I know I am a geek when it comes to policy but doesn’t anyone else care about the position taken by the candidates?

One can go to the candidates’ Web sites to find out their positions but there is very little talk about issues when it comes to the media’s coverage of campaigns. It is not even possible to find this information out for most local candidates as many do not have Web sites.

Regardless, reading their position papers is not enough. Where are the probing questions that challenge candidates’ assertions and critique their plans for the future? It is being done to a limited extent by the print media but hardly at all by the talking heads of television news.

Robert Reich’s latest book continues a series of publications that have established Reich as the premier political economist in the country. To loyal readers of Reich, he plows some of the same ground as earlier books though this book takes his description of modern American political economic history to almost the present (the current economic downturn started after the book was published). For those who haven’t read Reich before, prepare to be treated as a thinking, rational adult who is learned but not academic. This is an excellent primer for any reader as it shows how our country, and much of the world, has moved from Democratic Capitalism to Supercapitalism.

Since I beat up on the newspapers yesterday, I thought I would address the cultural wasteland of television news today. I find almost all arenas of TV news – local, national, cable, opinion – to be worse than trivial. Much of what is covered, and how it is covered, by television is actually detrimental to the well-being of our society. The only question is: Where to begin?

How about local news? I have seen the deterioration of local TV news in the Treasure Valley just in the last 15 years. The Boise stations now have followed the mantra of other big-city stations: “If it bleeds, it leads.” The local television news has become little more than a reading of the police blotter. Why is it that every petty crime is considered newsworthy? And if it involves sex, and especially sex with minors, it has to be covered ad nauseum. Do we really have to hear about some pervert who was arrested for trying to videotape up women’s skirts in the mall? Is that really important? Luckily, there are plenty of car accidents and house fires to fill in the rest of the newscast, not to mention a good 10 minutes on the weather. I feel sorry for the sports commentators. There are no local sport stories. (Sorry, Bronco Nation, but one good season in one sport by one institution does not make a good sports town.)

This week’s blogs, other than Wednesday, will deal with the news media.

The study of the media, usually combined with Public Opinion research, is an entire subfield within Political Science. I do not claim to be an expert in this subfield or even to have done more than a cursory study of the subject in my graduate school days. I will approach the subject as a political observer who has a keen interest in the media. I read the two local daily papers in the area, along with The Washington Post Weekly Edition, and The New Yorker on a weekly basis. My viewing habits include much too much news on every network available while I have begun to read more online journalist sources. In the words of Will Rogers, “All I know is what I read in the papers.”

Hillary Clinton is a zombie candidate. She is dead but will not face this reality. She cannot win the nomination under any reasonable circumstances but will not pull out of the race. I am not calling for her to drop out; that is a decision that should be based upon many criteria in addition to electability. My contention is simply, without the intercession of a political asteroid hitting Obama, Hillary Clinton cannot win the Democratic nomination.

Donning my empirical hat: let’s look at the numbers. Based upon the delegate totals of the various news organizations (and they are all relatively close), Hillary Clinton would need to win 60% of all the remaining delegates (not vote, delegates) to get the requisite number needed for the nomination (this does not include Michigan or Florida). This is not just pledged, add-on, elected or any sort chosen in primaries and caucuses. She would also have to win 60% of the remaining superdelegates who have not declared. Of the remaining approximately 336 superdelegates, Clinton would need 195. In other words, she would need 54 more of the remaining superdelegates than Obama.

Any insider look at the Supreme Court has to be compared to the original, “The Brethren” by Bob Woodward and Scott Armstrong. Jeffrey Toobin, who writes for “The New Yorker” and is an analyst for CNN, picks up almost where Woodward and Armstrong leave off. The two overlapping characters, Stevens and Rehnquist, are an interesting couple. Toobin gives us an excellent, though simple, introduction into modern judicial ideology and its roots. This combined with a history of the members of the Court from the 1980s makes this book a good refresher for students of the Court or a thorough introduction into the current Court for casual observers. Toobin bases his book on the justices. He includes strong character studies of the justices that allow the reader to understand them as people and not disembodied opinions and votes. The individuals who actually serve on the Court are most important.

Many numbers are being bandied about on the current and future costs of the war in Iraq. The Pentagon recently released a figure of $600 billion of spending to date. Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel-prize winning economist and former member of the Clinton administration, estimates the long-term costs of the war to eventually reach $4 trillion. Even the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office pegs the total costs to hit $1 to $2 trillion dollars. Why are these figures so different – without even bringing up the Bush Administration’s original estimate of $50 billion? Even the higher estimates are leaving out a couple of other aspects of the costs that should still be considered when we look at the total cost of the war to our society.

I was shocked when I got the email from the Grant campaign (I try to sign up for emails from as many campaigns as possible) noting Larry Grant was dropping out of the race. This begs the question of why. Grant did not mention any reason besides the need for party unity though Minnick dropping out of the race would accomplish the same thing, so why would Grant drop out?

The reason most candidates lose races or drop out of elections is due to money. This is the most logical reason for why Grant dropped out. Based upon prior financial reports, Minnick had over $400,000 while Grant was under $30,000. You cannot keep a campaign, even a grass-roots campaign, going with so little money. Without money, staffers can’t get paid, suppliers are not happy and forget about any advertising. Minnick’s campaign was already contacting voters by phone in order to create lists for their Get Out The Vote campaign. Grant obviously could not financially compete.

Now it is time to examine the Ugly aspects of the current legislative session. This section is related to Tuco, played wonderfully by Eli Wallach. Tuco is not Bad but certainly isn’t Good. The character at times is almost comical but in a twisted and perverse manner. Actions and inactions by the legislature are characterized as Ugly if the process or the result was not pretty. Well, at least they aren’t Bad.

Legislation to allow local governments to regulate transition homes for former inmates is a complex issue to evaluate. Having inmates transition to society effectively will reduce the strain on prisons and may reduce recidivism. Placing these homes in residential neighborhoods naturally bothers the current homeowners. The reason this is Ugly is there promises to be a protracted law suit where only the lawyers will win.

My book this week is about one of the most interesting but lesser-known politicians in Idaho history. Glen Taylor served in the U.S. Senate from Idaho and ran for vice president on the Progressive Party ticket in the famous race of 1948 with Henry Wallace. He only won one general election but was on the ballot numerous times. Reading this straight-forward autobiography in Taylor’s folksy tone makes one wish there were more people like Glen Taylor around today.

Initially, Taylor notes, “It is amazing what you can get away with if you are ambitious, intelligent, determined and – ignorant.” He used these qualities to achieve a modicum of success in both show business and politics. It seems that show business and politics reward the same talents. One saloon owner told the young Glen Taylor that he would be “okay” in any business where he could work with people or work on people. The early stories of his singing career set the tone for the rest of Taylor’s life in politics and beyond.