In politics, who "wins" the argument is less important that who decides what the argument is about. Republicans have learned that lesson. Democrats need to catch up.
Take the discussion about Scott McClellan's book. From a liberal or Democratic perspective, the most important aspect of that book is the revelation that even Bush's own press secretary thinks that the press was too deferential to the Bush administration, especially when the Iraq War was being sold to the public:
... the national press corps was probably too deferential to the White House and to the administration in regard to the most important decision facing the nation during my years in Washington, the choice over whether to go to war in Iraq ... the "liberal media" didn't live up to its reputation. If it had, the country would have been better served.
In discussing McClellan's book, Jessica Yellin acknowledged the extent to which corporate pressure to be "patriotic" shaped news coverage at MSNBC, one of her employers during that period.
When the lead-up to the war began, the press corps was under enormous pressure from corporate executives, frankly, to make sure that this was a war that was presented in a way that was consistent with the patriotic fever in the nation and the president's high approval ratings.
Between them, McClellan and Yellin completely demolish the "liberal media bias" myth that has served the right so well for so long.
Given the facts, the Bush administration and its allies didn't want to have to argue that McClellan and Yellin are wrong. But of course they also didn't want to admit that McCellan and Yellin are right. So what do they do? Ignore the substance entirely, and make the argument about McClellan's character: the old slime-and-defend game. "He's just a disgruntled employee." (Have you ever noticed how few former employees are actually gruntled?)
The point is not to win the argument: it couldn't matter less what judgment the public forms about McClellan's character, or even about whether the Bush White House told the press a pack of lies. Neither McClellan nor Bush is on the ballot this fall.
The point is to distract attention from the fact that Bush's own press spokesman says he and his boss managed to bamboozle the press. That's the fact that the right wing can't afford to have the public notice, or reporters know that the public has noticed; otherwise the next bamboozlement might not go as well, and reporters might have to at least try to conceal their adulation of John McCain. That's why the media were so eager to downplay McClellan's charges, despite their accuracy.
As long as we're arguing about whether Scott McCellan is a liar, no one in the press is required to confront its professional failure, no one in the public learns about the "liberal media bias" myth, and no real harm comes to right-wing interests.
By the same token, the flap about the fact that Barack Obama said his uncle helped liberate Auschwitz when in fact it was his grand-uncle who helped liberate Buchenwald was obviously trivial, and I doubt that anyone really became less interested in voting for Obama as a result of it. (It might help protect John McCain the next time he can't tell a Sunni from a Shi'a, but that's about it.) But anyone who thinks the Democrats "won" that exchange doesn't know how the game is played.
What that manufactured controversy did was drive the Phil Gramm scandal out of the day's media coverage. "What Phil Gramm scandal?" you ask. To which I reply, "Precisely!"
Keith Olbermann actually managed to break some hard news: at the very time former Senator Phil Gramm was helping to craft John McCain's "hands-off" policy toward the mortgage crisis, Gramm was a registered lobbyist for the Swiss bank UBS, which just happens to be hip-deep in bad paper.
Coincidentally, on the very same day the Financial Times reported that UBS had advised 50 current and former employees of its private banking group not to travel to the United States. The bank is worried that they might be arrested in connection with a massive tax-evasion scheme under which UBS helped rich Americans cheat the IRS, thus making sure that the rest of us suckers had to pay for, e.g., the War in Iraq. Some of the clients of the scheme are already testifying before a grand jury, and a senior UBS official has already been indicted. UBS is offering to provide lawyers for all of the suspects.
Now, how is it that Gramm got to be Vice-Chairman of UBS? Why, by being the chief author of the banking-deregulation legislation (the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act) that made so many bankers rich and helped create the crisis McCain doesn't want to do anything about.
In keeping with McCain's decision to purge "lobbyists" from his campaign, Gramm had himself de-registered as a lobbyist. But he's still Vice Chairman of UBS, and still McCain's chief economic adviser. All the de-listing means is that he can't now personally call Congressmen or Senators; no doubt his staff can handle such details for the next few months.
All the makings of a huge news story, right? Revolving-door lobbyist, presidential candidate, mortgage crisis, lawbreaking. And yet the story of the day was Obama's grand-uncle, and the Gramm story never broke through the clutter (even on the Huffington Post).
Now that's a victory, if you're a Republican. As long as this pattern continues, we can win all the battles and lose the war.
A problem, as the math textbooks say, left as an exercise for the reader:
What are we going to do about it?