home

McCain on Obama as Media Darling

Subtitle - I told you so. Via TPM, McCain is whining that Obama is the Media Darling:

The campaign of John McCain -- who once described the media as his "base" -- has come up with a pretty creative way to portray the media as "in love" with Barack Obama, blasting two versions of this video right into the in-boxes of the swooning reporters themselves...

Of course, most of the clips are from when Obama was running against Hillary Clinton. But still, I have been vindicated. Told you he is the Media Darling.

Speaking for me only

< The New McCain Iraq Position? | No Criminal Tax Charges Against Sharpton >
  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    He's not whining. He's mocking. (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by masslib on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 02:07:32 PM EST
    I see nothing wrong with that.

    I did not say there was anything worng with it (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 02:09:57 PM EST
    I am saying I was right and you were wrong.

    I am saying nah nah nah nah nah!

     . . .

    [ Parent ]

    Well we know how the media has reacted before (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by Chisoxy on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 02:56:48 PM EST
    when being called left wing biased (gore, Kerry). It's way too early to say this is going to hold up. It was one thing when Clintons people mentioned it, this is Republican John McCain pointing out the bias, we'll see how they stand up to that.

    [ Parent ]
    Oh no, you mistake we for someone else. I (none / 0) (#5)
    by masslib on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 02:12:00 PM EST
    never said the press would stop it's collective hard-on for Obama.  

    [ Parent ]
    Someone should alert the press (5.00 / 7) (#38)
    by Radiowalla on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 02:26:06 PM EST
    to this:

    Warning: Anyone with an erection lasting more than 4 hours needs medical assistance immediately, because of the risk of tissue damage which could cause permanent loss of potency.


    [ Parent ]
    Ah (none / 0) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 02:14:37 PM EST
    Well good for you.

    [ Parent ]
    It's perfect. (5.00 / 0) (#6)
    by misspeach2008 on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 02:13:42 PM EST
    Not a whine in it. Just a great big ol' mirror for the MSM to take a look into.  Do you suppose he'll post one for bloggers, too? Too bad Hillary couldn't have done this months ago.

    [ Parent ]
    I guess mocking something (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by lizpolaris on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 02:14:28 PM EST
    that's true makes it whining?

    [ Parent ]
    Oh come on (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 02:15:08 PM EST
    Of course it is whining.

    [ Parent ]
    It is whining (5.00 / 4) (#30)
    by ruffian on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 02:22:56 PM EST
    But I like this style of whining better than issuing a statement about how "disappointed" he is.

    Not that he hasn't also done that, for all I know.

    [ Parent ]

    Mocking is the best sort of whining (5.00 / 6) (#47)
    by Cream City on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 02:33:43 PM EST
    and the media deserve it, of course.  They are a joke.

    Frankly, Obama could take some lessons in using humor.

    [ Parent ]

    All I can say is... (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by mike in dc on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 02:09:30 PM EST
    ...thank goodness for that.  After 2000 and 2004, I'd much rather have some favorable media coverage going into the November election than otherwise.  

    Me too (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 02:10:49 PM EST
    I never understood why Obama supporters got mad at me when I said he was the Media Darling.

    It is an asset, a huge one.

    [ Parent ]

    I find it creepy. The media love affiar for (5.00 / 4) (#12)
    by masslib on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 02:14:58 PM EST
    Obama goes beyond anything they felt for Bush.

    [ Parent ]
    Well (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 02:15:51 PM EST
    I did not say it was normal or good journalism. I said it was a tremendous political benefit.

    [ Parent ]
    I tend to think a fawning media (5.00 / 12) (#96)
    by Salo on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 03:05:46 PM EST
    enable atrocity to happen. But that's just me of course.  It's a career political benefit to the object of the adulation OTOH there will be a bill to pay for the Ballad of Tingling Legs.

    [ Parent ]
    It's (5.00 / 6) (#166)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 04:03:55 PM EST
    what got us Bush and Iraq. Is it really the best thing for the country?

    [ Parent ]
    Can you say.... (none / 0) (#203)
    by mike in dc on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 04:35:05 PM EST
    ..."false equivalence", boys and girls?

    Correlation<>causation, and all that.

    [ Parent ]

    I think it will boomerang (5.00 / 3) (#197)
    by OxyCon on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 04:33:01 PM EST
    ...either before the election or while Obama is in office. It's like I said way back when the primary was beginning, which is that it is a very long way down from the lofty perch everyone (including himself especially )is placing Obama on.
    We've all had one of those romances that just takes off right away, where everything is so right (especially the physical side) that eventually goes red hot, then in a instance flames out.
    That's who Obama is, and that's how these relationships usually always end.

    [ Parent ]
    Yes, it's great for Obama. (4.82 / 17) (#27)
    by masslib on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 02:21:47 PM EST
    It certainly helped him look victorious when he lost each of the final four months of the primary.

    [ Parent ]
    I guess he'll get those (5.00 / 5) (#84)
    by dk on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 02:58:46 PM EST
    school voucher and department of faith bills passed for sure, eh?  Whatever he wants.  Wonderful.

    [ Parent ]
    What about (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by rottenart on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 03:33:33 PM EST
    Mr. Straight Shooter? You think the coverage for Mccain has been Fair and Balanced?

    [ Parent ]
    Great article in the Times. . . (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 02:14:41 PM EST
    in which McCain advisers are quoted -- verbatim and on the record -- referring to Obama as "the One" in terms of the media coverage he gets.  They sound pretty bitter.

    It's ironic, of course, since McCain's whole national profile is built on fawning media coverage.  

    No question the irony is sweet (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 02:16:18 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Time to put a fly in the ointment though. (5.00 / 2) (#102)
    by Salo on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 03:12:02 PM EST
    McCain didn't exactly enjoy victory against Bush when he was the media pick. Bradley stumbled badly too. So we will have to see exactly what price the media are trying to squeeze out of McCain for better coverage.  A media merger perhaps?

    [ Parent ]
    The sweet smell of infection and rot (5.00 / 4) (#199)
    by myiq2xu on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 04:33:18 PM EST
    is not a good thing.

    [ Parent ]
    Obama is The One (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Radiowalla on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 02:39:14 PM EST
    as far as the press is concerned.   You can practically hear them crooning:

    "One singular sensation
    Every little step he takes.
    One thrilling combination
    Every move that he makes.
    One smile and suddenly nobody else will do;
    You know you'll never be lonely with you know who.
    One moment in his presence
    And you can forget the rest.
    For the guy is second best
    To none,
    Son.
    Ooooh! Sigh! Give him your attention.
    Do...I...really have to mention?
    He's the One?"


    [ Parent ]

    damn you! (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by ccpup on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 03:04:13 PM EST
    I'm now stuck with horrifying images of Andrea Mitchell, David Gergen and Chris Matthews strutting around in top hats and heels.

    I need a stiff drink.  Or two.

    [ Parent ]

    Come and join me.... (5.00 / 3) (#105)
    by Radiowalla on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 03:13:39 PM EST
    These folks drove me to drink long ago.

    [ Parent ]
    well (5.00 / 4) (#117)
    by ccpup on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 03:22:56 PM EST
    I prefer my drinking to be done in a dark corner curled up in a fetal position while taking long swigs from a bottle when I'm not breaking into disbelieving sobs or occasional shouts of "godda*n them all!"

    But maybe next time?

    (hiccup)

    :-)

    [ Parent ]

    ccpup...not to worry...Andrea is upset (5.00 / 2) (#162)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 04:00:43 PM EST
    because no reporters were with obama during his first few stops on The Network Groupie Tour...the Pentagon is choosing the photos being released.  And Gergen finds obama's competing with a sitting president, i.e. negotiating with those in foreign lands, a bit abhorrent.  

    As fast as the media is in your corner; they will gang up against you even faster.

    [ Parent ]

    waiting on Sher's downrating.... (4.00 / 4) (#165)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 04:02:16 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    You Too> (3.66 / 3) (#201)
    by JimWash08 on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 04:34:08 PM EST
    I'm glad there's someone else around here who's noticed sher's penchant for the 1s and 2s.

    Must be Obama himself -- during downtime from all the strenuous photo-calls and waving and teleprompter-reading -- trolling TL and downrating us. :)

    [ Parent ]

    Radiowalla and ccpup (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by prittfumes on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 04:10:06 PM EST
    Gales of laughter, gales of glee.
    Beam me up.
    Now!

    [ Parent ]
    thank you for coming (5.00 / 2) (#174)
    by ccpup on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 04:12:03 PM EST
    and try the veal!

    ba-duh-bum

    [ Parent ]

    that is funny (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by ruffian on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 02:14:44 PM EST
    I wish Hillary would have been able to get away with something like that. This is what I meant when I said in the primaries that she had come nowhere near taking the gloves off with Obama.

    I know Obama's people could do a similar thing with all the glowing things reporters have said about McCain over the years.  They should.

    Oh Hillary could not get away with it (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 02:16:46 PM EST
    But McCain has lost his base.

    [ Parent ]
    Yep - a McCain scorned (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by ruffian on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 02:18:55 PM EST
    Hell hath no fury

    [ Parent ]
    well (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 02:21:26 PM EST
    polls say (I hate that phrase) he has almost 90% of rebublicans to about 74 for Obama and the democrats.

    [ Parent ]
    This video is aimed at his (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by ruffian on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 02:25:18 PM EST
    other base - the righties who will rally around him if they think the "liberal media" is biased against him.

    [ Parent ]
    Or rather the base he is trying to make his (none / 0) (#39)
    by ruffian on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 02:26:08 PM EST
    would be a better way to say it.

    [ Parent ]
    This will win him sympathy (none / 0) (#44)
    by misspeach2008 on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 02:29:46 PM EST
    from Hillary's supporters - another group he's trying to attract.

    [ Parent ]
    Only the shallowest Hillary supporter (5.00 / 4) (#46)
    by andgarden on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 02:33:21 PM EST
    would be drawn to McCain because of this.

    [ Parent ]
    Well, I did feel the sympathy (5.00 / 5) (#52)
    by ruffian on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 02:35:45 PM EST
    Still not voting for him however.  I'm not the shallowest. ;-)

    [ Parent ]
    True, but it will resonate (5.00 / 0) (#53)
    by Cream City on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 02:36:02 PM EST
    and remind again of the behavior of the media in the primaries, and the refusal of Obama and other Dem leaders to do a d*mn thing about it, etc. . . .

    And that can't be good for the Dems.

    [ Parent ]

    Anyone who expected Dem leaders (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by andgarden on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 02:40:13 PM EST
    to object to the positive media coverage Obama was getting was not being realistic.

    [ Parent ]
    Huh? (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by standingup on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 02:53:11 PM EST
    The objection should have been to the media treatment of Hillary, not Obama?  

    [ Parent ]
    Well, this McCain video says not a word (none / 0) (#88)
    by andgarden on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 03:00:39 PM EST
    about Hillary, so far as I can see.

    [ Parent ]
    What (none / 0) (#69)
    by rottenart on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 02:51:02 PM EST
    would the response be? Why in the world would anyone disavow positive coverage?

    I don't think the Obama camp has any illusions that the end of the honeymoon isn't right around the corner.

    [ Parent ]

    Not quite the same situation (5.00 / 3) (#66)
    by ruffian on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 02:46:44 PM EST
    The media is not slamming McCain like it did Hillary.  The Dem leaders should have spoken out about that.  They are just ignoring McCain - which might be worse for him - and his campaign and other Republicans are speaking up about that.

    [ Parent ]
    Didn't say they would vote for him. (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by misspeach2008 on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 02:38:19 PM EST
    Just said they would be sympathetic. Which would give them some common ground. Which would be a place to start a conversation. Put them in the same room, so to speak.

    [ Parent ]
    True (5.00 / 0) (#48)
    by ruffian on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 02:33:57 PM EST
    It will at least elicit sympathetic nods, if not actual votes.

    [ Parent ]
    Doubt it (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 03:00:20 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    His base was the media. Always. (none / 0) (#32)
    by andgarden on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 02:23:20 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Hillary could not question the manliness (5.00 / 3) (#122)
    by Cream City on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 03:29:21 PM EST
    of the manly, manly men like Chris Mathews. . . .

    This is another in the really well-done videos from the McCain camp.  And this particular one is going to my journalism prof friends, in hope that they may show future journalists how foolish they can look.

    Of course, it also is going to many of my women friends, who will have a howl with the manly, manly darlingmakers. :-)  

    [ Parent ]

    Oh, that desperate, shrill McCain! (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by lilburro on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 02:15:43 PM EST
    One day he likes the media, the next day he blasts them!  How Sybil-like of him!  

    I look forward to seeing how his protest is characterized in the media.

    legitimate (5.00 / 2) (#116)
    by waldenpond on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 03:22:38 PM EST
    They were covering this yesterday.  Teebee kept repeating different polls that say Obama receives favoritism, more coverage, and the media is trying to help him win.  

    I had the impression this over the top coverage is part of what let to Obama's less than strong finish.

    BTD, why do you feel vindicated?  Did anyone actually argue with you whether Obama was the media darling?   Some may have questioned whether it would last, but I only remember a couple of Obama supporters proclaiming Obama wasn't getting favorable treatment.

    [ Parent ]

    it was interesting (5.00 / 9) (#121)
    by ccpup on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 03:27:49 PM EST
    the more favorable his coverage became towards March, April and May -- and the more calls for Hillary to drop out were heard --, the worse he performed.  It was almost as if the Democratic Primary voters had changed their minds about Barack and were giving a very obvious middle finger salute to the Press for shoving him down their throats.

    Even with this adoring coverage, he STILL lost the biggies at the end.  He may undoubtedly be getting more and better coverage, but I strongly suspect people have made up their minds about him -- for better or worse -- and will see the adoration for what it is.

    I expect a backlash, especially when he under-performs in the debates and people openly ask "is THIS the guy the Democrats think can run the Country?"

    The higher the pedestal, the more brutal the inevitable fall.

    [ Parent ]

    I think that the media... (5.00 / 5) (#17)
    by kredwyn on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 02:16:26 PM EST
    has overplayed its collective hand with regards to the "darling" thing and the surrounding narrative.

    I'm so suspicious of them (5.00 / 0) (#63)
    by Lahdee on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 02:43:14 PM EST
    Maybe it's my memory of past elections, but I cannot believe that this will continue. Why is it in their best corporate interests to see this man get's favorable press, or for that matter elected without bruises? Narrative of the historical nature of his campaign notwithstanding, I just can't see this continuing.

    [ Parent ]
    I'm skeptical of them (5.00 / 5) (#86)
    by standingup on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 02:59:32 PM EST
    because they gave us George W. Bush for eight years and everything that came with his lousy presidency.  If the press had been doing their jobs we may not have started a war in Iraq, had the disaster after Katrina, the mortgage crisis and a list too long for one comment.  

    Honestly, I beyond skeptical to the point of being angry and distrustful with the state of journalism in the U.S.  

    [ Parent ]

    I listened to pundits all night (5.00 / 11) (#18)
    by TimNCGuy on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 02:16:30 PM EST
    last night explain WHY the media is giving Obama so much more coverage than McCain right now.  It came down to their theory that it is up to the candidates to make their candidacies interesting enough to cover.  David Gergen even claimed that the upcoming convention plans are a fine example.  McCain is going to accept his party's nomination "the old fashioned way".  you know, at the actual convention site.  Whereas Obama is going the "rock star" route with 75,000 adoring fans.

    What amazed me was that not one pundit ever even thought to say that the media has an obligation to the voters to report accurately, fairly and equally from both campaigns in order to give the voters the information they need.  Instead they were all going with the theory that it was up to the campaign's to help provide ratings for the media.

    Gergen LOVES Obama (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 02:17:29 PM EST
    I mean loves him.

    [ Parent ]
    Yes (5.00 / 10) (#59)
    by nell on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 02:39:30 PM EST
    When he was explaining away Obama's flip-flop on FISA right after it happened, he actually said that it was ludicrous for anyone to think that Obama wasn't serious about privacy rights because Obama has been fighting for privacy rights for the last 30 to 40 years. No, I am not kidding, I will look for the clip later, I am on my way out the door right now.

    Obama has been fighting for privacy rights since he was between the ages of 7 and 17...

    Talk about in the freakin' tank.


    [ Parent ]

    Heard Gergen say today (5.00 / 0) (#70)
    by zfran on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 02:51:29 PM EST
    that he favors a third party in this country, and he was agreeing with the conservative on with him. So, love may be a fleeting thing.

    [ Parent ]
    Until (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 04:08:57 PM EST
    last night when he started saying that he had become presumptious.

    [ Parent ]
    If he loves, loves Obama (5.00 / 0) (#187)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 04:22:15 PM EST
    he's been perfectly willing to criticize him strongly (as strongly as Gergen ever criticizes anybody, which is to say with a visible wince and a soft moan) pretty much all along.  I don't agree with a lot of what Gergen has to say, but he doesn't drink anybody's Kool-Aid.

    [ Parent ]
    exactly, see comment below. (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 02:18:47 PM EST
    it has become a joke.  I heard a republican saying its great that the media is getting this Obama mania stuff out of the way early.
    from his point of view he probably has a point.

    [ Parent ]
    AMEN!! (5.00 / 8) (#123)
    by BernieO on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 03:30:33 PM EST
    I don't care who the candidate is, I am fed up with the media picking who they think is the coolest, then shilling for them. It has nothing to do with competence. McCain's video is accurate.
    A lot of people do not realize how biased the media was against Gore and how much they favored Bush. I am convinced had they reported the truth about Bush and his record and not lied repeatedly about Gore Bush would never have won and we would not be in this mess.  
    I think it's time that we speak up when any candidate is treated this way even if it is one we do not support. The media needs to be pressured to give us accurate, substantive information, then let US decide. This is the foundation of a healthy democracy.

    [ Parent ]
    I caught a whole gaggle of them (5.00 / 7) (#160)
    by Anne on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 03:57:01 PM EST
    while I was in the car on Sunday - had CNN on the XM radio and I think it was Howard Kurtz's show.  One after the other, they were defending their coverage by blaming the candidate or their campaign for not being worthy of coverage.  They defended the coverage of the Obama World Tour by saying this was something "new and exciting."  They spoke as if the coverage was not in their control.

    Ugh.

    Martha Raddatz was the only one who said that with the coverage comes a responsibility to ask the tough questions - that if all the networks were going after was the optics, they would be failing to do their job.

    Now, I see where Brokaw is giving Obama the entire hour of MTP on Sunday.  Obama was all over Nightline last night.  How many magazine covers has Obama had since the beginning of the year?

    I think Obama is running a real risk with this saturation coverage, mainly because even after all of it, I'm not sure people will know where he stands or what he believes any better than they did in February.  And what they may start thinking is what I have already heard from a few people: who the heck does he think he is?  

    And people remember that Bush was the last Media Darling who got shoved down our throats - that's turned out so well, hasn't it?

    I think the backlash is coming.  I think the saturation point is near, and a lot of people are just going to turn it off and hope never to have to see his face for a long, long time.


    [ Parent ]

    that's what I'm hearing (5.00 / 3) (#185)
    by ccpup on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 04:20:10 PM EST
    A lot of people I talk to want to know what he's actually DONE to deserve either this coverage or this opportunity to be the Nominee.

    I suspect there are many who are becoming more skeptical the more Obama is crowned as The One and shoved down our throats.  Eventually, people will tune him out because it'll be, like, enough already!

    And if they get tired of seeing his face now, what's to say they won't have great difficulty adjusting to the possibility of having to see it -- or hear his constant lecturing -- for the next four years?

    [ Parent ]

    Hats Off To You (5.00 / 0) (#161)
    by JimWash08 on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 03:57:59 PM EST
    For having the stomach to watch Gergen and his fratboy pals gush over Obama.

    I've not watched CNN after 4PM for nearly 3 weeks -- and counting.

    I'm going to give myself treats after the first month, and every month thereafter.

    The big bash will hopefully be on Nov. 5 :)

    [ Parent ]

    well (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 02:17:00 PM EST
    the campaign is not over and I would bet that the questions are going to start getting more pointed for Obama.  
    if they dont you can neah neah but I am betting they do.  you can already see it happening.  they are going to be out to prove they are not in the tank for Obama after a few weeks of being a punchline for being in the tank for Obama.
    one other thing about that.  I would argue that there is a point of diminishing returns for cheer leading. it is such a joke at this point that voters are going to either start tuning them out altogether (probably not far to go there) or even worse start instantly thinking the opposite of any good thing they say about Obama.
    at least when McCain was the darling there was some limp attempt to not make it to obvious.  not any more.

    Sure sure (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 02:18:07 PM EST
    I was right and you were wrong.

    Nah nah nah nah nah!.

    [ Parent ]

    So far, BTD (5.00 / 1) (#200)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 04:33:27 PM EST
    so far.  There's still a few months to go.  Strikes me that the big difference here between media's love of Obama and their love of the Bush creature is they have no bad guy to contrast him to the way they did Kerry and Gore.  The pro-Bush bias came in the trashing of Gore and Kerry, and so wasn't that obvious to most folks.  Here it's fawning coverage of one guy and close to ignoring the other.  I think, could be wrong, that's much less effective and probably eventually counterproductive as far as voter attitudes go.

    We'll see.  Don't countyer chickens afore they're hatched.

    [ Parent ]

    seriously (none / 0) (#25)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 02:20:25 PM EST
    dont you think the simple weight of the bias is going to start not being a good thing at some point.
    I mean it would be one thing if voters actually trusted the MSM.

    [ Parent ]
    I suspect so... (5.00 / 3) (#41)
    by kredwyn on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 02:27:22 PM EST
    The "right" has a deep-seated mistrust of the so-called "liberal media." Anything that group likes, they'll question...

    Indeed, I've been hearing some stuff on the radio that makes me think there are many who're starting to coalesce around McCain from the earlier doubtful contingency.

    For me, the "love" thing coming from folks like Gergen and others in the media towards the darling sounds outright creepy.

    [ Parent ]

    It may backfire. (none / 0) (#29)
    by misspeach2008 on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 02:22:50 PM EST
    The public believes that the MSM is pushing Obama at them. It might breed a little more skepticism.

    [ Parent ]
    It didn't hurt Bush (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by Jim J on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 02:23:57 PM EST
    He profited by total MSM support for several years. It wasn't until Katrina that they "turned" on him, and even then only slightly.

    [ Parent ]
    It certainly can't be a bad thing (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by Salo on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 03:07:35 PM EST
    for the object of adoration.

    [ Parent ]
    The rest of us... (5.00 / 2) (#100)
    by Salo on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 03:07:59 PM EST
    ...well, we shall have to wait and see.

    [ Parent ]
    Yes, but all the while he (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by ruffian on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 03:21:06 PM EST
    had the public convinced the media was against him. No one works the refs better than Republicans.

    [ Parent ]
    thats what I think (none / 0) (#37)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 02:25:35 PM EST
    the only people held in lower regard than politicians is the MSM.
    to take the reverse position, they tried almost universally for 8 years to make voters hate Bill Clinton and his numbers hardly dropped below 60%.


    [ Parent ]
    Uh no (none / 0) (#33)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 02:23:28 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    You know what's really smart about this? (5.00 / 4) (#28)
    by andgarden on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 02:21:55 PM EST
    The McCain people are sexualizing it. Honestly, there's nothing false about the video, it just is.

    I thought the video was pretty (5.00 / 3) (#35)
    by nycstray on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 02:25:04 PM EST
    well done.

    [ Parent ]
    It makes it look like (5.00 / 7) (#40)
    by misspeach2008 on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 02:26:21 PM EST
    a teenage boy crush.  Did you notice that the gushing was coming from men?

    [ Parent ]
    Isn't that what the one guy said (5.00 / 4) (#45)
    by nycstray on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 02:30:00 PM EST
    not being able to stand up - like a 9th grade boy crush?

    Lots of men are like that. They love to cheerlead for each other. It's just usually not so open and on MSM, lol!~

    [ Parent ]

    OkK I'm late to the show here but I just wanted to (5.00 / 1) (#221)
    by Angel on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 05:00:52 PM EST
    know if they showed a clip of Chris "Tweety Bird" Matthews saying Obama gives him a shiver up his leg.  Did they?  Did they????? Please say yes!

    [ Parent ]
    Well, exactly (none / 0) (#42)
    by andgarden on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 02:28:06 PM EST
    It's not an accident that the McCain campaign is calling all of these men you know what.

    [ Parent ]
    That was Tucker Carlson's point (none / 0) (#127)
    by BernieO on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 03:32:36 PM EST
    He was not approving of the behavior. Unfortunately he has no problem if it is good for his candidate and he definitely has no problem trashing candidates he doesn't like and lying about them.

    [ Parent ]
    Nothing false? (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 03:44:17 PM EST
    Are you serious?

    It's a montage of clips taken from the media for the past 6 months without any sort of context.

    Wow, Steve Doocy thinks there is a liberal media bias. And so does Tucker Carlson!  My God!  Who's next?  Bill O'Reilly?  When will it end?

    Highly edited YouTube clips are hardly compelling to anyone other than the devout.

    [ Parent ]

    Obama is a media darling, just as presented (none / 0) (#152)
    by andgarden on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 03:50:14 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    And the video (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by rottenart on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 04:17:41 PM EST
    is the pot calling the kettle black.

    [ Parent ]
    OK (none / 0) (#206)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 04:36:49 PM EST
    I have no problem with media darling status.  

    Makes things easier.

    [ Parent ]

    That's essentially BTD's point. (none / 0) (#212)
    by andgarden on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 04:41:06 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    About freaking time (5.00 / 5) (#31)
    by Jim J on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 02:23:14 PM EST
    I'll take it. I'll take unbalanced coverage. More please.

    Let the other side be the whiners for a change. It's refreshing.

    The only thing I don't like about it...... (5.00 / 3) (#79)
    by Maria Garcia on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 02:56:47 PM EST
    ...is that in the next election cycle when the Republicans pull out the old liberal media bias meme, it will have some legs. But I guess we cross that bridge when we get to it.

    [ Parent ]
    this is the sad part for me (4.72 / 11) (#73)
    by TimNCGuy on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 02:54:28 PM EST
    All these years when dems and libs complained  about the unfairness of the media against people like Gore or Kerry.  

    Now, just because it appears to be benefitting a dem, it's all OK.  Whatever, as long as it helps us win.  The end justifies the means.

    It's the same as the rationalizations for Obama's Flip/Flops by those who were supposed to care about issues.  It's now OK because it will help us win.

    It's sad to watch the ideals go under the bus too.

    [ Parent ]

    I really think it'll end in tears (5.00 / 4) (#92)
    by Salo on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 03:02:47 PM EST
    and blood.

    [ Parent ]
    Don't Tease Me (5.00 / 3) (#145)
    by JimWash08 on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 03:46:52 PM EST
    I'm emotionally fragile and vulnerable :P

    ::prays::

    [ Parent ]

    no you haven't, not by a long shot. (5.00 / 6) (#43)
    by cpinva on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 02:28:50 PM EST
    But still, I have been vindicated.

    the conventions haven't happened yet. the worms will turn when sen. obama is the actual (vs the presumptive) nominee. just as they did on both gore and kerry. although, they'd been bashing gore for a good year before he even ran.

    as well, the 527's haven't kicked in yet. once they do, the "obama love" will be nothing but a vaguely remembered thing of the past.

    I think BTD is correct. Media adulation (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 02:34:58 PM EST
    of Obama will continue throughout the GE.  The photos from the ME of Obama looking Presidential-in-the-extreme are the proof.

    [ Parent ]
    Not sure about that... (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by kredwyn on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 02:37:48 PM EST
    I suspect it'll turn just after the nominations.

    [ Parent ]
    Do you think there's a chance the media (none / 0) (#195)
    by prittfumes on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 04:30:58 PM EST
    will refuse to cooperate with the 527's?

    [ Parent ]
    Rasmussen: voters know (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Prabhata on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 02:34:03 PM EST
    Forty-nine percent (49%) of voters believe that most reporters are trying to help Obama win the election while only 14% believe reporters are trying to help McCain.

    Link Here (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by The Maven on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 02:47:28 PM EST
    Here's the story from yesterday that went along with the release of those poll results.

    Other tidbits from the poll:

    Just one voter in four (24%) believes that most reporters will try to offer unbiased coverage.
        --  --  --
    As for unaffiliated voters, 50% see a pro-Obama bias and 21% see unbiased coverage. Just 12% of those not affiliated with either major party believe the reporters are trying to help McCain.

    In a more general sense, 45% say that most reporters would hide information if it hurt the candidate they wanted to win. Just 30% disagree and 25% are not sure. Democrats are evenly divided as to whether a reporter would release such information while Republicans and unaffiliated voters have less confidence in the reporters.

    Take it all for whatever it's worth.

    [ Parent ]
    heres the thing (5.00 / 6) (#51)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 02:35:30 PM EST
    I dont think the press will change a single mind intentionally.  they may change some unintentionally by trying so hard to push Obama down our throats.
    two examples that are getting lots of attention:
    three anchors in Obamas court for his overseas visit and some of the outlets didnt even send reporters with McCain any of the times he went.
    the NYTimes refusing, with a totally lame excuse, to print McCains response to Obamas OpEd.
    now, we may all like that.  
    what I am saying is voters in general are going to start taking this badly.
    there is an existing meme out there for years about a liberal bias.  the republicans are going to use this.  count on it.
    I see whistling past the graveyard.  but thats just the optimist in me.

    Bingo (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by ruffian on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 02:40:25 PM EST
    And I think the eventual media backlash will be severe. I disagree with BTD on that point.  I don't think this love will last - they will go home to daddy at some point.

    [ Parent ]
    Simple point: (5.00 / 8) (#56)
    by frankly0 on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 02:38:48 PM EST
    Republicans have forever won elections by claiming media bias against them, and getting the public to believe it.

    The media's fawning over Obama, and the public's obvious agreement (shown by polls) that that bias exists, gives McCain what he may never otherwise have had: a convincing case that the media's against him.

    After all his favorable media coverage, Obama has only the most miniscule of leads against McCain.

    So I wonder how being a "media darling" is really going to help Obama in the long run -- most especially when the media finally is shamed once again into being critical of Obama (as they were after Hillary's "whining").

    How long do you think a 3-4% lead is going to last for Obama when the media attention is no longer positive?

    I certainly wouldn't conclude Obama is winning this game where it counts: in the hearts and minds of the public.

    don't forget (5.00 / 7) (#107)
    by ccpup on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 03:14:55 PM EST
    that when the Media finally did "turn on" Obama by asking him some tough questions during the first 15 minutes or so of the last debate, Obama stumbled badly and pulled out of the next scheduled debate (leaving the North Carolina Dem Party high and dry).

    Obama doesn't perform well when he's not in front of an adoring crowd or a gaggle of Yes Men.  Once he faces criticism or tough questions, he becomes defensive and doesn't quite know how to respond without sounding angry and condescending.

    McCain knows this and, with this move, is attempting to introduce THAT Obama to the American People.  Take some of the shine off this recent good press as well as beginning a narrative into the Debates that Barack doesn't do well under pressure so, therefore, voters cannot trust him to handle the Top Job.

    If voters recognize a pattern develop (of Barack not handling tough questions or criticism well), it plays into his inexperience and John McCain's (alleged) strength under pressure.

    And, at the end of the day, those who sign the on-air bobbleheads checks are, have been and always will be Republican, so any thoughts of this Obama Love Affair continuing are just Hope.

    [ Parent ]

    adoring press = teflon (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by kempis on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 02:39:20 PM EST
    Back in February, I said that Obama appeared to have a good thick coating of teflon, more than any politician I'd seen since Reagan. A (now former) friend who's an Obama fanboy took offense. I was surprised. My reasoning then (when I was still a Democrat) was that teflon is good and it's about time that a Democrat had some.

    My friend's reaction puzzled me. Then I realized that he was a True Believer. In his eyes, Obama didn't need teflon because he never did anything wrong. Scary.

    But yes, finally the Democrats have a candidate coated with teflon. He'll need it. But he definitely has it.

    So much attention is paid to Obama that one almost forgets that McCain is running. He's covered as though he already has loser-stench on him.
     

    They get offended because they (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by ruffian on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 02:42:10 PM EST
    want to believe he can do it with no help from the media.  Well, good luck with that, but I take help whenever I can get it.

    [ Parent ]
    as though he already has loser-stench on him. (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 02:43:58 PM EST
    which makes my point.  they are tied.
    and he has teflon as long as the media provides it.

    [ Parent ]
    This is (5.00 / 3) (#68)
    by frankly0 on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 02:49:09 PM EST
    a Democratic cycle like no other in recent history.

    Obama is now once again in a long cycle of good, adoring press.

    Yet Obama has a lead of only 3-4%.

    Suffice it to say, teflon used to be made of sterner stuff.

    [ Parent ]

    Today's Rasmussen polls (5.00 / 1) (#189)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 04:22:34 PM EST
    are pretty scary, and I don't understand why they differ so much from other polls. The national daily tracking is within a point (tied with leaners included), and the Ohio poll shows McCain opening a six-point lead. How can this and the other polls show such a discrepancy I wonder.

    [ Parent ]
    Yeah (5.00 / 0) (#215)
    by Emma on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 04:42:18 PM EST
    Obama is now once again in a long cycle of good, adoring press.

    Yet Obama has a lead of only 3-4%.

    What is up with that?  Why are they so close?


    [ Parent ]

    The media are betting he'll win (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by Salo on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 03:03:35 PM EST
    They made a bet that Bush would win both times.

    [ Parent ]
    Dude... (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by kredwyn on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 02:52:32 PM EST
    Not for nothing...but I'd hold off on the "neeener neeener neeener" thing for a while longer.

    It is quite funny (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by rottenart on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 02:56:15 PM EST
    to see the outrage over media bias coming from Mccain, whose media coverage never met a gaffe or flip-flop that wasn't a net positive for Mccain.

    Liberal Media... sheesh.

    Yes - he should be thankful (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by ruffian on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 03:01:10 PM EST
    they are not spending this week talking about his comment about the Iraq-Pakistan border.

    [ Parent ]
    I remember that during the (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by zfran on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 02:56:26 PM EST
    primary, Mike Barnacle said that HRC couldn't be his vp pick because "that would make him seem so ordinary." I think this video is very good. Is it getting air time at all?

    This Media Darling Thing (5.00 / 0) (#77)
    by MrX on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 02:56:34 PM EST
    I hope this isn't trolling, whatever that is.

    I find this ad amusing, but not credible at all, and I'm surprised the bloggers here, or their commenters, would take it seriously.  As anyone who is familiar with this media coverage knows, 80% of this is opinion about media opinion from the right wing (and the Clinton campaign sucking up to the right wing -- e.g., McAuliffe).  There's Matthews, yes, but he's like that about everything.  He bashed Gore, then lavished praise on him;  praised Clinton, then trashed her.

    Well you kind of argued (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by waldenpond on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 03:37:06 PM EST
    your own point.  You state it's not credible, but then note how Matthews lavished praise on Gore and praised Clinton.  If the media had stag