clinton. Both of them are playing their various "cards" and the result is not productive but destructive. Only two primaries so far and we already see it -- each day brings news of a more intense and meaner-spirited rivalry that could easily create permanent bad blood between the two candidates and their supporters. It will certainly supply the Republicans with reams of material to employ once the presidential campaign gets underway. Every match race is a zero-sum and dangerous game. Ever heard the words "Pyrrhic victory", as in "I won the battle but my entire army was destroyed"? Obama and Clinton need to step back and take some time off, and their supporters need to go to their various corners, too. The enemy is watching.

 
 
  • Comments
  • 76
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3  Next ›  Last »  (3 total)
03:23 AM on 01/19/2008
This isn't what the "fans" wanted. The voters want to hear all the candidates, but the DNC and MSM have excluded Kucinich and Gravel and gave unfairly little talk clock time to Dodd, Biden and Richardson as well before they dropped out. Lou Dobbs had a poll asking if we wanted issues or horse race reporting. The answer overwhelmingly was issues. But all we get is contrived horse race and dumb down.

The result isn't a match race between two great competitors running each other down with brilliant arguments and drive. It's a made-for-TV fake. It's also a shame. It's also dull. I'm sick of the 3 and hoping for a brokered convention rescue by Al Gore.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Guitarsandmore
devoted father, community activist, musician, reti
11:45 PM on 01/18/2008
Take this sinking boat and point it home
We've still got time
Raise your hopeful voice you have a choice
You make it now

You have suffered enough
And warred with yourself
It's time that you won

Take this sinking boat and point it home
We've still got time
Raise your hopeful voice you have a choice
You make it now

You have suffered enough
And warred with yourself
It’s time you won

Take this sinking boat and point it home
We've still got time
Raise your hopeful voice you have a choice
You make it now

Falling slowly sing your melody
I'll sing along


With apologies to Glen Hansard
12:20 AM on 01/16/2008
Your analogy of the pitfalls of an equine match race to the primaries is a sound one. The outcome of a horse "duel" is often the one with the most early speed. A match race lacks the influence of varied and multiple strategies and abilities in affecting the outcome. The MSM seems intent on "scratching" this race down to Clinton/Obama when a few additional entrants should have had a serious scrutiny in the post parade. Losing the dynamic and dialogue between additional candidates removes their input from the discourse. MSM seems to enjoy the African American/woman narrative and is trying hard to make it the reality. The musings of Dodd, Biden, Richardson, Kucinich and to a lesser extent Edwards were looked upon as the thoughts of an "also ran". Except for Edwards they were looked upon dismissively. We lose the benefit of their seasoned reasoning and wisdom.........whether or not their thoughts have been "vetted" by polling. Our country needs to take a look at the ownership of MSM and how they might be influencing coverage because of selfish intent. Its almost as if they lobby for the race they prefer. True democracy seems at-risk. The electorate is capable of having a larger field for a much longer time. We do not need the process simplified and narrowed by the "powers that be".
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
BoulderSue
BoulderSue
04:38 PM on 01/15/2008
Did you see Dan Abrams on MSNBC last night? He went to great lengths to explain the whole feud, complete with comments IN context and how thi was mostly a media concoction. Taken in by the MSM again?
03:13 PM on 01/15/2008
I love your books and writing, Jane--so I hate to be the "skunk at the garden party". But here goes...at least Hillary and Obama have a choice about racing. Horses do not. They are raced too young on fragile legs that have not had time to develop good bone density. They are kept penned up in stalls (very unnatural for a creature meant to wander 30 miles or more a day) and only released to train or run. No wonder most racers have health problems or are half crazy! USA horse racing is a cruel sport for our "entertainment."
02:39 PM on 01/15/2008
If this was a horse race, we would only be 11 feet into the one mile race.

Don't let the media oligarchy choose the president!

NBC Debates Action Page: http://www.usalone.com/nbc_debates.php

Since the top two horses are biting and kicking each other,

Maybe it's time to vote for Kucinich!

Strength through PEACE!
02:14 PM on 01/15/2008
If this was a horse race, we would only be 11 feet into the one mile race.

Don't let the media oligarchy choose the president!

NBC Debates Action Page: http://www.usalone.com/nbc_debates.php
01:43 PM on 01/15/2008
As a Richardson supporter who was objectively looking at Obama and Clinton since Richardson bowed out, I cannot accept your version of events based on the evidence.

The swiftboating Bush/Rove type campaign behavior started shortly after the Clinton defeat at the Iowa cauceses when it looked like they would be embarrassed in New Hampshire as well.

Clinton said the were going to go negative, and the mud started to fly.

A targeted mass-mailing on abortion rights they new was false was sent out. Former President Clinton ascribed comments to Obama regarding Iraq he knew were false.

Now she makes some comments about Obama being an "empty suit" by using Dr. King. Clinton supporters and bloggers call on her to clarify, and this is magically turned into Obama distorting what she said. I've got no problem with what she said, just that she tried the Bush/Rove tactic of claiming Obama made statements about what she said when he did not.

The Obama campaign has now set up a war room similar to the one set up by Bill Clinton in 1992 -- and who can blame them. Bill and Hillary are using the same tactics as Bush 41 and Bush/Rove.

Ironically, the "empty suit" argument was used on Bill Clinton by Bush41 as well.
01:14 PM on 01/15/2008
Rather than a horse race, I'd liken this to the Roman Colliseum. And the media pundits are out for blood. Look at how they reacted to McCain - "we thought he was dead" - what did the lions eat him? - "and now he's back from the dead and a contender". Thumbs up or down - who lives? Everything is blown up out of proportion to get more blood on the floor, as with this Clinton/Obama race issue. Al Gore was mocked by the media for being a nerd, and good old George was the guy to have a beer with.This is such a complicated world with complicated interrelated problems - I'm trying to focus on what each candidate says about the issues and ignoring the TV media (except for Jon Stewart) and print media for the most part except actual reporting.Doesn't seem that long ago that the general consensus was that we were lucky to have such a strong slate of Democratic contenders - which then also included Biden and Richardson - that any of them would be a good choice. I still feel that way.
11:57 AM on 01/15/2008
"What no owner or trainer wants is a match race -- that is a race between two great horses in which they compete only against one another. The reason for this is that great horses are highly competitive" (snip)

The truth is that the greatness of these two horses is a media fabrication, helped along by the fiction that they are the only two candidates in the race.

And neither one is particularly competitive.

Hillary tried to do away with her competition through arm-twisting and mythologizing about her inevetability.

Obama, in his first race for a safe Illinois state senate, successfully sued to have all four of his primary opponents' names removed from the ballot. Asked whether the district's primary voters were well served by having only one candidate on the ballot, he smiled and said: "I think they ended up with a very good state senator."

He even owes his senatae seat to the implosion of his primary and general election opponents.

On a level playing field, er, racetrack, John Edwards (whom his wife calls the Seabiscuit of this race) would have outpaced these two show horses long ago. I say we put them out to pasture and let the real racehorse run.
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
WorkingClass
11:24 AM on 01/15/2008
The oligarchy, and more specifically the corporate media, want a contest between Clinton and Obama because they own them both. If you vote for either one they own you too. Vote for Edwards.
11:20 AM on 01/15/2008
Clintons and their ilk, i.e, the establishment, friends, and supporters are fighting with themselves over gender or race, Obama and his supports are mostly men, independents, Republicans and reasonable Democrats, Hilary supporters, spoiled and entitled, and if you don't support or kiss her ass, CROWN her, then you are a Hater.
11:07 AM on 01/15/2008
The Obama campaign played "victim" routines on Hill's MLK/LBJ gaffe and took Bill's out-of-context "fairytale" comment. Otherwise they've been pretty good.

You have to say most of the scum comes from the Clinton campaign -- some from H, some from B, and some from lesser surrogates. What's amazing is how how poorly the Clinton campaign is at sliming. They used to be much better at it. What happened?

My favorite was when Bob Kerry referred to Obama's drug use not long after Mark Penn got nailed for the same thing and the campaign denied responsibility saying, "Well, that's just wacky old Bob Kerry. You never know what he's going to say." Bob Kerry?!

They're still doing it and denying it too. First with Shaheen and most lately with Bob (more money and less conscience than Shug Knight) Johnson.

She's done better on the victimization front though. Taking Obama's "You're likeable enough, Hillary" as an insult was beautiful. It was intended as a dry, understated compliment -- and yet, even in context the press still plays it as a turning point moment.

Returning to MLK and Bob Johnson, it's curious and off-putting to see the Clintons' sense of entitlement when it comes to the support of black voters. Her campaign is determined to create a "who's blacker" distinction -- and it's one she can only lose. So far though Obama has been very circumspect in his use of race. That's a big part of his appeal, too.

So far though, I don't see anything that will leave lasting scars. At least not between those two and the masses of their supporters.

In the context of what passes for "normal" in American politics both campaigns have been fairly clean. Maybe not Kerry v Edwards or Gore v Bradley clean, but those were exceptional rather than normative races. Besides, neither was ever really competitive. Considering that Clinton v Obama is VERY tight, it's a reasonably clean contest.

BDL
11:01 AM on 01/15/2008
Here the Deomcrats go again!! Since the 68 election they have paraded an assortment of losers out before the public. They've made every election so difficult and divisive that either the electroate stayed home or voted the simple way-for the Repbulicans. Result: we've had one decent Democrat (who forever sullied his name and his reputation) elected president; we've had little -if any- movement toward a better USA, and a feeling that the Democrats are losers.
Now we have another set of "losers" out there fighting while the Republicans speak simply scaring us to death witheir constant talk of the "boogeyman" at the door, or the "homersexuals" moving in next door with their evil life style. All the time the Democrat fight---and they lose!!!!
10:48 AM on 01/15/2008
Totally agree. The republicans want nothing better than to see Clinton and Obama go mano a mano.

Likewise, those of us on the left are hoping to see the republicans destroy each other in the primaries.

What ever happened to the important issues?