home

Reviewing The Presidential Debates

Kevin Drum points us to this very interesting James Fallows article about the Presidential debates and while Fallows, as always, writes a great insightful article about the debates, he ignores the elephant in the room - the Media's hatred of Hillary Clinton. I think there are two particularly revealing excerpts of the article that demonstrate what Fallows ignores - the Media's persistent, unfair and grinding attacks on Hillary Clinton (which also translated into open rooting for Barack Obama). The first Kevin highlights:

When I'd seen this final [ABC] debate in real time, I'd been outraged by its harsh tone and belated attention to policy matters (including Gibson's little lecture to the candidates on why capital-gains tax cuts always paid for themselves). When I saw its place in the series, I realized it was like a late episode of The Sopranos in which nearly everyone gets mowed down. It was violent and dehumanizing, but it was the culmination of a long process.

More...

What Fallows is saying without saying it is that it was Hillary Clinton who got the treatment in the previous 25 Democratic debates that Obama got in the ABC debate. I found the ABC event outrageously unfair to Obama, as I wrote that night. I found almost all of the previous 25 outrageously unfair to Hillary Clinton. None more so the the October 30, 2007 NBC moderated debate in Philadelphia, probably the most important night of the campaign - the one that should be remembered as the late Tim Russert's legacy as a journalist. Because the late Tim Russert was a terrible journalist (something Fallows alludes to gracefully in the article.)

The second excerpt that is revealing in the Fallows article demonstrates how internalized the Hillary Hate became, even for Fallows. The excerpt is telling:

The problem for Clinton is that while she was nearly always at the top of her game, the game she was playing changed debate by debate. In one encounter, she hailed Obama as a comrade in their joint struggle against the Bush administration and the media. In the next, she regretfully but relentlessly pointed out the ways in which he wasn’t prepared to lead. At one of the last debates, in Cleveland, Brian Williams began the program by showing back-to-back tapes of her saying “I am honored to be here” with Obama and “Shame on you, Barack Obama.” She neatly reconciled the differences in two sentences: “Well, this is a contested campaign. And as I have said many times, I have a great deal of respect for Senator Obama, but we have differences.” But there was no way to talk around the jarring inconsistency of her two statements, especially the emotional contrast as it came through on the clips. In making different cases against Obama, she reinforced the strongest argument against herself: that she would say whatever she thought might work at the moment. Obama, with a few leaden exceptions in which he made a point of criticizing Clinton in a debate, seemed like the same character from one session to the next.

This is truly one of the most obtuse things James Fallows has ever written. Is he really positing that never before in the history of a party primary has a candidate said at one point nice things about his or her opponent and later criticized that same opponent? Is he really arguing that? Is he really arguing that NO OTHER candidate in THESE Democratic debates did that? Is he really arguing that Barack Obama did not do that? The REAL story of the Brian Williams game playing is that only Hillary Clinton was asked that type of question. Barack Obama was not, even though we all know the same type of question could have been asked of him. Indeed, an important negative attack of the Obama campaign against Clinton is used here by Fallows himself without attribution, to wit - "[Clinton] reinforced the strongest argument against herself: that she would say whatever she thought might work at the moment[,]" - without even mentioning that that was an argument consistently forwarded by Barack Obama. Fallows himself unwittingly demonstrates PRECISELY what was wrong with the Media during the entire Presidential primary process - the Media was out to get Hillary Clinton. And indeed, in the October 30 debate, Tim Russert and Brian Williams DID get her. And changed the course of the contest.

Fallows demonstrates how much this Media Hillary Hate resembled another contest where the Media picked sides - the 2000 Presidential election. Fallows writes:

Hillary Clinton’s level of skill remained consistent; the ends toward which she used it varied. We have seen this pattern before, with Al Gore’s performances in his three debates against George W. Bush in 2000. In the first he was hyper-aggressive, with the instantly famous sighs that signaled his displeasure. In the second, after being mocked on Saturday Night Live for the first performance, he seemed almost sedated. By the third, he was Just Right, but the damage had been done. Bush was mediocre in all three, but consistent. By scoring logical points but confusing his identity, Gore hurt himself with the “jury.” So did Hillary Clinton.

Hillary Clinton was actually better in the debates than Al Gore was in 2000 in my opinion. But Hillary's opponents were better than Gore's opponent. But the one constant was the Media picked sides. In 2000, the Media picked Bush. In 2008, the Media picked the anti-Hillary, Barack Obama.

It seems to me that much of the Media is sticking with Obama in the general election (as I thought they would) over McCain and I think that will continue in the debates. Fallows' article is, in theory, an evaluation of the debating skills of the candidates. A more worthy exercise would have been an analysis of the Media's performance.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< Guantanamo Cell Tours Offered During DNC | Can We Cross Off Richardson, Biden and Bayh from Veepstakes? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    I thought Hillary was a uniformly good debater (5.00 / 4) (#1)
    by andgarden on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 03:01:51 PM EST
    and that Obama was uniformly pretty mediocre. The only thing that gives me comfort is that Romney ran circles around the rest in his field, including McCain, and yet he still lost.

    Debates matter, except when they don't.

    Debates should matter more. (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by Fabian on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 03:07:59 PM EST
    Debates also ought to have standards as well.

    From what I can tell, the object of candidate at a debate is not to make any errors and deliver as many media friendly sound bites as possible.

    I'm sure McCain's staff is already crafting standard sound bites specifically for the debates.

    Parent

    They should have to answer the same questions (5.00 / 4) (#38)
    by joanneleon on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 04:19:41 PM EST
    and there should be much more opportunity for rebuttals and some back and forth.  You know, like a real debate.

    Parent
    The only REALLY GOOD debate (none / 0) (#43)
    by samtaylor2 on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 04:28:21 PM EST
    Was on NPR.  It was very good.

    All the others demoacratic debates were okay to good.

    Parent

    We could go back to the league of Women (5.00 / 5) (#81)
    by hairspray on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 05:23:23 PM EST
    Voters and while they might be boring they would be substantive.  The League bowed out when the DNC and RNC tried to make them into Russert types and to stage them.  The league thought it was dishonest and refused.  We could try dignity and balance once again. Probably won't happen!

    Parent
    I suppose it points to how disfunctional (none / 0) (#149)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 09:44:39 AM EST
    our American culture is.  I didn't watch the debate.  When both the candidates choose a venue to meet each other in based on fairytales and the promotion of B.S. over scientific data I just can't do it.

    Parent
    How much should we trust (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by Fabian on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 03:02:19 PM EST
    the Media?

    We need to be informed, so we need the Media to help inform us.  But we need to be wary of the slants, biases and cherry picking that various Media agents practice.

    What we need is a rating system for media agents, pundits and publications so we can tell what the average signal to noise ratio is.

    I suffer ODS, and enjoyed Fallows' article (none / 0) (#115)
    by catfish on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 06:10:22 PM EST
    very much. It is very fair. BTD highlighted the worst parts.

    Fallows is an actual journalist. Sometimes he is masterful.

    Parent

    No superdelegates in November (5.00 / 5) (#4)
    by Prabhata on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 03:11:08 PM EST
    The public understood the media bias and ignored it, as we saw Hillary win the big states.  The public continues to understand the bias and the voters are not being fooled.  The polls rightly continue to be close because both, McCain and Obama are very poor candidates.  Though the DNC and the superdelegates carried Obama to the finish line, that scenario is not available to Obama in November.

    I agree with your argument about the media... (2.00 / 1) (#18)
    by LatinoDC on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 03:40:16 PM EST
    I do not agree with your argument about the DNC and the superdelegates carried Obama to the finish line....he also won more pledge delegates (and please don't bring the popular vote argument because it is also debatable and my comments on that subject are always erased)

    Parent
    latinoDC....the rub is that obama still does (5.00 / 3) (#37)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 04:18:47 PM EST
    NOT have enough pledged delegates, yet he is allowed to prance around claiming to be king of the mountain.  Give me an effin' break.

    Parent
    maybe because (1.50 / 2) (#54)
    by Howard Zinn on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 04:45:53 PM EST
    Hillary threw in the towel?  Who's left exactly?

    Parent
    Show us all the links where Hillary threw (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 05:08:17 PM EST
    in the towels...her campaign was suspended and she still has all her delegates.  

    Parent
    When she said she conceded (1.00 / 2) (#74)
    by MKS on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 05:11:32 PM EST
    and endorsed Obama and has campaigned for him.....

     

    Parent

    address my point (5.00 / 3) (#86)
    by cawaltz on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 05:33:04 PM EST
    You made the statement that her supporters were the ones who told her to throw in the towel. If that was the case why do you think that Hillary supporters outside of DC(other than Rangel who may be rethinking his position)exactly want her on the ballot come election time?  

    I'll give you a hint. It isn't because we are uneducated or racist. (Hint: Our sense of fair play has been offended by people like Donna Brazile prancing around calling herself neutral when she clearly wasn't).

    Parent

    Her supporters in Congress (5.00 / 0) (#92)
    by MKS on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 05:42:00 PM EST
    and among the superdelegates....They told her to endorse Obama that week or they would do so on their own....

    Parent
    In other words (5.00 / 5) (#100)
    by cawaltz on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 05:54:30 PM EST
    You are validating my position which is the DC Dems and party leadership coerced and chose to force her hand and eliminate her once their chosen candidate couldn't secure the nomination fairly. Thanks for making my point.

    The "whoa is us it'll have to go to the convention" and Pelosi's threats(where she was going to exert her influence) were a nice touch. The DNC should be ashamed of themselves. They're a big bunch of bullies that have managed to turn a slam dunk election year into a debacle.

    Parent

    The point was that it was Hillary's (2.00 / 1) (#108)
    by MKS on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 06:02:08 PM EST
    own "DC insiders" that told her to stand down....That is how it had been done in the past....Barry Goldwater, etc......It is always the candidate's own "DC insiders" who tell them when to quit...


    Parent
    Who do they represent? (5.00 / 2) (#113)
    by Fabian on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 06:08:35 PM EST
    These "insiders"?  Beltway boyz and girlz?  Do they speak for the voters or the DNC?  Or maybe lobbyists?

    The Villagers look out for their own interests which I doubt coincide with my interests.

    Parent

    Welcome to politics (2.00 / 1) (#119)
    by MKS on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 06:13:28 PM EST
    Hillary never said she was going to change politics, but said she would not get rid of lobbyists....

    Parent
    So in other words (5.00 / 3) (#118)
    by cawaltz on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 06:12:34 PM EST
    despite all this talk of "change" what Obama really stands for is more of the same. A bunch of DC insiders playing pretend and playing the voters as a bunch of rubes(Democracy is all about the voters indeed). Good to know and another reason that it seems there is a better chance of snowball in Hades then of me voting for Obama. I'm tired of the same insiders that have cost us billions of dollars and millions of lives playing these tired little games where they get to collect a six figure to rename post offices and sell the American people down the river.

    Parent
    They were her insiders... (2.00 / 1) (#120)
    by MKS on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 06:14:07 PM EST
    Who were (5.00 / 2) (#124)
    by cawaltz on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 06:31:42 PM EST
    no doubt influenced by the unneutral DNC and likes of people like Pelosi, who chose to play favorites.

    The process wasn't fair, it was kabuki theater and they expected the "little people" to shut up and fall into line for their choice. It appears they better have another think coming. I'll reiterate, I'm sick to death of a bunch of DC insiders, who haven't bothered to look out for the interest of the average American in a LOOOOOOONG time rigging the game so they can continue to collect six figures for renaming post offices. I'm done with kabuki and considering the founding fathers set this up to be a government of the people, for the people I'm putting Dean, Pelosi and the cabal on notice, they toy with people like me at their own peril. They better start doing what they are paid to do(represent the majority of America) instead of rigging the game for their own benefit.

    Parent

    Oh come on (none / 0) (#147)
    by ChrisO on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 08:39:55 AM EST
    I love Hillary to death, but I have no illusions about her ability to work as a "DC insider." I'm well aware of the Clinton's ability to throw elbows. That's one of the things I liked about Hillary. Besides my personal admiration for her, I was (and am) convinced that she would be much more skilled at using the power of the Presidency to advance a progressive agenda. In other words, she would be skilled at playing the DC insider game. I'm still angry at the treatment she received, but let's not pretend that she is somehow apart from the whole game. The problem was a combination of CDS (especially in the media), sexism and, most importantly, the race card. It's pretty hard to run a campaign when an issue as critical as race can be discussed by your opponent and the media, but is off limits to you. Whenever people talk about Obama's "courage" in making his race speech in Philly, I remind them that he's the only one who was allowed to address the issue. Is there any way Hillary could have been the first to address race in the campaign without being branded a racist? It wouldn't matter what she had to say.

    But back to my original point, I would hope that Hillary would play the DC insider game. That's how you win. It's Obama's people who are deluding themselves into thinking that he's somehow changing the game.

    Parent

    Washington insiders, not her insiders.... (none / 0) (#155)
    by sallywally on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 10:22:52 PM EST
    They were really Obama's insiders, given that he had been their choice all along. He was the insider candidate, the Washington machine candidate,the establishment candidate, the old politics candidate.

    She was the insurgent.

    Parent

    Historically, the men have not listened, (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 10:15:30 PM EST
    I guess. They go to convention with 1 pledged delegate, get to the roll call and their delegate actually votes for them because they were put on the ballot, placed in nomination, and were allowed to experience the process all the way to conclusion.

    Is it Obama or Clinton who has been the reason behind the New Rules for Democrats?


    Parent

    Why dont you check (none / 0) (#143)
    by Amiss on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 12:14:06 AM EST
    on how much money the Obama campaign threw their way to get them to change their minds about who they were supposed to vote for?

    Parent
    suspended is not conceded (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by Fabian on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 05:34:31 PM EST
    And she did not release her delegates.  This was gone over at the time.  I think her options were concede and release, suspend and keep or continue to campaign and keep her delegates.  There was no concession.

    Parent
    Hillary is campaigning for Obama (5.00 / 0) (#94)
    by MKS on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 05:44:26 PM EST
    That should be the clearest signal yet....

    When she gives her speech at the convention, she will ask her supporters to vote for Obama...

    You guys are just setting yourselves up for another big disappointment....Hillary is out of the race....but charge on if you will....

    Parent

    These are the facts. (5.00 / 3) (#102)
    by Fabian on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 05:56:33 PM EST
    I'm not living in some fantasy.  I expect Hillary to play the perfect, gracious and dutiful Democrat.  I expect Obama to make a few symbolic gestures and then ignore Hillary and her supporters.  I expect Obama to be officially elected and declared the nominee.

    And then I expect the GOP to start tearing Obama down just like they did Gore and Kerry.  

    These are predictable things, just like I expect Obama to pick some plain vanilla (non-controversial older white male) VP.

    Parent

    The GOP has already started to tear Barack down! (none / 0) (#148)
    by BronxFem on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 08:47:18 AM EST
    You really don't get it (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by Cream City on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 07:32:46 PM EST
    but then, you apparently have no appreciation of the historical moment and what it means, even symbolically, to those of us in the majority of the American people.

    Walk a mile in our shoes -- and pantyhose -- and then we'll talk.

    Parent

    It is an historic moment (none / 0) (#153)
    by Howard Zinn on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 01:35:00 PM EST
    and Hillary deserves to receive credit for all of her accomplishments.  She has achieved an enormous goal and is a paragon for millions of women.  She deserves to be genuinely supported, now and in the future.  

    The important thing is to ask, how do we provide that support?

    Parent

    and she did it (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by cawaltz on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 05:08:21 PM EST
    after the party leadership did everything they could to bully her into it. Gimmee a break. Pelosi and the cabal whined and carped about how "ungracious" Clinton was not to coronate him even as she picked up a win in SD.

    Parent
    Hillary conceded and endorsed (2.00 / 2) (#76)
    by MKS on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 05:13:25 PM EST
    Obama after her own supporters told her she had no other choice.

    Charlie Rangel told her after the last Primary the writing was on the wall.

    Parent

    Evidently not ALL of her supporters (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by cawaltz on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 05:19:12 PM EST
    just the ones that could be bullied by the DC Dem leadership. Otherwise there wouldn't have been blowback and a push to have her on the ballot come convention time.

    The rest of us continue to push for an honest fight for the nomination as it should have been before Howie and Donna decided to play favorites.

    Parent

    No, she did not concede (5.00 / 4) (#91)
    by Cream City on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 05:41:54 PM EST
    Again, you have this aversion to accuracy.

    These terms matter.  It does not help discourse to be as sloppy as are the media.

    She suspended.

    So did Edwards, for that matter.  I bet you thought he conceded, too?

    Parent

    I always assumed (5.00 / 0) (#104)
    by BernieO on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 05:58:10 PM EST
    that suspending would make it easier to pick up where you left off if something happened such as the lead candidate having to admit to an affair. Not that something like that could happen..........
    BTW, check out the video at Dan Abrams' show of Rush blaming Elizabeth Edwards for John's infidelity. It is disgusting. Time to boycott his sponsors.

    Parent
    Rush (5.00 / 0) (#112)
    by cawaltz on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 06:07:39 PM EST
    must be back on the drugs. Only in delusional world is it a woman's fault that a man is unfaithful. Either that or Rush is setting himself up as above blame. He almost sounds like the loony fringe that wants us running around in burkas because it's too hard for men to concentrate when they see women parts.

    Parent
    Same difference (2.00 / 1) (#97)
    by MKS on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 05:49:57 PM EST
    Cream, I for the life of me can't tell if you really believe that Hillary can still get the nomination or not....

    Are you seriously suggesting that there is any doubt about an Obama nomination?

    Suspend or conceded.  Whatever.  She has endorsed Obama.  She is campaigning for Obama.

     

    Parent

    "Whatever" is not how a precise mind (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by Cream City on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 07:18:27 PM EST
    works.  It means nothing more than that I am a writer and have studied communication, so I understand the importance of precision in word choice to improve communication.

    You apparently do not.  That's all.  There really is no need to read between lines in a discussion between two people who prefer precision.

    Parent

    This convention REQUIRES a vote of all (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 10:11:15 PM EST
    the pledged delegates, and possibly the Super Delegates, depending upon what has happened since early June with the pledged group.

    It has to do with the need to validate the authenticity of the nominee. Because both candidates are going in without the number needed to declare victory, and the Super Delegates have not voted, it is an imperative part of the process.

    Otherwise, the nomination is a fraud.

    Parent

    Oh, and "same difference"? (none / 0) (#132)
    by Cream City on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 07:20:10 PM EST
    That's a phrase that makes me want to bang my head against the keyboard.

    So if I say "different sameness," it's -- y'know -- the "same difference"?  How have we furthered understanding with such phrases?!

    Parent

    Um, well, that's one supporter (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by Valhalla on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 05:55:46 PM EST
    At least according the math in my part of the time-space continuum.

    I'm sure it had nothing to do with DNC threats to primary him, either.

    Parent

    Yeh, that sig in conjunction (none / 0) (#138)
    by Cream City on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 07:34:11 PM EST
    with the comment made me crack up.  As if the author of the marvelous People's History of the United States, and so much more, would have authored that comment.:-)

    Parent
    I didn't (none / 0) (#152)
    by Howard Zinn on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 01:26:38 PM EST
    comment on whether Hillary suspended or conceded, I stated that she "threw in the towel."  Sure, if there was a scandal, she'd step in as the nominee.  So it stands -- unless there's a scandal, he's the only viable candidate left.

    Howard Zinn has written an open letter to Obmana stating that he's disappointed in Obama's shift on FISA, etc.  But it's still the case that Obama supports more of his ideals than McCain.

    Parent

    A few points... (5.00 / 4) (#50)
    by huzzlewhat on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 04:44:11 PM EST
    What's hard is that yes, Obama won more pledged delegates than Clinton, but he didn't win enough pledged delegates to win the nomination. So, according to the traditional DNC rules, neither Obama nor Clinton could win the nomination until the superdelegates voted. Either Clinton or Obama would have been pushed across the finish line by superdelegates, because neither had enough pledged delegates to get their on their own.

    The superdelegates' role isn't to pick the candidate with the most pledged delegates. If that was the case, they wouldn't be needed at all -- the leader in pledged delegates would be the winner, no matter how small their lead. And it's not to overturn in case of scandal -- as it might be if, say, Edwards had finished with the most pledged delegates, and the superdelegates wanted to nominate someone else after the revelations of the past week. What the superdelegates were designed to do is to make sure that the party chooses someone who can win the general election -- to avoid another McGovern. They're supposed to exercise independent decision-making, and pick the person they think best qualified and best able to win.

    Parent

    exactly (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by ccpup on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 04:47:59 PM EST
    and with Obama's lackluster poll numbers, his penchant for taking multiple vacations when he should be campaigning (this trip to Hawaii is his second in barely three months) and the stunning efficacy of McCain's rather tame Celebrity Ad -- makes one shudder to think how the 527s will devastate an already weak candidate --, I strongly, strongly suspect there are more than a few SDs who are seriously considering how much better Hillary would be against McCain than Dean and Brazile's pick currently is.

    In fact, I read the delegate count which separates them is only 53 or 55 or something like that.  Wasn't it 120 before?  Are people already switching?

    Parent

    ...shudder... (5.00 / 0) (#63)
    by huzzlewhat on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 05:00:50 PM EST
    "In fact, I read the delegate count which separates them is only 53 or 55 or something like that.  Wasn't it 120 before?  Are people already switching?"

    God, I hope not. Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge Hillary supporter, and I wish she had the nomination clear and fair ... but I'm afraid that the narrative has gone too far, has been accepted and internalized in the public mind. If the SuperDs changed their mind en masse, and the delegates started switching, to the point that Hillary, by some lightning strike of circumstance, won the nomination, I'm not sure her candidacy -- or her presidency, were she to be elected -- would ever be considered legitimate by the general public. Can you imagine what the press and general public would make of her once they got done with her?
     

    Parent

    the Press would hate her (5.00 / 2) (#93)
    by ccpup on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 05:43:06 PM EST
    regardless and the General Public voted for her in record numbers and doesn't seem to be that in love with the current Presumptive Nominee.

    As for the election, any losses she'd have with disgruntled Obama Supporters would be more than made up for with a solid woman vote, a solid blue collar vote, solid Hispanic and Latino votes, solid rural vote and a solid, strong Democratic Voter vote ... all groups Obama STILL can't seem to lock up.

    The news of her getting the Nomination would be fantastic Press which would drown out anything else -- including McCain's Convention -- for the following few weeks.

    Plus she'd kick McCain's butt in the debates.

    You don't think all those Republicans were voting for Obama in the mid-February caucus States because they LIKED him, do you?  

    As a friend of mine said, "they were giving a leg up to the limpy gazelle in order to make it easier to catch and devour him in the Fall".

    Parent

    Media narratives. (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by huzzlewhat on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 10:49:56 PM EST
    At this point, I honestly believe that Hillary Clinton could single-handedly cure cancer, solve the housing crisis, and bring Osama bin Laden to justice and she wouldn't get "fantastic press."

    The media sets the narrative, and there's a certain point after which the storyline's gone too far to be turned back. It happened with the election in 2000. There was a point at which Bush & Co. was moving forward on the assumption that they'd won, and it was then that "Sore-Loserman" became the prevailing conventional wisdom. I'm afraid it's too late in the storyline for Hillary to win and to not be seen as having stolen the nomination by the majority of people. I wish it weren't so, but I think even a lot of people who would be pleased by it would think that she'd somehow pulled a fast one. And the GOP campaign against her would write itself... I think she could have won easily if she had been declared the winner of the primary early on, or if the press had been reporting on the real issues with the nomination going into the convention. But hand McCain's team a candidate who half the country think pulled off a coup...?

    It makes me sick that we're in this state. I think there's a strong possibility that McCain might win, and I'm not sure that switching nominees would stop it. I blame Howard Dean and the rest of the DNC crowd, and I'm sick about it.

     

    Parent

    Hey guys, I voted for HRC, but (2.00 / 1) (#27)
    by LatinoDC on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 03:52:28 PM EST
    I think it is important to understand that Obama's strategy aimed the caucus's states, while HRC's campaign didn't (I believe the main reason why HRC lost was because of her bad campaign strategy), so you can't put that as an excuse.  And, yes,  the MI, FLA case was a mess, but I still she would've lost, even counting MI and FLA.

    Parent
    The greater point is that (5.00 / 9) (#32)
    by Valhalla on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 04:08:01 PM EST
    neither of them wins without the Superdelegates.

    Neither of them has enough pledged delegates to win, according to the nominating rules of the DNC.  The much-touted 'majority of pledged delegates' riff is baloney, because that is not how the nominee is decided.

    So for either to win, they need a minimum number of superdelegates.

    I don't know about other states, but in my state, which voted overwhelmingly for Clinton, there are 30 SDs up for grabs.  Twelve have endorsed Obama despite the fact that Clinton overwhelmingly won their districts.  Most of those endorsed Obama either before Mass. voted or well before the end of the primaries.  Zero endorsed Clinton against the vote of their districts.

    I don't know all the numbers, but I imagine a great many other states are the same.

    So the assertion that Obama 'won' is erroneous.  No one can win until the actual vote at the convention.

    Parent

    This is interesting (5.00 / 0) (#67)
    by MKS on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 05:07:52 PM EST
    The sense of disappointment in the loss of a close race will recur.....And no one will be happier or wiser for it....

    But we get to hear from Hillary supporters how the superdelegates have the ultimate say.  They can vote their consciences, and they are not bound to vote for any particular candidate....The Superdelegates will get built up....The Superdelegates will pick the rightful nominee....Okay...

    Parent

    Those are the rules. (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by Fabian on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 05:23:02 PM EST
    We didn't make those rules, neither did the candidates.  This is another "historic" feature of the Democratic primary process.

    I've been looking at this primary process as a test of the DNC and the Democratic leadership.  Instead of asking "How can we make this the best process for the party(meaning not just the powers that be)?" they seem to want to just squeak by.  It's beyond irritating.  

    Parent

    They allowed uncertainty to fester (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by catfish on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 05:53:52 PM EST
    the leadership failed because they allowed uncertainty to fester regarding MI and FL.

    And I believe Obama missed many many many opportunities to be a more gracious winner, acknowledge Hillary's accomplishments without looking weak, and emerging as a leader.

    Parent

    That's not what I said (5.00 / 0) (#95)
    by Valhalla on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 05:48:24 PM EST
    you're just answering some argument you made up.  Not strawman, but Strawpeople.

    Parent
    It is implied in the whole superdelegate (1.00 / 0) (#106)
    by MKS on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 05:58:35 PM EST
    argument.....and often expressly stated that way too.

    Parent
    That's what Brazile and Pelosi both said (none / 0) (#133)
    by Cream City on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 07:24:59 PM EST
    so we can just run the video of them saying so.

    I like it.

    Parent

    will he win caucus states in Nov? (5.00 / 0) (#42)
    by lmv on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 04:25:51 PM EST
    Other than Iowa?  

    This is one of the reasons I think the DNC and its cadre of supers are crazy.

    Obama didn't win core Democrats and continues to underperform.  Polls show between a sixth and a quarter of Hillary's supporters are gravitating to McCain and more will after she is not nominated as VP.  

    He can't win.  No matter how many warm and fuzzy stories the MSM does, no matter how many times they ignore facts like his tactics in Chicago, Rezko, Ayers, etc., he won't win.  

    The DNC/MSM pushed the ABC.  Repubs in red states helped because they knew they could beat Obama.  Hillary would have won.

    But, hey, Obama sure beat the heck out of her in the Kansas caucus!  (currently trailing McCain by 15 points.)

    Parent

    Default (5.00 / 3) (#49)
    by joanneleon on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 04:40:54 PM EST
    I agree with most of what you say, except that I think he can win the election, but only by default.  If the Republicans had a half decent candidate, we'd be toast.  

    That being said, I'm not fully confident that he will win.  And this, is the true disgrace, because in a year like this, we should win by a landslide.

    Parent

    McCain is a very good candidate (5.00 / 0) (#72)
    by MKS on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 05:10:09 PM EST
    Any other Republican would be losing by double digits....McCain's (undeserved) reputation as a maverick and his time as a POW make him a very tough candidate....The toughest the Republicans had this year....Can you think of a better Republican candidate this year?

     

    Parent

    Very poor reasoning (5.00 / 2) (#98)
    by Valhalla on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 05:52:57 PM EST
    'Better' does not equal good.  Even 'best' does not equal good.

    I'm horrible artist.  I can barely draw stick figures.  Yet I'm sure I could round up 5-10 people in this large nation who draw even less well than I do.  Then I would be 'best'.  But I would not be good.

    Not only is McCain not a great candidate, but his campaign, aside from his media shop, has been abysmal.

    Parent

    It is a comparative (5.00 / 0) (#103)
    by MKS on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 05:57:03 PM EST
    game.  

    There is no scale out there in the ether that absolutely evaluates candidates independently of other candidates....McCain is a good candidate because he is the only one with a chance to win this year....That is what makes him good.

    Do the Republicans have a "good" candidate this year?  

    Parent

    Nice try, but that is not what you said. (5.00 / 0) (#111)
    by Valhalla on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 06:07:10 PM EST
    You did not make a comparative argument.

    Parent
    So what? (5.00 / 0) (#117)
    by MKS on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 06:11:47 PM EST
    The point remains the same:  McCain is a tough candidate to beat; or, if you will, the toughest in a long time....

    Parent
    I read what Feingold had to say about McCain (none / 0) (#90)
    by hairspray on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 05:36:58 PM EST
    and it wasn't  encouraging to hear.  He said McCain was a hard working results oriented guy and would be a good president, even tho' Russ didn't agree with a lot of his positions.  If it weren't for the fact that McCain would fill the government with the same old bad apples I would say maybe it wouldn't matter.  But all of our departments like Labor, Commerce,Justice, HHS etc would be staffed with these wrong headed people. And these appointments do matter.


    Parent
    Yes, I suspect the FISA vote (none / 0) (#134)
    by Cream City on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 07:25:59 PM EST
    did not please my Senator.  Saw that interview, too.

    Parent
    15 points! (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by ccpup on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 04:44:20 PM EST
    wasn't that one of the States Obama boasted he could win in November?

    If he's the Nominee at the end of all this, it'll be the first time that I'm aware of where the Nominee is someone who lost most of the Democratic demographics, who lost the major States (CA, NY, NJ, PA, OH, FL, NH) and was -- and still is! -- unable to make any discernible in-roads into those groups that generally support the Democratic Party.

    And, still, there will be those who will be shocked -- SHOCKED, I tell you! -- when he loses in November.

    Ugh.

    Parent

    15 pts, according to Rasmussen (5.00 / 0) (#62)
    by lmv on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 04:59:02 PM EST
    8/11/08

    He's also down by double digits in LA, MS, NE, AL, SC, WY, ID, and UT.

    Losing in GA, MO, NC, AK, MT, and ND.

    Those red state Dems sure can pick 'em!

    (Also losing in Hill states, TX, FL, KY, AR and SD.)

    Parent

    And the hits just keep on coming! (5.00 / 0) (#66)
    by BrianJ on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 05:07:46 PM EST
    Much of Barack Obama's 12-point lead over John McCain has disappeared in Minnesota. He is now ahead of his Republican rival by only four percentage points 46% to 42%, according to the latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Minnesota voters.

    The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Colorado voters shows John McCain attracting 47% of the vote while Barack Obama earns 45%. When "leaners" are included, it's McCain by a single percentage point, 49% to 48%.

    Both polls just out this afternoon.  And yes, Colorado and Minnesota were both caucus states.

    Parent

    The Minnesota and Nevada switches (none / 0) (#135)
    by Cream City on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 07:28:05 PM EST
    from his column have lowered the outlook for the Electoral College on the maps that tally such stuff -- at realpolitics.com, electoral-vote.com, etc.

    On the latter site, Obama's electoral count was over 300 not long ago.  Now it's worth a look -- and a read of the analysis below.

    Parent

    did you check the (none / 0) (#144)
    by ccpup on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 08:09:56 AM EST
    This Day in 2004 link?

    On this day in 2004, Kerry was projected to win 327 Electoral Votes to Bush's 211.

    As it stands now, Obama is projected to win 275 Electoral Votes to McCain's 250.

    If I were a SD who had switched from Hillary to Obama, not even MORE money from Hope Pac or Nancy's Pac or other Pacs would make that queasy feeling about his rapidly deflating chances in November go away.

    Parent

    Nah, Wisconsin is foreign and exotic (none / 0) (#136)
    by Cream City on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 07:29:30 PM EST
    even to the Chicago media, much less the New York media and the Hollywood idjits.  It's not you -- or us.  It's them. :-)

    (Yes, that quote was another Cokie corker.)

    Parent

    Sorry, my English is not that good (none / 0) (#21)
    by LatinoDC on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 03:45:09 PM EST
    I don't understand what you want to say in your comment

    Parent
    Because (5.00 / 4) (#24)
    by cmugirl on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 03:48:15 PM EST
    It didn't matter that he may have won more pledged delgates (even with some help from teh RBC by giving him some of Hillary's delegates).  Neither had enough to qualify as the presumptive nominee without the superdelegates. So, yes, they pulled him over the finish line because he clearly couldn't win on his won, since he got blown out in almost every contest since February.

    Parent
    I think it matters a lot that he won more pledge (2.00 / 1) (#28)
    by LatinoDC on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 03:55:17 PM EST
    delegates...SDs are there only to "correct" a decision (as a consequence of an scandal or something like that, right?).  Sorry BTD, I'm going to stop now, I know this is off-topic.

    Parent
    There IS no decision (5.00 / 7) (#41)
    by Cream City on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 04:25:50 PM EST
    yet for the SDs to correct.  Do you see that now?

    It is not a done deal now, before a convention.  It certainly wasn't a done deal even after the last primary -- until the SD-and-media pile-on frenzy, which was so unseemly.  I would have left the Dem party then, if I hadn't done so already as of the RBC's meeting a few weeks before, when the party itself stole delegates from one candidate to give them to another, violated state law, and more.

    Yet even then, Obama did not have enough delegates.  Even after the last primary, he did not have enough delegates.  Even now, he does not have enough delegates -- not until they vote.

    That's life in a great democracy.  It's just not a great Democratic Party anymore.

    Parent

    I thought the roll call vote (5.00 / 0) (#61)
    by MKS on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 04:59:01 PM EST
    was not about actually getting the nomination for Hillary.....

    Parent
    Don't you care about accuracy? (5.00 / 0) (#88)
    by Cream City on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 05:34:35 PM EST
    All you care about is Obama?

    Try reading my comment for exactly what it is -- a statement of fact.

    Parent

    Pelosi said popular vote leader should be nominee (5.00 / 4) (#48)
    by catfish on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 04:38:30 PM EST
    until about Feb. at which point she said delegate leader should be the nominee.

    Parent
    Just absurd - that notion that Hillary (5.00 / 7) (#5)
    by ruffian on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 03:14:20 PM EST
    should have kept saying the exact same thing about Obama as time went by.  Of course the rhetoric changes as the race tightens.  Williams was ridiculous to fault her on it then, and Fallows is still ridiculous to fault her on it now. My blood still boils thinking of that Oct. debate.

    Generally I like Fallows' work though, so I will read that article. Sounds like the presses behavior has yet to be described. I'm not holding my breath.

    In that last debate Obama got no more bad treatment than Hillary had been getting all along.  And yet the outcry was so great that I really thought he was going to use it as an excuse to get out of debates with McCain.  Whereas Hillary kept coming back for more.

    Obama did not show me any great skill in any of the debates.  It will beintersting to see the debates with McCain.  I'm sure we will talk a lot more about that later here.

    Real skill (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Fabian on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 04:08:37 PM EST
    is handling badly slanted debates even better than favorable debates.

    Any competent candidate should be able to shine when the debate(moderator/structure) favors them.  When a debate doesn't favor a candidate, they still need to present themselves and their views well.  They need to make their points even if the point of the question was to deny them any opportunity to do so.  (eg. When did you stop beating your partner? frames.)

    Parent

    Obama got 20 bad minutes (5.00 / 11) (#44)
    by Cream City on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 04:29:01 PM EST
    at a level anything like the months of debates that Clinton had to endure, and much else from the media.

    But 20 minutes hurt his feelings, so he withdrew from the previously pledged next debate and refused to ever debate again.

    This does not reassure me in the least that he can handle what is ahead, even in this campaign, much less in the White House.

    Parent

    Hillary was reacting to the Obama version of the (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by jawbone on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 04:45:11 PM EST
    Harry and Louise ads in a flyer Obama sent out.

    That is what she was calling him on, and he ought to have been ashamed of himself for using that ploy.

    Not just once, but twice!

    Just a couple of cites you can find by googling "Obama Harry and Louise ads."

    Oops, got my chronology wrong, but, hey, the links are there. The Feb. one was the one Hillary became angry about. And I sure don't blame her--one in a long line of Repub attacks Obama used against Hillary, btw.

    Parent

    Everytime I read an article by (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by hairspray on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 06:11:29 PM EST
    someone that I think is unfair (Walter Shapiro,Dan Balz, local editor, etc.) I write them.  Both Dan and Walter have written me back. I cancelled my subscription to The American Prospect because of Harold Meyerson and Ezra Klein and told them so as well.  I was puzzled by Ezra who had been pretty good on health care and suddently he was really trashing Clinton.  We need to push back.  I would write Fallows who I have generally liked.  Last night on Colbert, the audience booed him when he tried a little joke on why Hillary's name should be in the nomination. Push back!!

    Parent
    Must-read (5.00 / 7) (#6)
    by Steve M on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 03:16:08 PM EST
    on the subject of debates, don't miss Bob Somerby debunking the absurd "the front-runner always gets piled on" talking point.

    What you have hit upon here, BTD, is the thing that has always baffled me about Hillary Clinton, the way she attracts such widespread hatred and anger for doing the exact same things every other politician does.  This is the source of the "calculating" meme, the "poll-driven" meme, and all the rest.

    Way back at the start of the campaign, long before I was a Hillary supporter, I noticed the media up to its old tricks.  You see, when another candidate makes a campaign appearance or a photo-op, the media generally reports it straight.  But when it's Hillary, the media must always, always, always pull back the curtain to show you the stage management, just so the reader is reminded of how calculating Hillary is!  It's as if we're supposed to believe every other candidate is just out there winging it.

    I was trying to remember the other (5.00 / 9) (#36)
    by Valhalla on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 04:16:20 PM EST
    day the last time I saw a positive story about Clinton in any MSM outlet, anywhere.

    And when I say 'positive' I mean without sly innuendo or fakey praise for her based on some laudatory comment she made about Obama.

    Know how we were all rolling our eyes the last few days at Matt Lauer and that other NBC personality for asking Lesak if he felt extra pressure in the men's relay because Michael Phelps' gold medal count was on the line?  Well, that's exactly what the media's been asking Clinton since last year.

    Parent

    From Wed. NYT article by (none / 0) (#146)
    by oculus on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 08:30:45 AM EST
    Patrick Healy on the insider e mails of Clinton's campaign:

    Penn also argued, presciently, that Clinton had her best shot if she strongly carried women and lower- and middle-class Democrats, and added support from blue-collar workers and men looking for a candidate with "strength to end the war the right way," according to one Penn memorandum.

    "He may be the JFK in the race, but you are the Bobby," Penn wrote, referring to Obama and Clinton.

    With advisers like Harold Ickes, Howard Wolfson and Mandy Grunwald pressing for restraint against Obama, the Clinton campaign often seemed to lurch from strategy to strategy - attacking Obama in November and then shifting gears only weeks later and emphasizing Clinton's personal appeal.



    Parent
    Fallows has flipflopped! (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Cream City on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 03:17:42 PM EST
    Once, he said something nice about Senator Clinton.

    Now he doesn't.

    He'll say anything for a paycheck!  He flipflops!

    See, Mr. Fallows, just how easy it is?

    Jeesh.  And this guy gets respect in the field.

    with all due respect (5.00 / 6) (#8)
    by Turkana on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 03:17:48 PM EST
    was russert really a journalist?

    Russert, like Cosell, was a lawyer. (5.00 / 4) (#14)
    by wurman on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 03:27:14 PM EST
    Tim, juris doctor, Cleveland-Marshall College of Law

    Howard, juris doctor, New York University School of Law

    There are a score of lawyers working as talking head journalists for the lame stream media.

    Parent

    Ah, that explains so much (5.00 / 6) (#17)
    by Cream City on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 03:37:35 PM EST
    such as his prosecutorial zeal instead of at least attempting (all we ever can do) journalistic objectivity.  Some skill sets are similar between the fields, but the basic approaches can be/ought to be quite different.

    Parent
    Bob Somerby (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by BernieO on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 05:17:48 PM EST
    Has had a lot to say about Russert and what he sees as an Irish Catholic cabal at NBC/MSNBC (Somerby is also from an Irish Catholic background). Check out his archives at dailyhowler.com for some interesting articles about this topic.

    While I agree that Russert's behavior towards Hillary during that debate should be remembered as an example of his "great" legacy, as should his treatment of Bill and Gore as well as his fawning over Shrub. However his most egregious behavior was allowing himself to be used as the megaphone for selling the administration's phony WMD case. Cheney's communications director testified in the Plame case that Meet the Press was Cheney's venue of choice for getting his talking points out like when he went on to sell the phony WMD story and the Saddam-911 connection that convinced the public to support the war. Her notes actually had "control message" under pros for going on the show. Dana Milbank of the WPost started off his story on her testimony with this gem:
    "Memo to Tim Russert: Dick Cheney thinks he controls you."
    I would have written "KNOWS he controls you."

    Bill Moyers really stuck it to Russert on his show "Buying the War". When asked how he got so bamboozled this was Russert's excuse:

    RUSSERT: My concern was, is that there were concerns expressed by other government officials. And to this day, I wish my phone had rung, or I had access to them.
    Then Moyers segued to the next segment with this shot at Russert:
    BILL MOYERS: BOB SIMON DIDN'T WAIT FOR THE PHONE TO RING.
    BILL MOYERS: You said a moment ago when we started talking to people who knew about aluminum tubes. What people-who were you talking to?
    BOB SIMON: We were talking to people - to scientists - to scientists and to researchers, and to people who had been investigating Iraq from the start.
    BILL MOYERS: Would these people have been available to any reporter who called or were they exclusive sources for 60 MINUTES?
    BOB SIMON: No, I think that many of them would have been available to any reporter who called.

    Moyers also interviewed the reporters from McClatchy who also got the story right by talking to the career people instead of just reporting the administration's and Chalabi's propaganda. Yet Saint Tim acted like he could not have talked to these people unless they called him.

    Russert's obsequious behavior towards this administration made him a prime patsy in the dissemination of the administration's propaganda that got us into this debacle of a war. This really is the epitome of Tim Russert's career in my opinion.

    Parent

    No, he just played one (5.00 / 10) (#15)
    by tree on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 03:32:31 PM EST
    on TV. Expecting journalism out of Russert was equivalent of expecting neurosurgery out of Patrick Dempsey.

    Parent
    Fallows artfully, accurately skewers Russert (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by catfish on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 06:00:49 PM EST
    Fallows is one who can do this and still seem like one of the nicest people evah:
    The generous personality that made Russert so popular, and the encyclopedic political knowledge that made him so influential, meant that he was imitated when he set a bad example as well as a good one. His questioning mode during the debates was mostly unfortunate. In two important, back-to-back Democratic debates last fall--in Hanover, New Hampshire, in September and Philadelphia in October--nearly every question he asked was from the categories above.


    Parent
    the series of questions fallows uses as examples (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by Turkana on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 07:12:46 PM EST
    which all end up having come from russert...

    brutal.

    Parent

    Funny how debate losers (5.00 / 0) (#9)
    by OxyCon on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 03:19:13 PM EST
    ...always win elections!
    Gore.
    Kerry.
    Hillary.
    I predict that whoever loses the GE debates will be the next Prez! I think that means there will be a President McCain.

    This statment bothers me: (5.00 / 4) (#11)
    by Faust on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 03:20:44 PM EST
    It seems to me that much of the Media is sticking with Obama in the general election (as I thought they would) over McCain and I think that will continue in the debates.

    It's not that it's untrue, I would generally agree that the the media is much more favorable towards Obama than they have been with any democrat in a long long time.

    However, that is only true relative to how they have treated other democrats historically, with Clinton being their most recent vicitim.

    Nevertheless the discourse continues to be rife with framing Obama in the same way that every Democrat gets framed, as an effete elitist to whom the downtrodden masses cannot connect (HE VACATIONS IN HAWAII FOR GAWDS SAKE) etc.

    MOST importantly the number of opportunites the media has passed up to pursue McCain in an even rudimentary way pass almost without count.

    So yes things are "different" this time around but really they have only shifted the tiniest little bit and the discourse as a whole remains very much the same.

    I know you know all this, but saying that the media is "sticking with Obama" seems a poor phrasing. The media doesn't so much "stick with" Obama, it just doesn't hate him. The history of the media is so poor towards democrats, especially the Clintons that it just looks like love.

    While the media may once again fail (5.00 / 7) (#16)
    by Anne on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 03:35:58 PM EST
    to properly report on the campaign, I'm not so sure that automatically translates into people falling into line with the media's chosen darling as they once did; I have a sense - purely anecdotal - that the number of people who can see just how useless the media are is growing.  I mean, people do remember that this is the media that sold us Iraq and George Bush - twice.

    If the media still had the influence it thinks it does - or wants - Obama should be leading by a margin in the mid-teens, and he isn't.


    Parent

    except the media likes McCain too... (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by LatinoDC on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 03:43:10 PM EST
    Yes, it is a (5.00 / 0) (#70)
    by Jjc2008 on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 05:08:45 PM EST
    BOYS club.  McCain is one of the guys.  So is Obama.  Both are somewhat able to show their macho side (McCain with his gruff military dude front, Obama with his basketball skills)

    Seriously, the boys of the media don't care about race but they do care about gender.

    Hillary was that really smart girl who showed them all up and they could not handle it.  So together they did pile on.

    Parent

    But Obama is starting to get the (none / 0) (#110)
    by BernieO on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 06:06:37 PM EST
    media angry with him. After his European trip there was a lot of talk among the media about his high-handed behavior with them. The tide may be turning. Or not.

    Parent
    Well, that's no surprise (5.00 / 0) (#127)
    by Jjc2008 on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 06:40:05 PM EST
    our current pundit class is filled with prima donnas who think that they are better than the rest of us and should be treated as if they were the "upper classes" of an otherwise peasant society.

    It's a sad but true think that the people who were once, for many of us the first guard for protecting freedom and democracy from tyrants are now a part of the tyrant class.

    Parent

    if the Media had the pull (5.00 / 7) (#47)
    by ccpup on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 04:36:21 PM EST
    with Voters that they used to have, Obama would have won CA, OH, PA and NH.  But he didn't.

    In fact, the louder the Boyz and Girlz in the Media sang his praises -- and dog piled on Hillary -- the more people voted for her.  Now we have a situation where nearly 50% of voters polled by Pew are sick to death of hearing about Obama.

    So, I suspect McCain hit on a very sensitive nerve when he turned the spotlight on Obama's Celebrity and we'll see that much of what worked for him in the past eg. large crowds, chanting, etc. will backfire on him in the General, if he's the Nominee.

    Kinda tough to put that genie back in the bottle, you know?

    Parent

    It also bothered me a little.. (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by rjarnold on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 04:30:20 PM EST
    McCain keeps on making tons of bogus claims about the economy, tried to make Obama's patriotism an issue, and his ads are stupid and just about every one of the ads has a lie in it about Obama.

    And the media still gives him a pass on all of that. He could make any bogus argument about foreign policy and still get praised for his foreign poliy expertise. He could make any bogus statement about social security and no one would notice.

    While I think the media has been more positive to Obama than it would have been to any other Democrat, I don't believe that overall the media really is "sticking with Obama" over McCain.

    Parent

    Also, as far as the media goes (none / 0) (#13)
    by lilburro on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 03:24:17 PM EST
    right now their reporting is incredibly awful on the Georgia v. Russia situation.  They want us to do something about Russia.  This is going to be McCain's line, most likely - and if the situation is still an issue in the fall, it could be a successful one.  No doubt he will bring up the fact that Obama was on vacation in Hawaii when this all began.  

    I think this is an issue that the press and McCain could potentially reconcile over.

    Parent

    I'm not sure I agree with Fallows (5.00 / 3) (#25)
    by lilburro on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 03:49:43 PM EST
    on this point:

    We don't watch debates to learn what someone thinks about Social Security. We watch to see how the contenders look next to their opponents, how they react when challenged, how well or poorly they come up with the words we later see in print. That's what I hadn't seen until I watched the debates end to end.

    Gore's sighs were famous, but "lockbox" was too.

    What's the rule... (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by desertswine on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 03:49:55 PM EST
    on having an antenna strapped to your back? Is that still OK?

    Compensation (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Missblu on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 04:06:36 PM EST
    And who stood by and watched all this and said nothing. Even Bill Richardson was struck by the inequity of the stage happenings. Emerson in his essay on compensation tells us that circumstances in life so unfair as to be hard to put to sleep get retribution in some way and for the higher up the more the payment exacted.

    "The farmer imagines power and place are fine things. But the President has paid dear for his White House. It has commonly cost him all his peace, and the best of his manly attributes. To preserve for a short time so conspicuous an appearance before the world, he is content to eat dust before the real masters who stand erect behind the throne".

    Apparently, Fallows didn't notice Edwards (5.00 / 6) (#34)
    by Joan in VA on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 04:11:43 PM EST
    attack Obama for his "present" votes and then become his  biggest fan. It is not at all unusual for candidates to voice different opinions about other candidates on various topics. She can be honored to be competing against him yet not agree with certain actions/ positions. I find that to be completely understandable. Isn't that what an intra-party race has to be-cordial yet competitive?

    Consistency (5.00 / 6) (#35)
    by joanneleon on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 04:14:38 PM EST
    seems so important to Fallows.  Consistency has its good points, no doubt about that.  When developing user interfaces for computer systems and web applications, consistency was really important to users.  I used to joke that an application that was consistently bad would be preferable to many people than a good one that had inconsistencies.  But that wasn't really true, which I knew and which was confirmed through years of working in this area.

    But what Fallows is arguing here, it seems, is that consistency is more important than anything else.  This is demonstrated by the way he seems to prefer a consistent bumbling fool to a somewhat inconsistent and clearly better candidate in Al Gore.  An aside, on the infamous Gore sighs -- Gore proved to be prescient because nowadays everyone does those sighs, with complementary eye rolls, whenever Bush talks.  I even know people who throw things at their TV everytime he appears.

    I find it amazing how people will rationalize and try to justify their preferences in candidates with dishonest logic when they are clearly motivated by other things, but won't dare admit it.

    Obama got 'the treatment' just once (5.00 / 9) (#40)
    by RonK Seattle on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 04:24:34 PM EST
    Next day, he flipped Hillary the furtive finger, high school style.

    A couple of working journos called him on it at first, but within 48 hours everyone became blind as bats ... blind as they were to the Rielle Hunter affair ... so blind that a physically impossible interpretation of a photo that definitively captured the deliberately articulated gesture became uncontested "proof" that it was a simple unconscious two-fingered scratch of the cheek.

    And Obama hasn't debated anyone since.

    Early debates showed Obama's reticence (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by catfish on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 04:53:31 PM EST
    That's what they did for me. He hangs back. He is cautious. I thought - oh no, he's a biracial John Kerry.

    Few things make Obama light up and speak with conviction, I thought when watching those debates.

    Ben Smith observes: (5.00 / 5) (#83)
    by RonK Seattle on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 05:25:03 PM EST
    In the primary, the perception of a Clinton "attack machine" created a dominant impression that she was the most negative of candidates, even before she got over an unwillingness to attack Obama, and even after Obama attacked her.
    (Politico)

    You may recall, Clinton was flogged for "attacking" Obama whenever she made disagreed on policy, or made reference to her own merits as a candidate.

    or "not supporting Obama" (5.00 / 5) (#84)
    by Fabian on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 05:30:30 PM EST
    when he was attacked by others.

    I'll have to see if that meme  crept into the traditional media, but it certainly was present in the new media.  It was one of those jaw dropping memes where the propagators had no idea that the idea of a female candidate needing to rush to the defense of her male opponent could be offensive.  I bit my tongue a lot when I encountered that.

    Parent

    They do this to all of Obama's opponents (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by catfish on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 05:49:24 PM EST
    somebody said to a McCain aid "you attacked Obama for voting for the Bush/Cheney energy bill."  How is this an attack? He voted for it.

    The primary was excruciating particularly because Hillary was paired with of all people Obama. The press sees everything from her as an attack. And the press sees everything from an Obama opponent as an attack. It was magnified.

    Parent

    He got away with it and is getting (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 06:45:33 PM EST
    away with it.

    Parent
    Alot of the debates were a joke (5.00 / 0) (#89)
    by cawaltz on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 05:35:38 PM EST
    What is your favorite gemstone? Do you believe in aliens? Seriously, the candidates were expected to perform in thirty second sound bites. Our founding fathers would be rolling over in their graves if they saw what is considered "debate" today.

    Candidates should question one another (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by Manuel on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 06:19:10 PM EST
    The moderators should only keep track of the time.  They should be seen not heard.  This would go a long way towards improving debate quality.

    Media attacks leader (5.00 / 0) (#123)
    by Rashomon66 on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 06:28:45 PM EST
    I disagree that the media is sticking with Obama. They are in many ways being tougher on Obama and letting McCain slide on a lot of things. If I can defend the mainstream media a bit; they often go with the underdog and are particularly harsh on the candidate who is in the lead. The reason they finally got tough on Obama in the ABC debate is because Obama had taken a lead over Clinton and looked to be the winner. Prior to that Clinton was the target.

    I guess I'm in the minority (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by ChrisO on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 08:26:58 AM EST
    but I didn't think Gibson and Stephanopolous were that bad. I can understand why Obama's supporters were upset, but as I was watching the debate, I wasn't wondering why they were wasting so much time on trivia. I felt they were laying all of the attacks and rumors about Obama on the table, so he could address them one by one. This should have been an opportunity to knock down some of the more scurrilous rumors. The problem was, even after all this time he didn't have coherent answers.

    And although I didn't see all of the debates, I thought the second hour of the Philly debate had some of the best in-depth exchanges on policy of any that I saw. And of coures it didn't hurt that Hillary cleaned Obama's clock.

    You reminded me (none / 0) (#151)
    by Fabian on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 10:20:29 AM EST
    wasn't that the debate that they asked him either about Wright or "bitter...clinging" and he stumbled on the answer?

    Like, DUH!  This is Obama's big chance to give the definitive response to an issue that was all over the media and he doesn't have one?  That was when I decided that the GOP was probably going to mop the floor with him.

    Parent

    Managing the media (2.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Ennis on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 03:58:16 PM EST
    is part and parcel of a successful campaign.  The media is always attracted to an underdog or fresh face, and Hillary should have countered that better.

    But it's beating a dead horse now to look back with recrimination.

    Do you have any suggestions (5.00 / 0) (#39)
    by Fabian on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 04:20:54 PM EST
    as to how she could have accomplished that?  The media loves a good story and Hillary could have worked the media better, but she didn't have the carefully crafted narrative that Obama did.  

    Parent
    When she appeared on O'Rielly's show (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by catfish on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 04:56:46 PM EST
    she was great. This required first her resistance to being on his show, then showing up and winning him over.

    I'm reading Carl Bernstein's book and she's done this critic-win-over throughout her adult life. It's exciting to watch, because you're bracing for ... something.

    Parent

    THAT (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Fabian on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 05:11:01 PM EST
    would have been a helluva narrative - going on shows which are hostile to her and coming out looking great every danged time!  That is a unique talent and would have made her stand out.

    Parent
    Well if she goes on too many shows (none / 0) (#75)
    by catfish on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 05:12:45 PM EST
    people may grow used to it. Part of it is the tension.

    I want her to go on the Ronn Owens (radio) show in the Bay Area. He doesn't like Hillary and can't articulate why. He's the perfect candidate for her charm offensive.

    Parent

    I don't think she could have (5.00 / 5) (#60)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 04:57:13 PM EST
    There wasn't a word she said that wasn't stretched so completely out of shape, it became a different word. The media were almost all working together on this.

    Even her comment pointing out that she always got the question first was not whining. She was trying to point out that Obama could just respond with "what she said" rather than have to come up with his own answer.

    The media, the DNC and the Obama campaign do not deserve to be rewarded for this sham.


    Parent

    She couldn't have..... (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by Jjc2008 on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 05:15:21 PM EST
    first we have THEIR guilt.  To justify that arses like Russert and Matthews made their careers on the backs of "tabloid" journalism, they had to keep up the Clinton hate.  After all, those jerks knew Hillary did not trust them and that she was right to not trust them, but they wanted to make it her fault.
    Secondly, it was a BOYS CLUB mentality.  Hillary was better than all of them at debating and that p*ssed them off.  Ask any women of that age group who went to school at a time when men like Russert, Matthews and their ilk dominated their schools debate teams, academic teams.  They remember how they were treated when they DARED wanted to join those traditional male clubs; they remember how they were treated when they were academically superior to the boys.  

    For a lot of us, watching Russert, Matthews, Edwards, Obama and a few others in how they dissed Hillary it was deja vu.  Sad but true.

    Parent

    Yeah (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 05:31:32 PM EST
    but they are notoriously bad at picking presidents and candidates because they don't respect the voters nor do they have a clue about what wins elections. But what the heck? After all, they have plenty of money so it won't make one iota of difference to them.

    Parent
    Really? Because this same dead horse (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 09:47:24 AM EST
    is going to be there for the next election and the one after that and the one after that.  The stink is really getting to me. Aren't you tired of the media selecting your leaders instead of the issues?  I sure am!

    Parent
    I am going to be so glad (2.00 / 1) (#46)
    by samtaylor2 on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 04:31:29 PM EST
    Once this convention is over, so we can stop re-rashing the Democratic primary.

    People will be talking about this primary (5.00 / 3) (#51)
    by joanneleon on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 04:44:11 PM EST
    for many years to come.

    Parent
    perhaps (5.00 / 4) (#57)
    by ccpup on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 04:50:37 PM EST
    but maybe not for the reasons you so optimistically think

    Parent
    Yes, because once (5.00 / 6) (#55)
    by dk on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 04:45:55 PM EST
    we all witness 70,000 screaming fans do the O-salute in the football stadium, all evidence if sexism in the Obama campaign and corruption in the DNC primary process will be washed away...

    Give me a break with this.

    Parent

    Am I the only one that bothers? (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by cmugirl on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 06:06:34 PM EST
    Does that image bother anyone else and remind anyone else of something?

    Obama won't have Invesco field for the debates. In fact, that would be a great first step to having debates mean something - have the debates with no audiences. There's no reason to have a live audience for a debate and it might make the media be a little more objective as well as the viewing public - no opinions based on who got the loudest cheers.

    Parent

    I don't think that is going to (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by Jjc2008 on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 06:09:45 PM EST
    happen.  And in the end if the democratic party does not LISTEN to all its members and most especially to the women who have been the workhorses of the party for decades, the party is in deep trouble.  I will not give another penny to the party until and unless the sexism they tolerated and encouraged is addressed.

    Parent
    Well, Fallows (none / 0) (#10)
    by lilburro on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 03:20:10 PM EST
    is certainly right that no sane person would watch all 47 of those debates back to back!  This is an interesting subject though.

    I wonder if primary and presidential debates are different beasts.  I predict as Fabian does that the McCain team will be much more rigorous in perfecting the art of the soundbite (which Hillary did not pull off, or never was allowed to).  I think McCain will probably be the debater with the most inconsistent personality and he's really setting himself up to be the sour one with the ads they've been airing.  He has time to put those behind him though (it will seem incredibly petty to accuse Obama of being a celebrity when sitting right next to him).  

    Obama was pretty mediocre.  We'll have to see if the soundbite slams work on him - at this point we really don't know.

    The "bitter" comments brought down Obama in his public performances.  I can see McCain effectively driving at Obama if he makes a mistake like that again.

    BTD (this is an honest question), where do you (none / 0) (#23)
    by LatinoDC on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 03:48:00 PM EST
    think Media's hatred of HRC comes from?

    You didn't ask me, but I've had an opinion about (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by WillBFair on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 08:57:17 PM EST
    this for years. The Clintons are the most knowledgeable leaders of our time. They devised a massive legislative agenda that reversed damages of 3 repub admins, set new and brilliant ways to manage the economy, and improved almost every statistic in the book.
    But the corporate media want a power vacuum in DC and weak leaders they can control. And the American people don't like smart folk, simply because they don't understand them. The public are total dingbats, easily manipulated by a media smear campaign of name calling, childsih insults, and obvious lies.

    Parent
    She is many things in one (none / 0) (#71)
    by catfish on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 05:09:19 PM EST
    I'm reading Carl Bernstein's book on her, and it is more flattering than I expected. But she is so many contradictions in one person.

    Before she met Bill she was talked about as a future U.S. president. Yet this woman ahead of her time sacrifices it to follow Bill to Arkansas. She stays with him after his infidelities.

    She is both liberal and decisive.

    And also, people don't know what to make of a woman who has the natural personality that the Myers-Briggs system describes as the most masculine:

    Referring to ESTJs, Kroeger says, "[O]f all the sixteen types this is the most conventionally masculine." The New York Times' Maureen Dowd pointed out that actor Jack Nicholson called Hillary "the best man for the job," and Hillary said on David Letterman, "In my White House, we'll know who wears the pantsuits."


    Parent
    I agree--I expected Bernstein's book to be a (5.00 / 4) (#122)
    by kempis on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 06:21:25 PM EST
    hit-piece but I finished it with even more respect for her strength and her intelligence.

    Back to this post, this is a really good one, BTD. I hope that much is written about the horrendous treatment most pundits and talking heads gave Hillary during the debates and in the post-mortems.

    Hillary's motives were always scrutinized; Obama's always accepted as he presented them. Hillary's attacks on Obama were practically replayed in slo-mo, endlessly, while Obama's attacks on Hillary were glossed over as defensive maneuvers or honest critiques.

    If elected, Obama will not be held aloft forever on the media's shoulders. He'll have to govern effectively. If he can't, or if he lets them down--as is inevitable considering the pedestal they've placed him on--they will do the same sort of mea culpa that some finally did in a Vanity Fair piece not long ago, regretting their harsh treatment of Gore and infatuation with Bush in 2000. Only this mea culpa will be about their abysmal treatment of Hillary Clinton and Clinton Derangement Syndrome.

    Our media personalities (most of whom really are NOT journalists) are idiots: they don't learn from their own mistakes. They've fallen in love again with an inexperienced fella who's promising to be a uniter and not a divider--and he's not one of those distasteful Clintons, who had the audacity actually to win two presidential elections.

     

    Parent

    Aha - found the Russert part of the article (none / 0) (#64)
    by catfish on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 05:04:06 PM EST
    it is good. Thank you James Fallows. For this I can somewhat forgive you for your Hillary hate.

    Edgar08 (none / 0) (#82)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 05:24:14 PM EST
    You are permanently banned from my threads.

    No more comments.

    I gave fair warning to everyone on this, and I do not care if you are my favorite commenter, which you are not, I made some simple rules. You chose to break them.

    You're out.