The XX Factor: What women really think.

To Bee or Not To Bee?

As far as meta-themes go in this presidential campaign, this week’s “Hoppin’ Mad” trope has quickly become tiresome. Yesterday we heard endless reports about an incident in which Barack Obama ostensibly had a “testy” exchange with a reporter that proved testy only in the eyes of someone at ABC trying to bump up their page views. And today’s headlines are all screaming about Bill Clinton who allegedly “lays into” “unloads on” “gets fiery” and otherwise freaks out on a CNN reporter. But if you watch the video–of Clinton responding to a question from Jessica Yellin about reports of vote suppression in Nevada—I just don’t see much laying into or unloading. Wordiness? Yes. Misdirection? Some. But up until the very end when he says “shame on you”—with a big smile on his face, and in much the same way you might if your dog had peed on the bathmat—I just don’t see much rage here.

So, what’s up with the whole media manufactured tantrums thing? Is it just some lame attempt to create a psychodrama where none exists? Is it reporters trying to stand out by putting themselves at the center of the story? Is Clinton right in saying that—like hockey—the press watches campaigns only for the bleeding?

In his great 2007 book A Bee in the Mouth, anthropologist Peter Wood describes an America in love with a “social anger” that is more performance than real. It’s bad enough when we feign anger in public life in to engage voters. But engaging viewers with the suggestion that candidates and their spouses are constantly out-of-control is exponentially more revolting.