The Alan Grayson Page

The Anthony Weiner Page

Guest Contributors


  • BN-Politics' administrators respect, but do not necessarily endorse, views expressed by our contributors. Our goal is to get the ideas out there. After that, they're on their own.
Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 05/2007

Blog Catalog

  • Liberalism Political Blogs - Blog Catalog Blog Directory



« Protest Against Media Bias a Success | Main | Bush's Newest Domestic Spying Program »

April 12, 2008


Jay McDonough

from swimming freestyle:

"Barack Obama is a remarkably eloquent man and turning into a remarkably capable politician. But if the Senator believes it's smart to insult voters from a state critical to your success, he's hit one of the worst false notes yet in his campaign.

Yeah, I know what his campaign said, and that may have been what he meant. But a sophisticated candidate doesn't refer to voters in language that can be construed as derogatory or insulting. Obama asserted Pennsylvania voters are bitter and so simple and lacking in maturity and intelligence that they address their frustration by clinging to primitive and reactionary crutches rather than addressing their problems in constructive ways.

It's divisive. And not the way to attract the voters you need most."

D. Cupples

HI Jay,

I totalllllly agree with you. That and as I've written in other posts, his campaign has been divisive at least since January.


I just have to say, this story is total bullshit. Really. Let's go ahead and grab that statement out of context, and then get hysterical about it. This is one step away from the bowling story and asking for orange juice.

Sure, this statement can be construed as an insult, particularly when removed from context. That it what it is. But the reality is that it wasn't an insult, either in intention or in meaning when taken in context. But since the meme of the week is to paint Obama as an elitist, we gotta run with this one.

Here's his response (lifted from a speech) when this "story" broke. Like it or not, it's a good point.

“I was in San Francisco talking to a group at a fundraiser and somebody asked how’re you going to get votes in Pennsylvania? What’s going on there? We hear that’s its hard for some working class people to get behind you’re campaign. I said, “Well look, they’re frustrated and for good reason. Because for the last 25 years they’ve seen jobs shipped overseas. They’ve seen their economies collapse. They have lost their jobs. They have lost their pensions. They have lost their healthcare.

“And for 25, 30 years Democrats and Republicans have come before them and said we’re going to make your community better. We’re going to make it right and nothing ever happens. And of course they’re bitter. Of course they’re frustrated. You would be too. In fact many of you are. Because the same thing has happened here in Indiana. The same thing happened across the border in Decatur. The same thing has happened all across the country. Nobody is looking out for you. Nobody is thinking about you. And so people end up- they don’t vote on economic issues because they don’t expect anybody’s going to help them. So people end up, you know, voting on issues like guns, and are they going to have the right to bear arms. They vote on issues like gay marriage. And they take refuge in their faith and their community and their families and things they can count on. But they don’t believe they can count on Washington.”

I don't see how you can look at the reaction to this non-story and still claim that the media treats Obama differently. People are reaching for any possible way to make him look bad. I mean, honestly, we got 10 minutes on ORANGE JUICE the other day.


Let me just make it clear: what Obama is talking about here is the very foundation of the strategy that won George Bush many states in 2000 and 2004. Make people forget about economics, and focus them on a set of social issues that have relatively little impact on their lives, in stead. Prey on the fear of illegal immigrants, prey on fear of homosexuality.

He's saying the reason this works is because the important issues like health care or rural economic growth don't seem to change no matter who is in the white house. So he's saying the goal is to give voters a stark choice on those issues, because at the end of the day those are the most important ones.

No, he did not say it elegantly, but the meaning was clear. It is only the desire to generate a negative news cycle for Obama that is making this story exist.

D. Cupples


You seem to be venting about something SOMEONE ELSE said.

You know that when I want to tear into someone, I do it straightforwardly (usually in 300-600 words).

Here, I did NOT tear into Obama. My first line was: "I doubt he meant to insult anyone, but he likely did."

Like it or not, one's intentions and context don't guarantee that ordinary folks won't feel offended.

That's partly why Joe Biden had such trouble when running for president.

I knew what Obama meant, but it WAS poorly phrased -- esp. for a politician who wants Pennsylvanians' votes and is competing with other candidates for them. Clumsy, if you will.

That's pretty much where my commentary ends -- so I don't understand your outrage toward me.

The media isn't as kind to Obama as it was two or three months ago (extreme kindness that helped him solidify a base back then).

I think the media should be focusing on things like the oil $, the lobbyist $, the real legislative record....

But the media keeps refusing -- which is why so many upset people who oppose Obama are looking for any little thing to make him look bad.

I had a real message in a post I wrote some weeks ago: "The Media and Obama: Good Intentions Pave Rough Road."

Me, I've found more substantive stuff that troubles me about Obama, which is why I DIDN'T even go onto a second page in my comments re: his Pennsylvania remarks.

What's the orange juice thing you mentioned?


Perhaps this is another reason why Obama should take a sensitivity course. It is amazing how this relative neophyte with barely 4 yrs senate experience and an anorexic resume that he himself acknowledged when he denied he had intentions of running as president in '04 due to his "inexperience....not enough to base good presidential judgent for the top job"!

He also needs Foreign Policy 101 as his biggest mistake, which will haunt him anytime, was his unwanted, by the Kenyan president, active campaign interference to promote his cousin Odinga, opposition leader of the islamist-marxist party. The riots that broke in December caused the burning of 50 churches (only 10% of kenyans are muslim)and hundreds injured and raped. Unfortunately, Obama had gone to Kenya last year with Dick Morris and helped Cousin Odinga with strategy and speeches! Apparently, he wasn't much help!

After talking with Condi Rice, he was allowed from Iowa to write a (what else?) Speech for Kenyans, which the President ignored and was incensed that this American presidential hopeful was directly interfering in Kenya's election to help his cousin who had promised to instal SHARIA LAW with special 'chastity provisions' for girls and women, full cover and other lovely regressive legislation that, thanks to Allah, did not occur as his islamist-marxist cousin lost the election. Of Obama's speech did not do much to assist in that toxic environment which he seems to understand even less than the one he wants to occupy back in his home country!

And Pennsylvanians feel offended?! What about his Kenyan subjects?

Hillary and John will surely jump on this gem of a Judgment in Foreign Affairs, anytime now. Unless Obamyopia sees the light and enrolls in a)Foreign Policy 101 b) Gender Sensitivity 101 and c) Humility for Neophyte Politicos 100.



Can you please post what reference you have about Obama's involvement in Kenya?

Maybe the Penn state would not have been so incensed had not Hillary played the divisive card again!
Hillary said the same thing Thursday. She is giving you the same message with her plan to put 100,000 new police officers on America's streets as part of her anti-crime agenda. To cut the murder rate in cities is addressing the same thing Obama said without glossy over the realities of unemployment, homeless, (including foreclosures), lack of education, and seeking whatever vehicle they can to alleviate their pain. Hillary said quote “We've got to get back to doing what works. I'm old-fashioned about that. I think you should actually look for solutions to problems -- find out what works and execute. Enough with the talking, enough with the speeches”.
Can you see her code words for fear mongering?
Clinnto-nites say Obama is an eloquent speaker and has no substance. Yet, when Obama gives simple realties; Hillary skews and lies about the message of change. Don’t let Hillary divide us. Most of America feels this way; otherwise Obama wouldn’t be ahead. If you don’t experience it now, wait until McCain does a job on America.
Remember we’re all on the same boat. Peace, prosperity, and unity are Obama’s narrative.

D. Cupples


I understood what Obama was trying to say, and he does have a point about economically challenged people sometimes being distracted from meaty political issues that don't have an immediate impact on their lives.

My post merely pointed out that Obama should have chosen his words more carefully. As a politician, he should have.

Surely, you can see that people might get a bit offended if a politician describes them as follows:

"they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment."

It makes those people sound like nut jobs with no intelligence.

Again, I DON'T think Obama meant it that way, but what people mean is sometimes clouded by what they actually say -- especially during a campaign.


The orange juice thing - Obama was at a stop in a diner in Indiana a few days ago. He was offered coffee, and asked if he could have orange juice in stead. Apparently, this makes him an effete, arrogant elitist who can't connect with the common people. At least that's what Chris Matthews and company thinks. Seriously, there was a whole segment devoted to this on most cable news networks.

It's reasonable for you to be frustrated by lack of coverage of what you perceive as real issues (lobbyist money et al). Personally, I've addressed those many times with you and feel they are minor issues at most. But still, I agree - I'd much rather hear Obama defend himself from those issues, which are at least legitimate avenues of attack. The oil money question actually has gotten some air time - an appropriate amount I think. The story is presented, both sides get their say, the viewers can make up their mind. I've got no problem with that.

What I do have a problem with is absurd stories like the bowling or the OJ or this - which are all basically character attacks that have nothing to do with anything. Could you imagine any reasonable person changing his or her vote based on these things?

DC, I'm absolutely responding to the overall coverage of this non-story, and not just to you. I'm annoyed and frustrated by this pointless character attack by the MSM, which has been going on in various forms for a while now. It's intensified of late but they've been poking at Obama any way they could since he took the lead in February.

But I'm ALSO responding to you. You're making yourself into an amplifier for this ridiculous story.

For months you have been complaining about all the ridiculous subtle jabs the media has been taking at Hillary. Moreover, you've been extremely disappointed to see many fellow progressive bloggers who support Obama parroting these attacks. You've been absolutely justified to get angry about these things.

Now the MSM is playing the same hack pieces for Obama that they play for Hillary. This isn't just "people who oppose Obama... looking for any little thing to make him look bad". This is the exact same nexus of the right-wing attack machine and the 24-hour news cycle mainstream media machine, turning its attention on the presumptive Democratic nominee. It was Hillary in their sights, now it's Obama. (You may remember, I predicted this would happen back in February before it started. The only person getting a pass from the media is McCain, not Obama.)

And much like the pro-Obama blogs did, you're playing along, giving the story another link. I know you're frustrated. But two wrongs don't make a right, and I see this post as a wrong.

You didn't run with the Tuzla stories, or Bill's latest re-dredging of that trough. You shouldn't bother with this trash either, if you ask me. Both are tangentially character issues for the candidates, but really, they're non-stories. They don't deserve your attention.


Two side points that don't fit in my above comment:

1) You said that Obama should avoid talking about religion or intolerance. I couldn't disagree more. The most admirable thing about the way he handled the Wright controversy was that he met it head-on.

You're essentially suggesting he clam up and only talk in politically safe tones. Ironically, this is what most politicians do, and it's why we get disgusted with what most politicians say. Speaking in a way that leaves no possibility for lifting a negative soundbite out of context leads to bland, meaningless speech.

Sure, Obama should have said what he said in a better way. But WHY did he drop such a dangerous soundbite? It happened because he was being very honest about a sensitive issue while speaking extemporaneously. I, for one, want candidates that are willing to do that.

2) When Tuzla happened, we heard almost nothing from the Obama campaign and absolutely nothing at all from Obama. When this issue broke, Clinton has brought it up every way possible, both personally and through proxies in her campaign, twisting the meaning (e.g. saying that Obama said people lead "bitter lives" when it was plain that he was saying they were bitter about government) even though she knows full well what the meaning of the comment was. I mean honestly, you liked to the full quote on HuffPo. The meaning is plain as day there.

And of course, Obama defended Hillary against calls to drop out, just days after Hillary had brought the Wright issue back up.

Remind me again, who is running a more negative campaign?

Again, the trailing candidate is generally more negative, so no surprises. But let's not pretend that Obama is attacking Clinton in remotely the same way that Clinton is attacking Obama.

D. Cupples


There you are!

If it's any consolation, CNN bent over backwards to defend Obama (and trashed Hillary and McCain for their comments re: the Penn remarks). I suspect that other Obama-friendly media have done or will soon do likewise.

The media SHOULD have similarly defended Hillary when Obama fans like Eugene Robinson accused Hillary and Bill of racism (despite their record to the contrary). The media's handling of that hurt Hillary big time and early.

Do you recall times when the media actually defended Hillary since January? Specifically, defended her against Barack?

I'm amazed that Matthews made fun of Obama. Did HE ever bring up the oil or lobbyist stories?

I'm glad you agree that the public should get to hear about my $-related concerns and decide for themselves. That's all I ask. If they side with you (no big deal), oh well. Srug. That's their choice.

But they really aren't being given the chance to assess. That's what bugs me.

I remember seeing stuff on memorandum about bowling, but I never actually read any stories, as the stupidity was obvious from the headlines. I didn't write about it, either.

Something you didn't mention (and neither did I) was the context of Obama's Penn comments: he was reportedly answering the question (paraphrased) "Why aren't you getting more support in Pennsylvania?"

Surely, you can see why answering that question in a way that wasn't flattering to working-class Penn-ers might fuel a little bit of anger in some people?

Though I HAVEN'T jumped on the bandwagon and started beating up on Obama over the meaning of the Pennsylvania comments, I DO think that the gaffe-ish nature of his comments deserved to be covered.

That's why I covered it (in fewer than 200 words, I think).

I do NOT think the Penn comments should be distorted to Godzilla size -- which I haven't done.

Remember, candidates get picked on for gaffes all the time.

Hillary's stuff (even Bill's stuff) has been covered ad nauseum. Even worse (again) the media got behind the racism accusations against B&H.

And you watch: McCain will get it too. People are afraid of the possibility of an Iran strike, and McCain seems very keen on that idea.

I didn't think the Bosnia thing was stupid: I just didn't know what to write. A candidate I continue to support had lied. I admitted to you in public comments, multiple times, that there was just no excuse for it.

I didn't write about Bill's stupid defense, because it was so stupid (and implausible) -- and because Hillary said that Bill should shut up.

Point in her favor, I think.

D. Cupples


I flatly disagree that Obama was defending Hillary re: dropping out. His own campaign had fueled some of that fire, and damage was done (i.e., media had piled on and amplified the message).

Obama waited, because he didn't want to APPEAR to be in on the chanting -- though his campaign had been.

That's like punching a guy repeatedly, then driving him to the doctor.

That's opportunism, hypocrisy, and false representation.

The HuffPo article doesn't have the full transcript: it omitted the question that Obama was answering (thus, a piece of the context), which other bloggers have reported.

I read somewhere, though I don't know if it's true, that Obama didn't know he was being recorded when he "dropped the Penn Sound byte." Do you know if that's true?

Yes, Obama has rarely attacked Hillary head on. He didn't need to. Surrogates, upset supporters, and the media did the dirty work (e.g., racism accusations).

Last week, Obama did attack Hill. Taylor Marsh has some quotes from Obama and Hillary's response (with other stuff).

Check it out, though you won't like it:

What bothers me is that Hillary had to go on Fox to defend herself. I don't recall Olbermann having Hillary on the show to respond to his effort to paint her with the racist brush (Ferraro).

I agree that the media has been getting mileage at Obama's expense over the last few weeks. But it WASN'T doing that all along.

That's why I think your notion that the media has been just as bad to Obama as Hillary is not accurate if you look back over the last 3 months.

I'd really like to hear your thoughts on that video compilation showing how horrible some media have been to Hillary (it's NOT an anti-Obama piece).

Yes, it's a selective compilation. But the compiler did find those statements from "credible" media sources. It's horrifying to me.

About my "bigger than the presidency" notion: those of us who want media that truly tries to objectively inform us would have a better chance of encouraging the media to do that if they didn't sit quietly (or go into fits of delight) when our media un-objectively campaigns for a candidate they like or bashes one they don't like.

I DON'T mean you.

My advice to Obama (religion and people who don't like those who are different) was tongue in cheek.

I wasn't advocating that he play it safe: I think he's been playing it safe for a long time -- which is partly why I don't know who he is.


Hey, lots to cover there.

First, let me say that I do recognize that you are walking a fine line here, and I agree there's more material here than in, say, the bowling or OJ stories. I still believe this is junk, tabloid journalism, and a sloppy character attack with no real substance behind it. I don't think it's worth your attention, but reasonable minds can disagree.

(For the record, I have absolutely no problem with you not covering the Tuzla story. As you say, there's not much to say. Bill's emotional rehash of the issue was simply stupid, and I agree that Hillary was right to react to it the way she did.)

The attacks on Hillary in that compilation piece are really bad - I don't think everything there is based in sexism, but I don't debate that Hillary has gotten plenty of unnecessary negative coverage in the media - and in ways that would be considered flatly unacceptable in TV journalism just 10 or 15 years ago. I've never argued that the media is pro-Hillary. I've argued that they're pro-McCain, and that they're not pro-Obama, at least not once he became the clear second contender for the nomination as oppose to just another candidate nipping at Hillary's heels.

You still seem to want to blame Obama for the way the MEDIA has treated Hillary. Or blame Obama for the way Hillary has been bashed in the blogosphere. I only ask that you just hold Obama responsible for the things that come out of his campaign. I'm not arguing that the coverage has been fair for Hillary, I'm arguing that it is not Obama's fault.

I'm not saying Obama hasn't attacked Hillary on occasion - he has - but it's been very pedestrian stuff. Attacking Hillary on foreign policy credentials, when that's been one of Hillary's main running planks, is exactly what you expect out of a campaign. His attacks got very little coverage, and Hillary's response likewise. It's an attack, it speaks to a relevant issue, and the other side responds. Fine.

But when it comes to these meaningless, non-issue-oriented character assassinations, Obama has repeatedly REFRAINED from attacking Hillary about the latest gaffe or mini-scandal. Examples:

1) The "dressed picture" story - Obama was asked about it at the debate a day after the story broke, and he completely crushed the story. It was never heard from again. He could have easily answered it in an accurate way that allowed for more speculation - e.g. "I don't know for certain that this story originated from the Clinton campaign, but it's very disturbing if it did because...". In stead he chose to call it the non-issue that it was, and brought the debate back to real issues.

2) The "Hillary should drop out" story - first, his campaign never called on Hillary to drop out. Sorta implying it in a memo sent by a staffer does NOT make it to the headlines, ergo the effect is completely different. Your contention that Obama drove this story is simply not accurate. He doesn't control the media and he doesn't control the people who were speaking out.

But when the story became a big nightly news topic, right at the peak of the story, Obama stepped in and crushed it. In the days before Obama spoke, a procession of superdelegates had called for Clinton to end her campaign. After Obama spoke out, his comments were covered heavily and the calls for Clinton to drop out flatlined. You may think he should have spoken sooner or stronger, but the fact is he defended Hillary in stead of adding more fuel to the fire.

To re-work your metaphor - he watched while several jabs were landed on Hillary, but when the fight started to get really ugly he stepped in the middle and stopped it.

3) The Tuzla story. Obama and Obama's people didn't try to defend her - really, there wasn't much to defend. In stead, they stayed totally silent on the issue. Obama passed on a golden opportunity to lay into Hillary for her credibility on foreign policy and/or her trustworthiness and/or the real nature of her role in the Clinton administration. These are obvious avenues of attack that Obama, as well as his campaign, simply took a pass on.

4) Colombia/Bill Clinton/Mark Penn. Again, NOTHING from the Obama camp. There are all sorts of conflict of interest angles to pursue here, and indeed this story dovetails perfectly with the Obama campaign theme of being a new sort of politics with less ties to big monied interests. But they just let it slide, rather than keep it going for another day or two with more attacks.

Contrast this to Hillary's handling of the Patrick speech, where she came up with a snarky soundbite on it that got the only boos of the night from the debate crowd. Or the Wright controversy, where she waited until it started to die down before trying to re-ignite it with a prepared, written statement. Or this current story, where she's blatantly distorted the meaning of Obama's words, and turned it into the central talking point for her campaign. You may not have "distorted [this story] to Godzilla size", but that's exactly what the Clinton campaign seems dead-set on doing.

I think it requires an enormous dose of cognitive dissonance to claim that the Obama campaign has been close to as negative as the Clinton campaign since Super Tuesday. Clinton has been drastically more negative in that time span. December and January was a different story. But if you're accusing the Obama campaign of "opportunism, hypocrisy, and false representation" in the last 10 weeks, then the Clinton campaign is guilty of much worse.


On Tweety - you really shouldn't be surprised. I don't think Matthews is an Obama backer. He just rides the wave of whatever the popular talking points are. If anyone is a walking, talking microcosm of the entire mainstream media machine, it is Chris Matthews.

He's just not terribly bright, or if he is intelligent than he doesn't think critically about what he's doing and why he says the things he says. When the popular story is that Obama is eloquent and Hillary is unlikeable, then Matthews echoes that point incessantly, to the point of saying plainly ridiculous things. When the popular talking point is that Obama is an elitist, he echoes THAT point incessantly, to the point of saying plainly ridiculous things. Matthews lacks a filter and does not self-critique.


Let me add one thing I had forgotten to mention. You've spoken about how this or that attack has hurt Clinton, but you really have no evidence that that is the case. With the exception of the Tuzla story, Hillary Clinton's polling numbers have basically held steady through every one of these mini-crises. It's the stories about Obama that have produced swings.

The obvious message to take away from this is that people already have their opinions of Hillary, and it takes a pretty remarkable story to make people change their minds.


Here's Obama responding to this at length:

A few comments on that 10 minute clip:

1) I thought the way he framed the issue was spot-on. Anybody that watches this and still thinks the comments raise a real issue about Obama's character has an agenda.

2) I think that's the angriest I've seen Obama. He doesn't really get angry, but this is about as angry as I've seen him. There's just a hair less college professor and a hair more Sunday preacher in his speaking style. It's subtle, and maybe I'm projecting, but I think he's pretty steamed about this one.

3) This is definitely the hardest he's attacked Hillary in a LONG while. Before this story broke, he was barely bringing her up, in stead singling out McCain. He's criticizing her in the context of "she knows better", but it's still harsh.

He throws a couple of light cheap shots in as well, albeit in jest. You may think that's sexism, but when he makes the joke about hunting ducks, I immediately thought "Kerry". Still, I wish he had left the segment out, because even though it may have lightened the mood in the hall, no doubt those lines will be the ones getting airtime tomorrow. Such is the world we live in.


Sure enough, that's the part the blogs have leapt upon. So of course, his substantive response to the actual criticisms will be ignored in favor of tabloid coverage of the personalities taking pot shots at each other. Obama should have know better and left the line out.

D. Cupples

Hi Adam.

I don't think you saw me write about sexism. The video cutters seem to think that it's an issue. I merely posted the video to show that Hillary has been oddly targeted in a very ugly way by some media. Period.

You're right: the PA remarks aren't a big issue, but they did deserve mention -- if only because a candidate was very careless when making the remarks. That's where I left it.

I still think the MSM likes O better than O -- otherwise, some of the stories that I'd found in credible papers would have received more attention (and sooner).

I can't validly argue about whether Obama's campaign has direct ties to any media, so I don't hold Obama responsible for what the media does.

As I've said before, I'm fine with O attacking H on substance. I brought up the foreign policy credentials only to show that Obama had RECENTLY attacked Hillary directly (you'd said that he hadn't).

About the "dressed pic": we don't even know if a Hillary aide gave drudge the pic. He didn't divulge the source. God knows that Drudge has been untruthful before. The odd thing was that the (then-pro-obama) MSM believed Drudge, just took his word, despite his record.

You and I disagree re: the calls for Hillary to drop out. Obama's own campaign had strongly implied that she should drop out the day after Ohio (March 5 or so). Then, after the chorus grew, he came out and said that he has no problem with her staying in?

He was for it before he was against it. He "stepped in," IMO, to make himself look good -- and he waited, so that the story would get traction.

We'll likely continue to disagree on that, because you don't see Obama as cynical or manipulative as I do.

I never said that Obama should have defended Hillary on the Tuzla story. Even I didn't defend her.

AGain, as I posted today, I disagree with you about the validity of O's claims that he's not tied to special interests via money.

As I've said before, he received a couple months of not only good press but MSM personalities' outright defending him.

The only way to balance that out is for the MSM to focus on Obama's negatives. The MSM is refusing to really focus on substantive problems (i.e., his claims clashing with his actions/reality) -- so I'm not bothered by the MSM's focusing on the BS.

If the media had been doing its job, things would be a lot different.


"The only way to balance that out is for the MSM to focus on Obama's negatives. The MSM is refusing to really focus on substantive problems (i.e., his claims clashing with his actions/reality) -- so I'm not bothered by the MSM's focusing on the BS."

I'm disappointed to read that from you. As you said yourself not too long ago, this is much bigger than the primary campaigns. You shouldn't sit back and nod while the media parrots these empty personality attacks at Obama, any more than you should be happy to see those attacks on Hillary. It's all part of the same machine that is working at (quoting Glenn Greenwald again) "demolishing the character of virtually every liberal and Democratic leader". That machine deserves to be exposed and ridiculed whenever it acts.

D. Cupples


You're right, of course, in the sense that I'm walking a very fine and dangerous line.

In the fall (and for ALL future elections), I'd like to see a different ballgame: media that really tries to accurately inform citizens, instead of acting like the apparatus of a particular campaign.

But it wouldn't be fair for the media to NOW start playing by different rules now -- not fair for Hillary, anyway, whom the media has damaged.

IMO, Obama sold himself to voters (in SOME respect) under false pretenses. The media helped him do it, which is why Obama has so many very emotionally committed supporters (NOT you).

Some media really did have different rules for covering Hillary than Obama. I've seen MSM people ignore stories and even DEFEND Obama and make excuses for him.

This is fine for ordinary supporters but NOT for our Fourth Estate.

The damage that pro-Obama media outlets did to Hillary's campaign from Jan through some time in Mar cannot be fully un-done.

If the Media all of a sudden changes its operating procedures and becomes non-silly or objective (which they won't do anyway), then Hillary would -- once again -- get shafted.

Hillary supporters needed Obama's supporters' help months ago to pressure the media. Most Obama supporters (NOT you) were too busy enjoying positive press for "their" candidate.

The message sent to media execs: it's ok to monkey about with the public's elections.

I don't think the media should make stuff up about Obama, but I have no problem with their focusing on the SAME SORT of silliness as they've repeatedly hurled at Hillary (as long as there's truth in it) -- because it might have a CORRECTIVE effect.

I'd also like to see them focus on real stories, which they've thus far been reluctant to do.

Example: USA Today finally did focused on Obama's campaign funding today (which you've agreed the public should get to know about).

That story should have broken MONTHS ago. The Hill had it last year. Obama benefited because it didn't break back in January or even February.

Hillary suffered, because the Obama-besotted wing of the media refused to do its job for so long and at crucial points. And voters have suffered too, it could be argued.

No, I don't blame Obama for the media's choices, I'm just pointing out results.

I think we're stuck with the same media rules for the Dem primary that we've loathed or enjoyed since January, but MAYBE we can pressure the media to change its ways for future elections.


DC, this viewpoint is dangerously close to "two wrongs make a right". I have lots of issues with that idea. But my biggest issue with this, really, is that there are three candidates still in the running to be president, not two.

Going negative on Obama is drastically more likely to help John McCain than Hillary Clinton. Once you realize that, it becomes clear exactly why we've seen this shift in negative coverage. If you think it's OK as long as it's not my favorite getting hit, then you are condoning the media behaving the same way next time around. They will keep knocking down whichever Democratic candidate is sticking up the highest.

For a laugh, go to 3:50 in this clip:

It looks like it only took 16 years for that once-principled fellow to be assimilated by the machine he hated.

The comments to this entry are closed.