DVD Review: So Goes The Nation
Political documentaries can be fascinating but sometimes there’s a hitch that limits their accessibility: the filmmakers’ point of view becomes so strong that it boils down to the “good guys” and the “bad guys.” The problem with that is that everyone thinks it’s the other side that’s bad so you get a) political documentaries that preach to the choir, b) political documentaries that are shunned by the opposite side, c) political documentaries that have limited commercial shelf-life since their audience is limited to those already agreeing with the point of view and they point to it as proof (which the other side rejects).
But now there’s a DVD on the 2004 presidential election that can be viewed, enjoyed and be instructive to ALL sides — and should be REQUIRED VIEWING for anyone interested in going into politics, to present political operatives of all (or no) parties and to people who seek to learn the 2004 election’s lessons and WIN.
The DVD: So Goes The Nation, is directors James Stern’s and Adam Del Deo’s gripping primer on how to win — and lose — an election.
And, in fact, if you watch this and go back and look at what happened in 2006, it’s clear the Democrats LEARNED these lessons (although the lingering question remains whether they’ll forget them by 2008). Plus the Demmies built on them. In 2004 they lost by going after independent voters and not paying attention to getting every Democrat-leaning voter out but in 2006 got their base out to vote AND the independent voters.
But, as So Goes The Nation shows in 2004, the Democrats had to learn some painful political lessons the hard way. Among them: stay on message, don’t let yourself be dragged into being baited into committing political-suicide-by-mouth by saying dumb things that will be used against you; while seeking out independent voters is important, don’t forget to go out to get every single possible voter of your own party and make sure you get them to the polls; answer charges such as the Swift Boat Veterans’ attacks immediately and don’t assume the charge will simply fade away or wait until later.
And, above all, pick a candidate who has his political act together.
The DVD’s title refers to the fact that since 1960 every Presidential campaign winner had won Ohio. But Ohio is actually more of a peg for a movie about the national campaign in general — a movie laid out coolly, clinically, sans demonizing either side but unsparingly brutal in its assessment (via interviews from both sides) of what went wrong. Two key things that went wrong: John Kerry was a flawed candidate and the Democrats’ efforts to get out voters was too simplistic and disorganized to triumph over the GOP’s well-oiled and elaborate efforts (which the Democrats emulated in 2006).
What makes So Goes The Nation so delicious is that its “subplot” is really about the top, middle and lower campaign operatives on both sides, what they did, what they hoped for and how they judged what happened. You get big names from both sides such as national committee chairmen Terry McAuliffe and Ed Gillespie, campaign managers Mary Beth Cahill and Ken Mehlman, and political campaign pros like Paul Begala and Matthew Dowd. And none of them remotely resemble the screeching ideologues on radio or cable talk shows (or some blogs at the height of their rage). The most fascinating and colorful is Democrat Begala, who does not spare his party (or Kerry) often brutal criticism (and is far more likeable here than he is on CNN).
Those who expect the film will confirm Ohio was stolen will be disappointed. It shows no evidence of that and, in fact, shows how the Republicans outplanned and outworked the Democrats. It shows you the grand strategies, how things played out locally with volunteers on both sides, the battle of the TV political ads and how and why one side prevailed. And it shows that campaign operatives on both sides agree on a lot of the post-election analysis.
The irony about 2004 is that Democratic and Republican operatives agreed on one point: it was truly a LOUSY YEAR to be a Republican. So this time the Democrats felt they had a perfect candidate, one with a war record. But in the end (as the film shows) John Kerry proved to be the self-destructive Wily Coyote to George W. Bush’s Roadrunner. In one truly revealing segment, So Goes The Nation chronicles how Republican operatives tried to lay a trap so Kerry would bite at the bait and say something as politically suicidal as “I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it.â€? And, as they watched on live TV, they saw him bite the bait and then gobble up the whole rod. And they knew: END GAME.
Why? Because one of the key themes that emerges is the need for a campaign to stay relentlessly on message and limit the themes to a few understandable ones. And also because what the public says may not be what public actually wants or expects. For instance, Begala notes how everyone says they hate negative political ads — but they WORK.
In the end, So Goes The Nation confirms (again) that American elections are more about the “science” of getting votes than a vigorous interaction of “political” ideas that the political process presumably requires. “It’s got nothing to do with right or wrong,” says Republican vote seeker Leslie Ghiz.
So Goes The Nation documents how elections hinge on the science of moving people to make desired choices, a single-mindedness of relentless and well-organized political boots on the ground, battlefield-worthy rapid response and someone at the top who does more political scoring than toe-stubbing.
Without these factors, so goes the election…
REQUIRED VIEWING FOR ANYONE INTERESTED IN POLITICS.
18 Responses to “DVD Review: So Goes The Nation”
“Those who expect the film will confirm Ohio was stolen will be disappointed. It shows no evidence of that and, in fact, shows how the Republicans outplanned and outworked the Democrats.”
Which doesn’t say that the election WASN’T stolen. Too many strange results, especially on touch-screen voting machines without paper trails, to simply dismiss the suspicion. Just look at the results of the elections in New Mexico before and after touch-screen machines became verboten. An astounding reduction in ‘undervotes’ from 2004 to 2006. Pure coincidence?
“In one truly revealing segment, So Goes The Nation chronicles how Republican operatives tried to lay a trap so Kerry would bite at the bait and say something as politically suicidal as “I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it.â€?”
The complicit role of the media, which spread this republican talking point without adequately reporting about the context of this remark (and of the bill) shouldn’t be forgotten too. But of course, Dem communication management, which should have vehemently countered this crap, and put their own version against it, was totally MIA, agreed.
“And they knew: END GAME.”
No exaggerations, pls. Nobody knew before the polls closed. It was a close race until the very end.
“the science of moving people to make desired choices”
That’s a ‘science’ like economics. Still much Voodoo and Alchemy in it…
Gray said: “The complicit role of the media, which spread this republican talking point without adequately reporting about the context of this remark (and of the bill) shouldn’t be forgotten too”
Gray, on this point the media were totally complicit…in supporting the Democrats.
There was a lengthy analysis of this episode in the MSM shortly after the election. At this point in the campaign, Kerry was in total lock-down mode. Rove kept trying to get the reporters covering Kerry to ask him to explain the seeming contradiction in his votes.
The reporters refused, with one member of the White House press corps telling Rove: “We’re not going to do you any favors.”
Rove’s solution: Every speech Bush gave, several times a day, every day, was a demand that Kerry answer this question.
Rove knew the news media skews Democratic, and did not care for him. But they simply could not ignore the President of the United States when for two weeks the president’s sole media message was – in essence – a single question.
Rove referred to Kerry’s anticipated answer as “The Gift”. They knew, based on Kerry’s track record, that he would say something very dumb. They would repeatedly check with each other via Blackberry: “Has he given us the Gift?”
Finally, a reporter asked Kerry the question…and the rest is history.
Gray, the media covered Kerry’s ass as best they could…especially in this episode. Rove was simply successful in working around the media on this point.
But without the support of the media, Kerry would not have even been competitive. The managing editor of Newsweek contended in 04 that media support was worth 15 percentage points to Kerry (he later reduced this to 5 points). But the media – which skews Democratic – is clearly liberal…and essential to any Democratic campaign.
Michael Wolff, Vanity Fair’s political correspondent, had this to say about the difference between the GOP and Democrats in re the media in the current Vanity Fair:
“The one constant I’ve observed, in 27 years as an on-again, off-again political reporter, is that Republicans return reporters’ calls and Democrats don’t…. Republicans return a reporter’s calls—and not grudgingly but eagerly (in contrast, you should hear the impatient and dismissive tone of the Democrats when you call them up).”
This is a very interesting comment, as it explains something I’ve puzzled about — why the Bush WH, who often seem to despise the media, and the MSM who skew liberal, seem to cooperate often as in the selling of the Iraq war in the pages of the NYT etc.
Wolff’s answer is: while the GOP hate the media, and vice versa, they will supply the media with talking points…while the Democrats are often clueless about why they should feed the media at all…apparently expecting, since the MSM are liberal too, that they will support the team regardless of what the Democrats do.
“Gray, the media covered Kerry’s ass as best they could…especially in this episode.”
Nonsense. The media greedily picked up the juicy Swift boat stuff, ignored all the cracks and falseries in that narrative, and refused to give Bush’s problematic past the same ‘air time’ (especially alcohol and possible drug abuse plus the holes in his national guard service story). As most big business units, Media corporations generally tend to be more conservative than liberal and this showed in their coverage. They had more to win from a continued republican ‘laise faire’ policy than from possible Dem regulations of the media market.
“The managing editor of Newsweek contended in 04 that media support was worth 15 percentage points to Kerry (he later reduced this to 5 points).”
Then media coverage of the Swift boat lies was worth 30 percentage points to Bush.
‘laise faire’
Oops, that’s ‘laissez faire’, of course…
Don’t misunderstand me, Marlowe, you raised some valid points. Rove and Co clearly were much better in feeding the beast. I just object against the unsupported urban myth that the MSM generally is biased towards the Dems. Corporations end to be conservative, and the managers hire editors who they trust in working in the best interest of the company . It’s the editors who decide on what’s in the papers, published online or gets ‘on the air’. That’s a much more decisive factor than any bias of the journalists.
Good points regarding the reasons behind the 2004 Democratic loss.
The planning and strategy were dismal.
But the other piece to that puzzle had to do with the control of media in this country. He who controls the media, controls public opinion. Or as goes the media, so goes the nation.
I hope the documentary will spend time on that issue…. hopefully encouraging Democrats to build the same kind of media infrastructure that the Republicans have. Although it finally looks as if the Republican media fortress is starting to crack just a little….. it’s STILL strong.
The Democrats (independent progressives too) have to learn how to first build a media infrastructure to match rivals, and then learn to effectively use it once they have it.
Neither one of these things has been accomplished so far.
Marlow-
You make two separate major points:
1. The Democrats have been incompetent strategists, and
2. The Media ‘clearly ‘ favor Democrats.
As for #1, I agree that Republicans have outsmarted their opponents. They are also more ruthless.
I give them credit for the smarts, but ruthlessness is not something I can admire.
It leads to the kind of negativity that we deplore when it’s over, but condone while the fight is still ongoing.
While it can not be denied, I am personally repelled by the notion that the most important factor in elections is the strategy, the media posturing, and not the message. I would gladly vote for a stuttering ugly person who had the right ideas.
#2 is no more than a Republican talking point, and I assume you honestly see it that way when your partisanship is running high. That doesn’t make it true.
As we went through this topic, I claimed and still do that the media’s top loyalty is to getting the scoop, and they will grab any red meat they see. In fact, compared to other candidates, Bush was treated with kid gloves.
HIs alcoholism was taboo everywhere except in some frenzied blogs, for example.
What you so ‘clearly’ see is a mixed bag of contradictory episodes to me.
Looks as if I need to see this documentary. I worked both the 2004 and 2006 elections for the Democrats here in Cincinnati Ohio. I do NOT think the election was ‘stolen.’
Gray said: “As most big business units, Media corporations generally tend to be more conservative than liberal and this showed in their coverage”
I agree.
You make an excellent point here and, I think, this “corporate bias” of the organizations counteracts the individual “liberal” bias of reporters. After all, reporters know who is paying their cheques every payday.
In support of your point one could cite the fact that, right after the O4 election, the head of CBS News visited the White House to make amends for Rathergate. I thought this a disgusting sycophantic bowing to power at the time — after all, if they thought the story was good they should have defended it.
Domajot, I agree with you argument that the “media’s top loyalty is to getting the scoop, and they will grab any red meat they see.”
Bill Clinton is an obvious case in point. Almost every survey of journalists in America find that they vote Democratic by ovewhelming margins – usually about 70 % – but that had little impact on their ripping Clinton to shreds.
However, your statement: “Bush was treated with kid gloves. HIs alcoholism was taboo everywhere except in some frenzied blogs, for example.”
You have forgotten the DUI leak to the media in four days before the 2000 election. A Democratic attorney in Maine had discovered Bush’s decades old DUI record months earlier…and with Bush ahead by 5 points…faxed it to every media outlet in the US immediately prior to the election.
This badly damaged Bush with the evangelical vote, and made Gore actually competitive…leading to the Florida debacle.
Thus, Bush’s alcohol problems have been front and centre in the American media, I would argue. Also, most surveys of American journalists do find they vote Democratic by huge margins. ABC ‘s Terry Moran – when interviewed on his brother’s blog – stated his view that the White House Press Corps was about 80% Democrat.
The degree to which this makes them “favour” Democrats is, however, debateable, I must concede to you. Good journalists will try to remove their partisan thinking from their work.
Marlow-
I concede my error. I had forgotten all about the DUI. Maybe I forgot, because this is not the kind of thing that influences my politics. In fact, if these ‘revelations’ go too far, I’m more apt to go to the defense of the accused.
“Almost every survey of
journalists in America finr that they vote Democratic ”
===
And I just thought of the explanation why that is so.
Journalists deal a lot with victims: victims of crime, of war, of poverty and of neglect.
For human interest stories they go to the hapless underdog.
Democrats champion these issues much more, ergo journalists vote Democratic.
Come to think of it, that’s why I defend them, too.
==
I didn’t know about the polls, which goes to show they hide their politics pretty well.
> > As most big business units, Media corporations generally tend to be more
> > conservative than liberal and this showed in their coverage�
> I agree.
>
> You make an excellent point here and, I think, this “corporate bias� of the
> organizations counteracts the individual “liberal� bias of reporters. After all,
> reporters know who is paying their cheques every payday.
Journalists and editors are largely liberal. So are the content and bias that come from the so-called mainstream media. Nobody intelligent disputes that the liberal are media. It is evidence of leftist extremism if someone claims that CNN, ABC, CBS, etc., are “corporate right-wing” media. What they produce is systematically the opposite and has been for ages. A longer annihilation of “conservative US mainstream media” myths was provided by the late Michael Kelly (a rare conservative journalist killed in Iraq) and is probably too long to post here but anyone who has read it would enjoy it, an entertaining elaboration of obvious truth.
Domajot said: “And I just thought of the explanation why that is so.
Journalists deal a lot with victims: victims of crime, of war, of poverty and of neglect. For human interest stories they go to the hapless underdog.
Democrats champion these issues much more, ergo journalists vote Democratic.”
That is a good point! I must admit, I never thought of that angle.
Of course, many of the “big” reporters in the media probably had to start off with the low-level human interest stories as interns. This could presumably influence them throughout their careers, even when they may be covering high politics instead of the every tragedies. And sometimes, as with the Walter Reed scandal, sometimes personal tragedies themselves become big news.
This is something that I admit to finding particularly enjoyable about TMV…unusual perspectives leading to my seeing different angles on issues than I would normally see.
DLS said: “A longer annihilation of “conservative US mainstream mediaâ€? myths was provided by the late Michael Kelly (a rare conservative journalist killed in Iraq) and is probably too long to post here but anyone who has read it would enjoy it, an entertaining elaboration of obvious truth.”
Thanks for the tip. I’ll check it out.
[Michael Kelly]
> Thanks for the tip. I’ll check it out.
If enough people request it here, I may post it. It’s long and I’ve posted enough today!(!!)
[...] Mar 30th, 2007 by mvdg A little over two weeks ago, Joe Gandelman published a review of the documentary So Goes The Nation. It’s a great review, that convinced me that this was one documentary I had to watch. [...]
[...] A little over two weeks ago, Joe Gandelman published a review of the documentary So Goes The Nation. It’s a great review, that convinced me that this was one documentary I had to watch. [...]