Not the News: Show Time

I recently finished a short piece that may or may not run in an upcoming issue of Inside Mexico, the English-language monthly. It looks at how the 2008 U.S. presidential campaign will play out here in Mexico.

In researching the article, I spoke to several media and public opinion professionals who offered some counterintuitive observations on how U.S. elections are traditionally viewed here and how this one is likely to be seen.

But one unanimous prediction was hardly surprising: The candidates will be portrayed in the media — and seen by most people — as types, as stock characters, as soap opera role players.

That's already happening, and not only on commercial television. I'm thinking of a piece by the serious journalist Martín Moreno, in the August issue of Nexos, a higher-than-the-usual-brow monthly.

In what he calls "a tale emerged from the African darkness," Moreno pens a brief introduction to Barack Obama, "the black senator who wants to be president." (The assumption is that not many Mexicans have heard of the man, which is not far from the truth, according to the pollsters.)

How many times do the words "black" and "Africa" appear in the brief article? More than two dozen. How many times is a Barack Obama political position mentioned? None.

Ah, but there's more. Standing in the way of the "black man with the face of a child," we learn, is "the beautiful, talented and astute Hillary Clinton."

Memo to central casting: Great work!

This storyboarded take on the candidates will be standard fare on Televisa and TV Azteca next year, but Nexos reminds us that the pointyheads too will tend to subordinate stances to types.

Yes, it's noteworthy that the two likeliest Democratic candidates are a woman and a man of color (though two standard-issue white men -- the underrated John Edwards and the belatedly appreciated Al Gore -- could shift the scenario suddenly). And it's true that come this time next year, the coded racist or sexist (as the case may be) attacks coming out of the Republican camp will be as galling in their ruthlessness as they'll be impressive in their creativity.

But race and gender are subtexts in the Democratic pre-campaign. Obama is not the "black candidate" that Nexos makes him out to be. In fact, it's still an open question if he'll get the majority of the black vote in the primaries.

Ask a typical American to define Barack Obama in one word and the answer won't be, "He's black." It will be, "He's different." Ask them to sum up Clinton and you won't get, "She's a woman." You'll get, "She's Hillary."

The differences between Obama and Clinton have nothing to do with birth circumstances, and everything to do with what most Mexicans have indicated they care about.

Obama, for example, was anti-war when anti-war wasn't cool. Clinton supported the war from the outset, turning against it only when public opinion told her to. Even now she doesn't question the morality of that blatant aggression, only its failure.

Clinton called Obama naive for ruling out a nuclear attack against Al Qaeda. Obama, generously, didn't call her a monster for not ruling it out.

Clinton jumped all over Obama for proposing to tone down the absurd, self-defeating sanctions against Cuba, and for making the reasonable suggestion that the United States should try talking with its adversaries. To Clinton, moving away from policies that haven't worked for half a century shows inexperience.

Should the media choose to inform instead of entertain, Mexicans might become aware that there is a candidate next door who basically agrees with their criticism of the United States and wants to change things accordingly.

As author and Georgetown history professor Michael Kazin put it recently, "Only an Obama victory will show the world that Americans have rejected the arrogant, inept policies that destroyed the broad support the U.S. received after the attacks of 9/11"

One would think that that's what Mexicans and Americans both want. But is it good television?