Every few weeks, I am given the opportunity to say pretty much anything I want, and for my efforts, I am awarded the benefit of your attention. There are few rules: As long as the article is a certain length, in proper English and sufficiently left-leaning, my thoughts on the American political landscape get a readership, and I get a byline. For your average political science student, there is nothing better than a captive audience - especially with such little effort.
Except, of course, when you cannot think of anything to say. It is a rare moment when I am at a loss for words, but after over a year of presidential campaigning, I (along with every other member of society with a political attention span) am lacking in originality.
The way I see it, the excitement of this "historical primary season" has passed. The giddiness surrounding the candidates has subsided, and now the 24-hour news cycle reeks of stale ink and recycled catch phrases. "Superdelegates May Create Convention Scandal" and "Obama's Middle Name May Spell His Defeat" have lost the flair that once sent the pundits into a frenzy. Here is a hint to the news media: Breaking headlines only have shock value the first time you use them.
I think the beginning of the end of interesting news from the campaign trail came when I was flipping past MSNBC and CNN and I saw that the news outlets had actually sent correspondents to interview Barack Obama's grandmother on her thoughts in Kenya. Maybe I am alone here, but I get the feeling that the political writers at CNN have too much time on their hands if they are focusing on such fluff stories.
I no longer want to watch the news. For someone that practically had CNN streamed through her veins for months, the fact that I cannot bear to hear anymore about the effects of a Chicago minister or the possibility of a stalemate convention shows just how redundant life has become. I could be watching snippets from last month's taped broadcasts, and I would not be able to tell the difference.
Without sufficiently exciting news to cover, the media has decided to find the excitement themselves. It is not succeeding. A few days ago, the Internet blogs were aflame with stories about the brave little college boy who dared to ask Chelsea Clinton if the Monica Lewinsky scandal taints her mother's image. The next day, the story was still up on the CNN.com homepage. Now, after the subject has been adequately talked to death, the headline is replaced by another: "Chelsea questioner defends Lewinsky query." Such hard-hitting journalism for such perilous times.
The fact of the matter is that the horserace is yesterday's news and the talking heads refuse to realize it. We are not without news to cover; this past week, the 4,000th American died in Iraq. China upped its suppression of Tibet. The economy continued to slump. But in the biggest story of the week, we found out that Hillary Clinton had been in the White House at the same time as Monica six times. I can definitely see where our media interests lay.
If the national media will not focus on something of significance - or at least something new - then someone else needs to end the lull. So to all those involved in the political fray, I have this to say: Just pick a nominee and get it over with. I want to know if all those media predictions are true. Will Hillary's husband take down her campaign? Is Obama "swift-boat-able?" Does it matter that McCain is 71 years old? I have heard these questions so many times already. It is about time I had some answers.
Lisa Petak is a senior in the School of Public Affairs and a liberal columnist for The Eagle.
