Bullet-Proof Faith in Barack: Conversations I was part of Last Week

by D. Cupples | During separate conversations with three friends last week, I witnessed live in the flesh what I've seen in the media for months: unquestioning faith in Barack Obama that remains intact despite evidence that should have a shattering effect -- or at least cause a few hairline fractures.

I have not witnessed such bullet-proof faith since those few years after 9/11, during which millions of Americans (led by Limbaugh and Fox) believed that President Bush could do no wrong: a time when True Believers would point and bellow and maybe key the car of anyone who mentioned facts that might test their faith in Their President.

While lunching at a restaurant last week, a friend asked me this:

"So, Deb, have you gotten over Hillary yet?"

My friend was not being snotty.  She was genuinely curious. 

Determined not to taint the atmosphere with political debate, I simply said "Why wouldn't I?"

I have gotten over the fact that Hillary likely won't run for president this year. What I haven't gotten over is the fact that Obama likely will.

My friend seemed to misinterpret my reply as a sign that I had fallen in line behind Obama.  (Actually, I haven't yet decided how I'll vote in November.)  I gather that she'd misinterpreted, because of her next statement:

"(Mild chuckle) I wasn't sure whether you'd turned into one of those femi-nazis."

I could tell from her tone that she'd meant to be amusing, not offensive.  It took some restraint to keep my jaw from dropping into my Pad Thai, which would have tinted my chin pale orange. 

A life-long liberal, single-mom and feminist whom I'd known for 25 years had just used a derogatory sound bite (generated by Rush Limbaugh himself) as a blanket label for me and other Hillary supporters.  My response:

"Do you think gender is the only reason that millions of people (men as well as women) object to Obama?  Aren't you unaware of the massive con job he's been pulling?"

Admittedly, my response occurred only inside my head.  Why alienate someone I've warmly regarded for decades -- simply because we disagree over a politician that neither of us knows personally?

Two days ago, I was talking on the phone with another Obama-supporting friend.  He was upset about the Democrats' "selling-out on FISA" (his phrase).  He voiced intense disgust for congressional Democrats and the party generally. 

Oddly, he never mentioned any disgust toward Obama, who had publicly voiced support for the FISA bill a day earlier (instead of using his popularity to fight it).  Perhaps my friend was unaware of Obama's own recent reversal on FISA.

Perhaps my friend believed Keith Olbermann's hope-fueled speculations about Obama's betrayal of progressives and other people who value our constitutional rights.

Having for years enjoyed sharing common ground with my FISA-hating friend (including on FISA), I decided against rubbing his nose into the fecal matter that he either hadn't yet seen or was struggling to overlook.

At a grocery store yesterday, I ran into an old friend I hadn't seen in a few months.  As we stood near the nectarines, my friend ventured into politics.  She said roughly the following:

"McCain has flip-flopped on a bunch of issues, and the media lets him get away with it. We can't let media bias affect this election!

"It's our job as liberals to hammer the media every time they spin for McCain or against Obama."

My response:

"If the media is so anti-Obama, why haven't you heard them point out that Obama just flip-flopped on FISA, campaign funding, and NAFTA -- all within one week?

"Why haven't you heard said media explain how far under the covers Obama has crawled with the same lobbyists and corporate execs whose money Obama vowed to not take? 

"Why haven't you heard said media expose evidence of how divisive and negative Obama's campaign has been -- starting in January with false accusations of racism against Hillary and her supporters, and continuing today with harsh responses to anyone who dares question Obama's policies or tactics?"

Admittedly, this response also took place only in my head.  Preferring to preserve the good will I've shared with this person for most of my life, I silently inspected a piece of fruit.

I'm not upset with my Obama-supporting friends, because I recognize that their True Believer-ism was fertilized, in part, by certain media outlets' diligent efforts to ensure that salient information would be absent from the public discourse.

I can't help contemplating the bigger implications of media that would either fail to do its job out of laziness or refuse to do its job in order to unduly manipulate public opinion. 

It wasn't that long ago that we watched many media spin or ignore facts -- apparently to protect revenues -- in a way that helped the Bush Administration falsely sell an extremely costly war that we will likely be stuck with for many years to come.

It wasn't that long ago that we watched many media spin or ignore facts simply to promote a politician's campaign.

Our nation is facing and will face issues of grave importance. 

For example, it's been obvious for some time that the Bush Administration has been itching to go to war in Iran.  Will our media try to sell that to us Americans?

Some media would no doubt benefit.  General Electric, for example, owns NBC (and many other media outlets), and GE could profit handsomely from war-related contracts.

Effective campaign-finance reform, which would reduce the amount of money in federal elections, is a necessary step toward reducing corruption in government.  How will our commercial media handle that issue -- given that said media makes oodles of cash from campaign ads?

What about certain media executives' personal or corporate interests in other issues that face our nation: things like social security, health care, education...?

Given that many prominent media had no qualms about falsely selling a war or hijacking a political race, it's only fair to wonder which issues our media fail to accurately inform (or outright deceive) us about in the future.

Related Posts:

* Law Prof Challenges Spin & Tells Why FISA Bill is Frightening

* Media Bias: it's Bigger than the Presidential Race

* Obama Defecates on Progressives (John Barrow, FISA, NAFTA...)
.

Comments

[freadom1776]

I miss Hillary. I would much rather see her as our next president over Obama. My two cents.

[Deb]

Hi Freedom,

I agree with you, but she's out of it, which leaves us between a rock and hard place.

Obama should have made this choice much easier on Hillary supporters by 1) campaigning more honorably (and honestly), and 2) being better (and more honest) about policy matters.

I still don't know how to vote.

[Barbara O'Brien]

Your selective anecdotes to the contrary, I, and most other Obama supporters I know of, have acknowledged and commented on Obama's FISA statements with great concern. We realize he's not liberal Jesus, and did so before last week.

But it amuses me that so many Clinton supporters can't let go of their smug sense of superiority over the "Obamabots." Who's the True Believer, dear?

[Adam]

Agreed with Barbara that I knew Obama wasn't the savior long ago. He's a politician (a very able one) who happens to adhere to many policies I agree with, albeit not every single one.

If you think Obama wasn't hammered for "flip-flopping" on campaign finance, then you haven't been looking at or listening to NPR, MSNBC, Fox News, the Denver Post, or the blogosphere (the stuff I check personally, as well as the broader online media as reflected by memeorandum) lately. Probably every other media source too, but those are the only once I looked at in the last 5 days. (Yes, I listened to Fox News for a few minutes in a moment of laziness. The other cable "news" stations were doing things other than news. I got off the couch shortly after that. But if that one 4-minute segment slammed Obama, I'm guessing it wasn't the only segment that did.)

I also disagree that Obama has flip-flopped on NAFTA. He's wildly varied his rhetorical FRAMING of the issue of trade to fit the audience, for sure. But his core position has been pretty consistent. Negotiate for more strict labor/environmental standards, but save the deals.

In summary, your friend is right. The media IS covering for McCain in a way that they are not covering for Obama.

[Deb]

Barbara,

I' so sorry that my post offended you. It was not my intention to comment generally on Obama supporters, because I AGREE with you that NOT all Obama supporters are blind to the candidates' "flaws."

That's why my post does NOT make a charge against Obama supporters generally.

I also don't use the term "Obamabots," because I feel that it's unfairly disrespectful and counter-productively schoolyard-ish.

The main focus of my post is on the media: the harm they have done in the past and might do in the future.

My 3 friends' comments were merely examples of people who had relied on mainstream media sources (as opposed to a diversity of blogs).

I was not "selective": those conversations happened last week without my encouragement, and they inspired my post.

Many of my friends are Obama supporters. I discuss Obama with the ones who aren't emotionally entrenched, and I avoid the topic with the ones who are. Friendships are more important to me than political agreement.

I'm guessing that you surf the blogosphere, so I'm guessing that you ARE aware of the bad as well as the good about the candidate you support. [I voiced disapproval over Hillary's Bosnia stuff, yet I supported her despite it.]

My 3 friends don't really surf the blogosphere and are, therefore, in a different position from you.

Please know that I meant no offense to Obama supporters generally.

[Deb]

Adam,

Read my comment to Barbara: NOWHERE in my post did I suggest that ALL Obama supporters are emotionally or blindly committed.

As you know from our chats, I have more respect for differing opinions than that.

You may be right about the media's hammering Obama for flip-flopping. Frankly, I've been backing off a bit from the media and blogosphere.

You might also be right about the MSM's covering for McCain. If so, I'm not surprised. I wrote in a post months ago that audiences SHOULD CHASTISE the media over its treatment of Hillary to send a message that people wouldn't accept bias, etc.

Many audience members didn't care, because it was benefiting their favorite candidate.

One result: the media is more likely to exert bias in a way that those audience members don't like.

That's what happens when people fail to stand up for principles and fight for the integrity of processes.

Here are just a few paras from that April post I mentioned:

"If we continue accepting media's failure to truly inform us, it'll be our own fault if we're upset by various media mood swings (e.g., during the general election)."

"What can we do? Boycott specific TV or radio shows. Ad revenues decrease when audiences decrease."

"Another step: contact media outlets via email, snail mail, or phone and let them know (politely and briefly) which show you're boycotting and why."

"If you're concerned that our media will unreasonably favor MCCAIN in the fall, one step toward combating that is to COMPLAIN to media outlets that ALREADY HAVE un-objectively campaigned during the Democratic race."

"Again, there's MORE AT STAKE than short-term results for your candidate or mine: this is about the media's long-term role in shaping our nation's discourse."

I'm pretty sure you commented on that post of mine.

[Adam]

Yes, as I recall I did respond to that post. I more or less agreed with you. I beleive the overall tone of my comment was, "Hillary's coverage is a symptom of a much broader and deeper issue with the way the media covers politics". That view is, in my opinion, being borne out by the current coverage.

I absolutely agree that you have treated Obama supporters here with respect. I've been hanging around here a while so I know this from experience. I was attracted to this site precisely because it was about the only place I found where I could engage a Clinton supporter in a meaningful and substantive discussion.

But I can understand why Barbara (who presumably hasn't read as much of the blog as I have) interpreted the post as a broader attack, though. The reason I can see why she would interpret it that way is that I don't see any of the three incidents you cite as particularly good evidence of "bullet-proof faith in Barack".

The first incident shows a general insensitiveness and gratuitous nastiness toward Hillary supporters, but that says nothing intrinsically about how unshakable her support for Obama is. The second incident, if anything, shows cracks in support for Obama, unless he explicitly excused Obama's (lack of) role in what happened. And the third incident, which I already responded at length to, just seems like a recognition of reality.

With that in mind, it does SEEM like you are using these three incidents (all notable in their own ways and for different reasons) as examples of a mindset not necessarily evident in the comments they made. As such, there's an appearance that you ascribe that mindset to Obama supporters. Again, I know the brush you are using is not that broad, but I can understand why Barabara thought what she did.

[Deb]

Adam,

As I mentioned to Barb, my 3 friends are merely examples of the damage to public opinion that the media can do.

The first incident (femi-nazi) indicated that my friend (a woman) thinks the ONLY reason a woman Hillary supporter wouldn't support Obama is because of the supporter's own sexism (i.e., bitterness about not getting a woman pres).

The media helped create that misconception.

If my friend were aware (via the media) of some of the things that I complain about, she wouldn't think that.

You might be right about the second incident's being a sign of a crack in support.

I'd just assumed that my friend had heard but was in denial re: Obama's FISA support or embarrassed to admit disappointment to me.

I thought that because this friend had repeatedly made excuses for Obama on other issues that this friend had NOT given other politicians a pass on.

Not everyone is as willing as you or I to admit when we've mis-assessed.

The third example: I don't see my friend's Media- complaint as a reality unto itself but one within a greater context.

Both McCain and Obama have flip flopped on serious issues. My friend seemed focused only on McCain's flip-flops.

The media HAS pointed out (repeatedly) that McCain flip-flopped re: Bush tax cuts and torture. I remember it.

And now that Obama's been caught flip-flopping, HE gets the spotlight. The reason it's so intense is that he flip-flopped on several big issues in one week. [Maybe that was his strategy: get it all out of the way early.]

Where's the unfairness there? They got caught flip-flopping at different times, so the coverage came at dif times.

The newspaper editors are seriously surprised and pissed over the campaign funding reversal.

These editors (the libs, anyway) were strongly behind the principle of reducing money in elections. Period.

Many of them perceived Obama as putting principles above political expediency (partly because Obama led them to believe that he would).

Please don't explain why Obama chose to reverse on the funding. I KNOW why it was smart in SOME ways.

I also know that editors who were more principle- oriented on the issue (those who've been fighting for campaign finance reform for years) were not going to argue in favor of the self-serving (politically expedient) choice.

Making matters worse, Obama's attempt to package it as a "declaration of independence" was like something a slick car-salesman would come up with -- almost as intelligence-insulting as Bush's "Axis of Evil."

I don't think those editors' anger is about bias for McCain (or against Obama). I think it's about genuine surprise and disgust over Obama's choice.

My friend with the newfound media-complaints, incidentally, had NO qualms about media's bias against Hillary; thus, I think it's self-serving that my friend NOW wants to hold the media accountable.

It was my friend's "job as a liberal" to stand up against media bias months ago -- but he was too busy enjoying the benefits of it.

I also don't think McCain is getting a pass to the degree that Obama got up until last week -- not if you factor into the context the many passes he got from Jan - May on issues that print media (and I) have covered but TV media refused to cover.

Olbermann at MSNBC often picks on McCain. He (and people on other outlets) accused McCain of saying that withdrawing troops isn't important -- when the 50-100 words following that 5-word quote indicated the opposite.

Also, some media are making fun of McCain's age (WaPo recently joked about his doing a dance and breaking a hip). It's absurd, given that he's only 71 and less-healthy people tend to live into their 80s or 90s. His own mom is 96 and horse-style healthy (I wish SHE were running for pres). Lol.

And many media pounced on McCain for mixing up Shiites and Sunnis. I honestly don't know whether McCain doesn't know the dif or whether he was tired. But some media are still on it.

In short -- if you look at the candidates over time -- you'll see that they've both received good and bad treatment.

NO I haven't decided to support McCain.

And don't worry: McCain will make another gaffe soon, and Obama will get some relief from the scorching glare.

[Adam]

Deb,

If you had said that these three incidents (or at least the first and last) were all examples of the way the media has shaped the election, that would be one thing. But you said they were examples of supporters' faith in Obama. I don't really see it.

--

"I'd just assumed that my friend had heard but was in denial re: Obama's FISA support or embarrassed to admit disappointment to me."

It's entirely possible, from those comments, that your friend HAD heard Obama's statement, AND was disappointed in him. Perhaps he just didn't feel the need to single him out. Either interpretation seems plausible. You know the guy, so I can accept your interpretation as reality, but this incident in and of itself isn't really a sign of it.

--

"Obama's attempt to package it as a "declaration of independence" was like something a slick car-salesman would come up with -- almost as intelligence-insulting as Bush's "Axis of Evil.""

I disagree. Look, obviously, Obama refused the public funds because he can raise far more himself. That's clear. All the coverage I read, saw, or heard, from a variety of sources, made this point. It's not like he managed to avoid this reality being reported.

But his "declaration of independence" does have meaning. He's drawing distinctions between how his campaign and McCain's campaign will be funded and advertized, and making an argument that his campaign, on the whole, will be more open and more public than McCain's.

I know you don't place importance in his refusal of PAC and lobbyist money, but it's empirically clear that it does have an effect. More significantly, Unlike McCain, he has agressively shut down 527 groups that plan to attack McCain. McCain has pretended that such groups are beyond his control, but Obama has demonstated that they can be restrained. It's undeniable that THOSE groups have an effect.

---

"many media pounced on McCain for mixing up Shiites and Sunnis. I honestly don't know whether McCain doesn't know the dif or whether he was tired. But some media are still on it."

It's not that McCain doesn't know the difference between Sunni and Shi'a - there's no doubt that he understands that they are seperate branches of Islam, and knows which is in the leadership of which factions or nations. But he's made the "mistake" multiple times, and more importantly, it's not as though he said "Shi'a" when he meant "Sunni". It was an extended statement where he was talking about the factions. It was not a twist of the tongue.

We have plenty of examples of McCain being easily confused and especially prone to mistakes in speech. This is not an enormous issue in and of itself, although there certainly are plenty of people who don't stay sharp mentally into their 70s. (Plenty who do, but plenty who don't, too.) But that's not what happened here. "He confused Sunni and Shi'a, ha ha ha" is actually a COVER story.

The reality is that he actually believes (or is willing to lie about) the bullshit talking point about Iran working with Al Qaeda. This has been put forth seriously from some right-wing sources in the past, but has been completely discredited.

That McCain has kept to this message shows Bush-esqe cognitive dissonance: an unwillingness to change course in the face of strong evidence that his view is wrong. Moreover, this particular untruth is fairly transparently part of the drum beat leading to military action against Iran.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/03/19/mccain/

http://www.juancole.com/2005/08/fool-me-once-shame-on-you-fool-me-cant.html

That McCain is willing to parrot discredited "intelligence" in order to lead the USA to war against Iran is a whole lot scarier than the idea of a president who gets easily tounge-tied.

--

"getting a pass to the degree that Obama got up until last week"

The idea (which you insist on repeating) that Obama has gotten a free pass from the media until JUST NOW, is absurd. You've said things very similar to this as far back as three months ago.

Obama has been slammed repeatedly and consistently by certain media sources, for a wide variety of reasons, ever since he became the betting favorite for the Democratic nomination. The media establishment attacks the Democratic frontrunner.

Sure, Olbermann slams McCain regularly. He's one guy, and not remotely representative of overall media coverage.

[Deb]

HI Adam,

Here's my first sentence:

"During separate conversations with three friends last week, I witnessed live in the flesh what I've seen IN THE MEDIA for months: unquestioning faith in Barack Obama that remains intact despite evidence that should have a shattering effect -- or at least cause a few hairline fractures."

Yes, the media's faith has spilled over onto many supporters (but not all) -- which is part of my main point.

I'll answer the rest in another comment.

[Deb]

HI Adam,

I could be wrong about my friend's embarrassment, but it is noteworthy that the presumptive Dem nominee, who spoke against FISA in January, has issued any degree of support.

What Obama did manage to do with the so-called "declaration of independence": he gave the ill-informed segment of his supporters a counter-argument against his critics.

As you know, the only reason he decided to opt out was because he thinks he'll raise more $ privately. That's fine. I just think that editors who really care about the principles will find the "declaration" silly and false.

Incidentally, my real point was about the editors: I pointed out (whether you agree with them or not) that they are genuinely surprised and upset with Obama -- NOT biased against him.

We still disagree on your premise that Obama refused lobbyist donations.

As I pointed out (via USA Today, LA Times, Chicago Trib...), Obama found back-door ways to take money from lobbyists without their actually signing the checks: e.g., wives, bundlers, law-firm partners.... He still knows whom to thank, and that's what the broken and corrupt game is all about.

I'm not defending McCain re: sunnis/shiites. My only point is that the media hounded him over it.

You're right: Obama DIDN'T get a pass over the stupid crap (wright, ayres, etc).

Obama DID get a pass (from most TV) re: the important stuff that intelligent or non-emotional people should have been told about long before Obama became the nominee.

He also got a pass on just how divisive his campaign was. Hillary got blamed for most of it -- though Obama had staffers do negative things.

The racist stuff was the worst (remember the memo indicating that racism accusations were part of the strategy)?

TV didn't call him out for that -- and that was big, partly because he claimed to be playing nice.

I'm not here to defend McCain. About Iran, I've heard him say he wants to try diplomacy: same as Obama and Hillary said.

McCain has flip-flopped as much as Obama, so I can't believe McCain's claims any more easily than I believe Obama's.

Can you see why I'm between that rock and hard place?

Which TV media outlets (not counting Fox/limbaugh) have been attacking Barack and on what grounds?

[Adam]

Understood - I just don't see these incidents as signs of faith in Obama. They are, variously, insensitivity to Hillary supporters, disappointment with congressional Democrats, and criticisms about media bias in favor of McCain. The media has a role in these incidents, partiularly the first, but why are they a sign of faith in Obama? I don't see the connection.

Tangent aside unrelated to everything else - Has Hillary made any statement about the current FISA bill?

[Adam]

"Can you see why I'm between that rock and hard place?"

No, I can't. I really can't. That is, assuming that you are making the decision based on a sober assesment of the policy positions of the candidates, without consideration of Obama's defeat of Clinton and what could have been.

Obama and McCain have voting records. And based on everything you've ever written, I can't for the life of me imagine why you would consider McCain's positions for more than a microsecond when you hold them against Obama's.

You may not like Obama, and you may think he's an unqualified phony. Just for argument's sake, let's take that as a given. It's still insufficient. Unless you think he as an actual Trojan horse, a closet Republican whose spent his life carefully constructing a fake liberal voting record, he should be VASTLY preferable to you than McCain.

http://electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Senate/lib_senator_ratings-2007.html
http://electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Senate/con_senator_ratings-2007.html
http://voteview.wordpress.com/2008/05/08/who-is-more-liberal-senator-obama-or-senator-clinton/

Any way you slice it, it isn't remotely close. Opposing Obama versus Clinton was a rational choice for a progressive. Opposing Obama versus McCain is not.

I know you haven't professed any inclination to actually vote for McCain, but when you make statements implying that there's not much to choose from between Obama and McCain, I am amazed. I could give concrete example after concrete example if you like, many of them backed up by actual votes.

If you have a passionate belief in supporting Nader or the Green, OK. But leaving the president blank and voting down-ballot is pretty incomprehensible to me. Assuming, again, that you are looking at the issues.

[Adam]

"What Obama did manage to do with the so-called "declaration of independence": he gave the ill-informed segment of his supporters a counter-argument against his critics."

Well, as long as we're being cynical, let me re-frame that. Obama gave his supporters a soundbite ("declaration of independence") to counter the attacking soundbite ("flip flopping"). Anyone who judges the issue based on either soundbite isn't paying attention.

It's not a cut and dry issue. Obama's efforts to crush 527's attacks on McCain is a big deal. Obama nearly always couched his pledge to take public money in the broader context of discussing limiting 527 ads with his fall opponent.

--

"I'm not defending McCain re: sunnis/shiites. My only point is that the media hounded him over it."

Well, not really. They played the one example, but never went back and showed the pattern, and they laughed it off as a "misspeaking" as oppose to delving into the deeper and more insidious cause. Compare this to, say, the intensive research that went into unearthing (and playing over, and over, and over again) the Wright footage or the old footage of Hillary in Tuzla. Both of those stories DOMINATED the news cycle for days afterward. Relatively speaking, McCain got kid gloves.

--

I'm not especially interested in repeating all of our tired arguments re: the primary campaign. Very quick summary:

1) The MSM attacked Obama in the ways they thought would be most damaging, not the ways you thought would be most damaging. Hillary chose largely the same avenues of attack and, relatively, ignored the attacks you thought were more important, probably for the same reason (i.e. she thought they were the most damaging).

2) Hillary's high profile media efforts (TV ads, stump speeches, press releases) were significantly more negative toward Obama than vice versa, once the campaign became effectively 1-on-1 (i.e. post-Edwards) and both candidates had a clear target to attack.

I'm happy to agree to disagree on these points.

Every major media source spends plenty of time attacking Obama. Broder, Kristol, and company write for the big newspaper editorial pages. Rove has been hitting Obama on ABC. Dobbs and many others on CNN. Scarborough and Buchanan (among others) on MSNBC. Everyone on Fox, and nearly everyone in the WSJ, of course. On the other side of the coin, there's a precious few (Olbermann obviously being one) who reserve the same level of vitriol for McCain that the above give to Obama.

[Deb]

Adam,

We can agree to disagree re: the faith issue.

Hillary seems to be silent on FISA. I hope she votes against it, but I suspect the party has strong-armed her to vote for it -- especially since she'll be campaigning with Obama this week.

[Deb]

HI Adam,

I have considered Green party, but that would amount to a vote for McCain.

On some big issues, McCain and Obama do look a lot alike.

Both say they support long-term occupation of Iraq: they just phrase it differently. Of course, that's a likely reality.

Both say they support trying to use diplomacy with Iran.

Both have supported expanded FISA and Telecom Amnesty.

Both say that they like free markets (which, in practice, means lower taxes and less regulation of corporations).

The only think that makes McCain better is that he did oppose bush's corp. tax cuts -- knowing that he'd take major political heat.

Of course, a few months ago, he told his R base that he'd re-enact the tax cuts. Did he flip flop or is he lying to his base? I don't know.

Obama says he's pro-choice (and I believe it). McCain used to be and says he's not now. I don't know what he would really do in terms of appointing judges.

The immigration issue I don't understand in detail. I don't know how either of them sit.

More than talk, I saw McCain at least try to enact campaign-finance reform (though he sort of failed). I also saw him help bring down Abramoff and the Rs' K-Street project (though another one has risen in its place).

I haven't looked at everything, but you can see how I might think that on some big issues they're looking similar?

____

Hillary DIDN'T ignore the attacks that I made. She pointed out the lobbyist "mis-statement" during at least one debate.

She pointed out Obama's changing stances on the Iraq war.

She generally pointed out the difference between Obama's words and his (or his campaign's) actions.

The MSM simply didn't do much with the stuff she'd said -- except call her negative and divisive.

You're right: Obama's overt stumping was less negative. The stuff his campaign staffers (and surrogates) did was pretty negative, though.

We talked about that repeatedly, and I think you just size it up differently than I do.

Rove doesn't matter. Rove has credibility only with Rs who watch him, and most of them will not vote for Obama no matter what he says.

Rove has little or no pull with real Dems with progressive leanings who supported Hillary -- and those are people whom I think Obama needs.

I could be wrong.

Scarborough and Buchanan have been negative (though also positive) about Obama for a while. Both of them criticized the media about their general treatment of Hillary vs. Obama.

I don't see ABC or CBS as heavily attacking Obama. I could be wrong.

But, if people had wanted less biased media before the general election, they should have fought the media bias during the primaries.

They didn't, and now they're facing results they don't like. Maybe the silver lining is that they'll fight to help repair the process for future elections.

WE can hope.

[Deb]

Adam,

"a soundbite ("declaration of independence") to counter the attacking soundbite ("flip flopping"). "

Exactly, and the sound bite was BS, as it tried to make his purely monetary decision look idealistic. Yet another manipulation.

You know that I hate that kind of stuff -- especially after 7 years of Bush's doing it, especially after Obama told God and everyone that he didn't play the "old" politics.

Obama said that if McCain agreed to public financing, then he would do it too.

I'm not saying that Obama shouldn't have changed his mind. I'm saying that he shouldn't have concocted an intelligence-insulting sound bite after doing it (yes, I got the email).

But actually, my real point was that the (non-Republican) editors who slammed him for changing his mind WERE NOT merely biased but were genuinely surprised and/or upset.

I think THAT's why those editors were nasty to Obama lately. That was my only point, because we were debating whether the media has been giving (lately) McCain a pass and not Obama.

I still haven't seen but one TV station cover Obama's lobbyist-money stuff, which goes to the heart of his notions of "new" politics and "change."

[Adam]

A soundbite is marketing. Words matter. The real issues of campaign finance and outside influence are complex and nuanced. Obama understands the need to win not just the complex and nuanced argument, but also the quick soundbite war. I'm happy to support a candidate who understands how to sell his message.

It's not as though "a declaration of independence" was dishonest. What does it mean? If you answered, "it's meaningless", then congratulations, you get it. But those who hear the slogan and have that reaction are the people who will take the time to listen and understand his point about 527s.

"New politics" has much more to do with where the influence comes than how the message is framed. Shutting down MoveOn.org's 527 ads against McCain is much more of a "new politics" issue than what slogan you pick.

[Adam]

"Both say they support long-term occupation of Iraq: they just phrase it differently. Of course, that's a likely reality."

Huh? Obama has said repeatedly he wants to have all combat brigades out by May 2010. McCain wants permanent bases and a semipermanent military presence. It's night and day.

"Both say they support trying to use diplomacy with Iran."

In a very broad sense, yes. Obama wants to have high level meetings without preconditions, like we had with the Soviets. McCain wants to continue the saber-rattling. McCain supported the Kyl-Lieberman amendment, Obama did not.

"Both have supported expanded FISA and Telecom Amnesty."

FISA, yes. Telecom Amnesty, no. Obama has given up the fight on amnesty, which I am not happy about, but he has never supported it.

"The only think that makes McCain better is that he did oppose bush's corp. tax cuts -- knowing that he'd take major political heat."

Better than who? Than GWB? Obama has stated repeatedly that he would repeal those cuts.

"Of course, a few months ago, he told his R base that he'd re-enact the tax cuts. Did he flip flop or is he lying to his base? I don't know."

True, we don't know. I wouldn't be completely shocked if McCain flipped back and raised taxes if he became President. Bush 41 went back on a no-tax pledge, after all.

That said, the vote AGAINST the tax cuts was the vote that was inconsistent with his 25 year record, not the things he's said since then. So evidence points to permanent tax cuts in a McCain presidency.

If you're not sure what McCain will do with judges, again, look at the rankings I linked to. 0% rating from NARAL (Obama has 100%). 17% from the ACLU (Obama at 88% - presumably dropping a bit if he votes for FISA, though). Look at the voteview site (the premier rankings in the academic literature) which has consistently put McCain in the conservative wing of his party for a quarter century.

[Danny]

Good Post Deb Cupples!

I've joined the PUMA and I'm giving money to Cindy Sheehan.

Pelosi couldn't impeach Bush but she could help steal the Democratic votes so that we can have a selected nominee Obama instead of counting REAL VOTES so that we could have a real discussion on whos the better candidate at the convention rather than in the media with Olberman, Matthews and other women haters selecting the corporate facist to run for the White House!

[Deb]

Adam,

We just disagree on change and new politics and dishonest spin.

You think the ability to dupe people into not seeing the real picture is a good skill. I'm fed up from having watched GWB exercise said skill for 7 years.

[Deb]

Adam,

You said this:

"That said, the vote AGAINST the tax cuts was the vote that was inconsistent with his 25 year record, not the things he's said since then. So evidence points to permanent tax cuts in a McCain presidency."

Frankly, I'm not familiar with McCain's tax votes over the last 25 years. Were they all severe tax cuts, like Bush's? Were any of them tax cuts for the middle class -- or were they all corporate tax cuts?

About the judges, you may be right. I suspect that Obama would appoint pro-Roe judges. At the same time, I suspect that he'd appoint very corporate-friendly ones -- which is terrible for social justice, because such judges tend to let corporations and white-collar criminals get away with stuff while they throw the book at ordinary folks.

I honestly don't know what McCain would do, because his challenging of Bush has been followed by a repudiation of McCain's past maverick-ness.

[Deb]

Adam,

I forgot to address Telecom Amnesty. Obama SAID that he opposed it, and he voted against the last bill when Hillary did in January.

Last week, however, we needed him to act: i.e., to put his popularity behind a fight to persuade the House to drop Amnesty, which would have been a lot easier than waiting and trying to get it removed in the 49-49 senate (plus 2 Independents).

Obama chose not to fight.

That said, how serious was his opposition to telecom amnesty that he blew past a real opportunity to act?

I honestly don't know, but I don't have a good feeling about it.

[Adam]

"You think the ability to dupe people into not seeing the real picture is a good skill."

Deb, please don't twist my words. That's not what I said, and it's clearly not what I meant. If you want to claim he's duping people, go right ahead, but steer clear of implying that that's what I said.

I said marketing your message and making sure the Republican's don't win the soundbite war is a perfectly reasonable thing to do in a campaign. He's not "duping" anyone: the slogan by itself doesn't imply anything untrue (insofar as it implies anything at all). Anyone who wants to understand his position can very, very easily find his nuanced explanation of it.

Someone who intends to "dupe people" doesn't put a full explanation of their positions at such ready access as Obama's campaign has done, and has done repeatedly on issue after issue.