The press will torment Obama, too
With Sen. Barack Obama now emerging as the Democratic front-runner, clear signs suggest that his press treatment will soon change and that the media will fall back into their routine of viewing -- and critiquing -- leading Democrats through the eyes of Republican spin.
Just last week, we saw how a single line from a Michelle Obama speech was seized upon by conservative partisans, led by Fox News, to suggest she is not patriotic, and how that attack was given a wider airing in the mainstream press. (CNN casually raised questions about Barack Obama's patriotism, as well.) We've also seen the media-manufactured narrative take root that Obama is the leader of a cultish following (more on that below), which dovetails with the creeping media meme that Obama is a phony.
Meanwhile, in Sunday's New York Times, Obama was twice described as being overly effeminate: He's an "elusive starlet" who prefers "playing the tease," while espousing a "feminine management style." Compare that to the media's portrayal of Republican Sen. John McCain as sort of a man's man, and it's obvious where those competing narratives are headed.
Writing at Slate.com, John Dickerson announced he's had enough of the Obama euphoria: "Isn't there a natural limit to our enthusiasm for to this kind of sweeping phenomenon?" By "our," I suppose Dickerson meant voters, but my hunch is he was likely referring to journalists and how they had reached their "natural limit." I'm not sure this foreshadows a full-fledged media backlash against Obama, but it certainly suggests a fundamental shift is on the horizon. The pendulum is swinging.
Specifically, look at the about-face being done by partisan conservative columnists who, rather unbelievably, had expressed their deep admiration for Obama, a liberal Democrat, during the primary season when he opposed Clinton.
"He is the brilliant young black man as American dream," wrote Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan, whose hatred of Hillary Clinton is limitless. But with the Clinton campaign now wounded and Obama grabbing the inside track on the nomination, Noonan quickly flip-flopped. In her February 22 column, she suggested the Obamas are self-centered "snobs" who can't relate to "normal Americans." (Bill Kristol is now hitting that nasty theme as well.)
New York Times Republican columnist David Brooks performed a similar pivot. Last year, he praised Obama effusively while urging him to take on Clinton for the Democratic nomination: "Whether you're liberal or conservative, you should hope Barack Obama runs for president."
More recently, in January, Brooks wrote of how Obama "offer[s] a politics that is grand and inspiring" and noted Obama's rhetoric about "the high road versus the low road; inspiration versus calculation; future versus the past; and ... service versus selfishness."
Then last week, the columnist showed his true partisan colors, the same colors he and an army of others will be waving for months to come. New narrative: Obama is an overhyped, waffling phony, and his followers are delusional suckers. To accentuate the mocking tone, Brooks in his column referred to Obama as "the Hope Pope," "His Hopeness," "The Chosen One," "The Presence," "The Changemaker," and the "High Deacon of Unity."
Why are predictable partisan jabs noteworthy? Because previous media patterns suggest those types of derogatory right-wing talking points about Democratic front-runners will almost certainly be absorbed by the larger mainstream press.
Still, some media observers suggest it's unlikely that Obama's press coverage will change dramatically, in part because the press has already examined Obama's record and couldn't find much dirt on him. "The assumption that every politician who reaches a point of power must have a dead prostitute or a shady land deal in his past just waiting to be discovered seems a cynical view, born out of a particularly journalist-centric view of the world," wrote Gal Beckerman for the Columbia Journalism Review.
But I think that misses the larger point about today's brand of superficial political press coverage, which does not revolve around uncovering scandals or digging up dirt on candidates. Meaning, even if Obama has a sterling background, that does not mean he's immune to downbeat media.
For instance, none of the relentlessly negative press coverage that Clinton has been hit with over the past four months, during which time I don't think the Clinton campaign won a single news cycle, has had anything to do with revelations about Clinton's past, and it had virtually nothing to do with her politics. Indeed, there's no logical reason why Clinton's mainstream, left-leaning centrist candidacy would spark the kind of swarming animosity that it did within the press corps. Just like there was no rational reason why Al Gore's pragmatic platform in 2000 prompted the press to openly despise him.
The truth is, long-term campaign press coverage has almost nothing to do with the candidate's policies, shortcomings, or previous scandals. It's built almost entirely around questions of "character," and even more transparently, around personality, or pointless personality traits. (Do you think the media's sexist obsession with Clinton's "cackle" sprang from some sort of larger policy concern?) And that's why Obama remains vulnerable, because Republicans do a masterful job of convincing journalists that, in the end, they don't really like Democratic candidates, that they don't trust them.
And, as usual, Republicans are already telegraphing their script. Grover Norquist, the conservative anti-tax activist, told The Sunday Times of London, "Barack Obama has been able to create his own image and introduce himself to voters, but the swing voters in a general election are not paying attention yet. He is open to being defined as a leftwing, corrupt Chicago politician."
If recent history is any indication and Obama solidifies his status as front-runner, the press will soon play a central role in spreading that negative narrative.
There's another key reason Obama's media treatment will likely turn harsher: John McCain. And not just because he's the longtime "media darling," as NBC's David Gregory conceded last week. Rather, as Time.com's Ana Marie Cox noted, the McCain camp is already complaining to reporters that the media is going too easy on Obama. McCain's aides are working the refs, and it is going to pay off.
Why? Because when McCain and the entire GOP establishment play the liberal media bias card and complain that the press is going too easy on the Democrat, the press will listen.
History shows us that the press panics when faced with the charge of liberal media bias, especially during a campaign year.
That's why it's so important to start paying attention not only to the media's own manufactured negative narratives, but also right-wing talking points quickly forming about Obama. We know McCain is going to echo every one of them, and my guess is the press will, too.
I'm not referring to the truly nutty stuff that the radical right is starting to churn out, like National Review's Lisa Schiffren, who argued, with zero proof, that Obama's mixed-race parents had communist leanings because back when they got married, the only reason black and white people married was because they were communists. Or Accuracy In Media's Cliff Kincaid and his retro Red Scare column about how "Obama had an admitted relationship with someone who was publicly identified as a member of the Communist Party USA."
I doubt the traditional press will show much interest in that kind of textbook hatemongering. But I do think the press will gladly amplify more mainstream, personality-based attacks on Obama. (Time's Mark Halperin gets a head start here.)
For instance, the central point of Brooks' recent contemptuous New York Times column about Obama was that delusional followers of his were suffering from "Obama Comedown Syndrome" and that they struggled against "Obama-myopia." And that line of attack closely mirrors another emerging mainstream meme: Enthusiastic Obama followers are akin to mindless cult members, and their eccentric fanaticism is driving his campaign.
CNN's Carol Costello suggested that the audience response at an Obama rally represented "a scene some increasingly find not inspirational, but 'creepy,' " while on-screen the text read "OBAMA-MANIA BACKLASH" and "PASSION 'CULT-LIKE' TO SOME."
The Los Angeles Times' Joel Stein referred to "the Cult of Obama," while mocking the campaign as "Obamaphilia" and his supporters as "Obamaphiles." (If Obama supporters were wondering what it felt like to be openly derided by the mainstream media, now they know.)
Time's Joe Klein complained, "There was something just a wee bit creepy about the mass messianism." The Times' Brooks joked that Obama's supporters would soon be "selling flowers at airports and arranging mass weddings."
And most egregiously, ABC's Jake Tapper made fun of the "Helter-Skelter cult-ish qualities" of Obama's supporters. That's right, the Charles Manson-led Helter Skelter cult that slaughtered five adults during the summer of 1969, and the same cult that believed murderous blacks would soon stage a bloody revolution and try to take over America. That's who Tapper compared Obama's base to. Ha-ha. Get it?
The cult narrative simply highlights how Obama is not immune to bad press -- bad press that has nothing to do with his past, his policies, or his campaign platform. But bad press that journalists essentially concoct, the way they do every four years when a Democrat eyes the White House.
Barach H. Obama deserves the scrutiny. President Bush is always being flamed by the media and it doesn't prevent him from speaking directly and honestly to the press like he did today.
Look at John McCain, he is flamed by the media more than anybody.
It is about time the carriage turns into a pumpkin for Mr. H. Obama.
Amen, Eddie! The media "flames" Bush?? If a Democratic adminstration had presided over the monumental f**k-up of the Bush administration on 9/11 and THEN maintained a hands-off policy on Bin Laden for 7 YEARS as Bush has done (even boasting 4 months after 9/11 to "not thinking about" Osama), the press would mention it in EVERY NEWS STORY involving both that president and his party! Instead, it's as taboo a topic to talk about Bush's hands-off policy on Bin Laden as it is to point out the fact that George W Bush was set up in business by Salem Bin Laden, Osama Bin Laden's brother (George W. Bush's first company, Arbusto Oil, was financed by Osama Bin Laden's brother, Salem, for those of you who aren't aware - look it up! It's even been mentioned in the Wall Street Journal).
Also, "John McCain, he is flamed by the media more than anybody"!! Are you SERIOUS!?? Unless "flamed" means "hero worship", they couldn't give a guy with such a flip-flopping history such a tongue bathing! The NY Times publishes ONE STORY that exposes McCain's duplitious politics and all of a sudden the entire press is "flaming" McCain!?
Barack Obama should CONSTANTLY remind voters of Bush's hands-off policy on Bin Laden (using exactly that phrase - a "hands-off policy on Bin Laden" - untill it's as synonomous with Bush as "liberal" is with Obama). Not only has the Bush administration showed it's complete disdain for the United States with it's unmasked HATRED for the Constitution (what George W Bush calls a "goddamn piece of paper"), but the entire GOP has FULLY ENDORSED Bush's shredding of the Constitution! THAT'S what the "patritiotism" of the Republican Party is really about!
Right on, Chuck.
The fawning over Obama is unbelievable.
Boehlert has to resort to combing through "Cliff Kincaid's 'Red Scare' column" and other blogs (NatReview, Jake Tapper, bloggingheads) to drum up some kind of proof that there's "press" challenging Obama.
Boehlert cites a single column by Joel Stein in the LA Times (from nearly three weeks ago, I might add). Meanwhile, the open cheerleading by the Times for Obama has been very well documented.
Boehlert's case is not very convincing, IMHO.
I'm a Hillary supporter, okay? I've been warning the Obama kidz about this for a long time. What's more, I don't think Barack should be looking for all those Republican voters crossing over in the general election, since they got what they wanted, it seems.
But I will put my shoulder to the wheel and defend Barack, too. That's what a political party is about.
"Some worm got into their brain in the early '90s, and they're now in the latter stages of a wasting neurological disease."
Try the '70s. Woodward and Bernstein held up a pedestal and said "here, media, sit here and observe from above." Instead, the media took the next 30 years off.
I agree with much of what Eric wrote about the media. However I do not think Obama's case is unique. It looks to me like it happens to all front-runners.
We have seen the NYTimes go after McCain with their baseless allegations of 'appearance of impropriety'. We saw Dan Rather's career go down in smoke after trying to foist the forged military records of GW off on the pubic in the last election.
So the part I disagree with is that the media is complicit in a conspiracy against Obama with the G.O.P. masterminds.
I do believe veteran reporters watching the Obamania going on in college campuses and elsewhere while following Obama around and hearing the same speeches are mystified over his appeal. Maybe they are simply jaded after the Clinton-Bush years. They simply haven't caught on that Obama has masterfully tapped into the reservoir of disenchantment with business as usual candidates endorsed by the entrenched politachricy.
I do believe that with this long campaign, it will be interesting if Obama becomes teflon and can skillfully downplay his liberal positions enough to carry the undecideds.
In any case, it will be fun to watch and debate.
And AnotherAmerican misses the whole point of this column: this is NOT about political issues, or dirt dug up from someone's past, as the case he brings up about McCain or Rather.
This is about the media framing it in terms of "character", viewing it as a narrative where they set up the easy-to-write parts (the curmudgeon, the freethinker, the grandfatherly type, and so on), WITHOUT even bothering about the issues. THAT'S THE POINT here, not real issues.
And when it comes to this, the media is heavily influenced by mostly right-wing campaigners and lobbyists, by their fear of being "liberal", and also by their own limited imagination and willingness to sell this narrative, rather than describe a reality.
I got to hand it to you. Using the memory of an 86 year old woman regarding memos written decades earlier that she herself claims she did not write as your fact basis requires a lot of chutzpah. She even admitted those memos were not written by Killian! You really have to do better than that.
Now lets step what cost Rather his career. Below are some excerpts from Wikopedia and Killian documents.
Rather stated, "if I knew then what I know now – I would not have gone ahead with the story as it was aired, and I certainly would not have used the documents in question,"
CBS News President Andrew Heyward said, "Based on what we now know, CBS News cannot prove that the documents are authentic, which is the only acceptable journalistic standard to justify using them in the report. We should not have used them. That was a mistake, which we deeply regret."
The documents have subsequently never been authenticated, and no originals have been produced for examination. Burkett claims he burned the originals.
CBS located and interviewed Marian Carr Knox, who was a secretary at Ellington Air Force from 1956 to 1979, and Colonel Killian's assistant on the dates of the memos. According to Knox, she did not type the memos and the memos were not written by Killian, though she believed they reflected the truth about Lieutenant Bush.
She also stated she had no firsthand knowledge of Bush's time in the Guard. Referring to the disputed memos, Knox commented "The information in here was correct, but it was picked up from the real ones," she said. "I probably typed the information and somebody picked up the information some way or another."
So my friend, your only toehold is that this lady says she 'probably typed the information and someone else picked it up'.
I only cited the above to put everyone else's mind to rest regarding my inclusion of Dan Rather as an example of media attacking those on the right as well as the left. Further discussion about Rather does not interest me. If you want to go on, feel free.
Why was he set up? Well, just look at how 60 minutes has been dropping these bombshells about corruption in the Bush administration, only to have the stories die from lack of attention. Could it be that Dan Rather was crucified in a deliberate attempt to discredit CBS, which seems to be the only network that does anything resembling investigative reporting any more?
I tend to agree with you, Nerzog. Dan Rather, besides this one blunder, was an upstanding journalist and one of the dominant media voices cataloging the baby boom generation (along with Tom Brokaw.) Had the documents not been forged, the story never would have been an issue.
Still, I would like to know what exactly went down during Bush's time in the Texas Air National Guard. The fact that he'd keep his military records secret is incredibly suspect of anyone, much less someone with claims that they went AWOL for a year.
"..Had the documents not been forged, the story never would have been an issue." (DBeden)
Correct me if I'm not up to date on this, but were these ever proven to be forged? I know they were not proved authentic, I just think it's as inaccurate to call them "forged" as to insist they are valid.
The funny part of this is how often Rather is mentioned as an example of the media attacking conservatives, in the same breath as it's pointed out that this single incident destroyed his career.
Sort of backfires on the whole "liberal media freely smearing the right" story, when one occurence of something much less demonstrably dishonest than what is done by the conservative media daily results in the type of shltstorm that hit Dan Rather.
You're right, Colonel, they were never proven to be forgeries. But the Press lies about this all the time.
In fact, the Commission that examined the case disproved all of the claims that they WERE forgeries. They refuted all the talk about MS Word, superscripts, etc.
The irony is, Rather didn't even need those documents to make his case. They were only icing on the cake. But the Right and the media glommed onto them, and evaded the bigger issue about AWOL status.
Also, the secretary who denied that they were authentic also admitted that they sounded like the officer, and was something he would say.
Don't hear much about that from the media, do we? Nope.
"The documents have subsequently never been authenticated, and no originals have been produced for examination. Burkett claims he burned the originals."
Since you're making a leap of faith there, (lack of authentification=forgery), I'd have to conclude that you've got a dog in this fight. Fair enough.
Let's see how a person with my predelictions might use that kind of sloppy deductive thinking:
1) Dubya lost flight status because he didn't take a required physical = cocaine use.
2) Dubya's records went missing while he was Texas Governor, the Commander in Chief of the unit in which he "served." = Coverup.
3) Dubya denied that he used contacts to get into the "Champaign Unit," Texas Air National Guard, (giving him a greater chance of being hit by lightning than VC ordinance). This has been shown, by the man who made the call, to be false. = Dubya's a liar, and his word can be taken for nothing.
The first two are leaps of logic, with which you could logically disagree. The third is proven and reproven by subsequent lies.
And the NYT story, while its more salacious aspects were thin and regrettable, is far from empty, or overwith.
It is obvious that Obama toned down his speeches since the wingnuts started attacking his followers as “cult-like”, etc. At first I thought it a good idea, but the more I think about it – it was a mistake. I’ve been saying for a year now that the only way to beat Republicans is to start playing by their rules. They know that we “mambly-pambly” Democrats with our “political correctness” obsession would never think of matching them in their “how-low-can-you-go” tactics. I say take off the gloves!
Speaking as a Democrat, I want to see those wildly enthusiastic Obama crowds chanting and cheering at near every sentence. It scares the bejeezus out of them Repugs! Like I mentioned in a post the other day, not only should we match their smears – we should try taking back some of the fire they have hijacked from us. To counter the “Obama is not patriotic” smears, his supporters should start using chants of USA! USA! USA! as their #1 chant at every campaign rally. Sean Hannity would have a heart attack the first time he saw that. If we hijack back our patriotism, maybe the next thing we know, “liberal” will not be such a bad word after all - and we can get things back to like they were in the late 60’s when “conservative” was the dirty word!
It’s not going to be an easy election with the corporate media so blatantly pro-McCain – but if we let them win this using the same ol’ Karl Rove plan and tactics without a fight, then we deserve to lose.
“..fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again.” gwb <Roger Daltrey SCREAM>
Speaking as a Democrat, I want to see those wildly enthusiastic Obama crowds chanting and cheering at near every sentence. It scares the bejeezus out of them Repugs!
I find it more weird than scary, but if I find it scary it's because it's like watching a bunch of brain-washed cult followers.
And it won't sell me, someone without a candidate, to jump on board. And I doubt it will convince too many not already under the spell to become an Obamabot.
Personally I preferred Hillary rather than McCain or Obama. But it appears that's a no-go.
I seriously doubt the MSM will be particularly tough on Obama since they've been his biggest cheerleaders thus far.
But Boehlert's preemptive whining is a riot.
JETER: Well I didn’t mean scary in that way. I meant a “concerned” scary - A “holy crap look at how enthusiastic that crowd is”, scary.
You’re making the mistake I used to do – by looking at it from the classic level-headed Democrat’s eyes. You have to start to think like a Republican – not seriously of course, but as a psychological tool. It’s a Spy-vs-Spy thing. In other words, most people would think Obama’s “cult-like” enthusiasm looks more like a Republican phenomenon than Democrat – I know that was my first thought. It’s like some evangelical crusade seen on CBN – but THIS is what moves these people – this is what they live for - this is what caused the term and phenomenon of the “Obamican” to blossom. My point is, as crazy as it sounds to us, the mass appeal is the ultimate measure of the candidate’s worthiness to them. You have to understand spiritualism and the powers of religion to see what a plus it is to have a candidate who can move people like this. To walk away from it would be foolish for Obama – especially if it is done to pander to Democrats such as you who “just don’t get it”. - And I’m willing to play the game if it’s what it takes to win.
Well I didn’t mean scary in that way. I meant a “concerned” scary - A “holy crap look at how enthusiastic that crowd is”, scary.
Hey Cleve,
Yeah I actually knew that's what you meant, I was simply saying that my "scary" was a different type. But I will agree that some Republicans are probably very concerned about the enthusiasm Obama is generating.
You’re making the mistake I used to do – by looking at it from the classic level-headed Democrat’s eyes. You have to start to think like a Republican – not seriously of course, but as a psychological tool.
I don't know how to break this to ya Cleve but I'm not a Democrat. Though I do think I'm level-headed :-)
Actually I've been a long time registered Republican until very recently when I re-registered as Unenrolled, which I guess means I'm an Independent now. However I'm still a Conservative. A rather moderate one.
You compare this Obama phenomenon to a evangelical crusade, & I can see that. I usually liken it to Beatlemania. But either way it is something I've never seen before in politics.
The thing is I like Barack Obama, I mean how can you not? But I'm still not sure he's ready for the job.
Cleve,
You didn't offend me at all, & I'm used to the anti-Republican rants [I've been posting here for 3 plus years], some are well-deserved...hey I've given a few anti-Bush rants here myself.
All I've ever asked is when folks here put down Republican/Conservatives that they specify who they mean & make it clear that they don't mean ALL of us. :-)
"Actually I've been a long time registered Republican until very recently when I re-registered as Unenrolled, which I guess means I'm an Independent now. However I'm still a Conservative. A rather moderate one."
-Jeter
Then you probably fall more in line with Obama and Clinton than McCain anyway.
http://www.politicalcompass.org/usprimaries2008
As this graph suggest, both of them are moderately conservative. Of course, these days, anything left of Hannity is "out there man, in the ether."
Jeter,
My son tried to go see Obama last Sunday in Toledo. He got in line at 2:30pm and the doors didn't open to 4:30. They only let in the first 10,000 and even so he was too far back in line. to make it in.
He said people were lining up at 4 a.m.
As a side note, he tried to get into a Bill Clinton speech. They couldn't handle 800. Bill was so late, he left.
AA,
Amazing! Yeah it sounds like what it must have been like trying to get into a Beatle concert 40 plus years ago ;-)
I haven't figured out Obama Fever yet, I mean the guy is oozing with charisma, but come on, this Obamamania is a tad nutty. IMO.
Actually Snoop I was a McCain supporter back in 2000. So I can't speak for the rest of those "pooples" ;-)
Hey you knew I had to bring "pooples" back!
Jeter, "Obamamania," IMO, is a media construct that doesn't actually exist. I mean yeah, you've seen the video of Obama rallies and everyone's cheering and yelling at almost everything he says, but almost the same thing happens at a Clinton rally, just with a little less enthusiasm. No, the media sees this enthusiasm that hasn't been present in politics in a long time, and they can't really wrap their heads around it.
I mean, we'll still have less than 50% of the electorate vote in this election I believe. It won't be any sort of "mania" until we can get at least 60 to 70% of the people to vote.
Actually you might be on to something there. Let's at least agree that some in the media have the fever...Especially when you hear a Chris Matthews gushing like a teenybopper & saying things like he gets tingles up his leg when Obama speaks.
So yeah it wouldn't shock me to learn that great part of this mania is a media-generated fantasy.
Think of the T-shirts they could have sold to all those people waiting in line. A DVD of the latest speech with the chants coming in with 7.1 DTS Surround Sound would be awesome too. Sounds like Obama needs to up the price of admission. I suppose $85 would be comparable to most big-name rock stars today?
I fear that we may see the same phenomenon repeat itself this year. The Talk Radio Troglodytes have already convinced their Knuckledragging GOP base that Obama is a closet Muslim who hates America and refused to be sworn in on the Bible. With the help of the lazy bobbleheads like Tim Russert and Chris Matthews, enough independents will be brainwashed to tip the scales in November.
Unless the Democratic strategists get real smart real fast, I predict a Gramps McCan't victory in November.
Nerzog,
Sometimes I worry about you. How you can say that the GOP base thinks Obama is a closet Muslim defies reality. But then again it does make for a good rant. Thanks for the laugh!
I think you overestimate the intelligence of these folks.
Don't sound so bummed dude, and just stop listening to those idiots.
The "bump" McCain is experiencing now will be short lived. Once the Democratic candidate is settled and discussions turn to more important issues that are on the minds of most Americans - and not just Obama’s middle name or Muslim heritage - even the MSM will have to focus on what the voters are demanding of the candidates. McCain’s hawkish rhetoric, Americans’ concern for the way Republicans have ruined the economy with runaway spending, and the demand for health care reform – coupled with a disgust for “the same ol’, same ol’ in Washington” will result in a groundswell of support for the Democratic platform. It’s early, way early – keep the faith!
Nerzog,
Well you can't choose your wife's parents. It must be pretty interesting at Thanksgiving. :-)
I've met several people personally who are sure Obama is a Muslim.I don't know what AA defines as the "GOP base", but there are a good number of very misinformed people in this country, not just on meaningless lies like a candidates faith or patriotism, but on the real meat of important issues.
I've met several people personally who are sure Obama is a Muslim.I don't know what AA defines as the "GOP base", but there are a good number of very misinformed people in this country, not just on meaningless lies like a candidates faith or patriotism, but on the real meat of important issues.
Hey Mary, know how to go on a fishing trip and make sure no one takes your beer?
Invite two right wing christians along!
Snoop, your beer might be safe, but keep an eye on your son!
(I kid the right-wing Christians.)
Mefirst,
I've gotten that e-mail about a dozen times in the past several weeks. And some are coming from Democratic friends who I happen to know are Hillary supporters.
Hey LostLogic :-)
Well I can't speak for Nerzog, but I meant Democrats that just happen to be supporting Hillary. Nothing to do directly with her campaign.
My guess would be that this particular e-mail likely came from some group on the Right not Clinton. I'm basing my theory on the belief that they would be more apt to use the Obama is a Muslim as a fear factor.
This is why Obama's enthusiastic youthful following is so important.95% of the people you're talking about are older and get their political "news" from Fox News, church, or other such conservative organizations. Then they parrot it to each other via word of mouth.
It will take their children and grandchildren to set them straight on all the damage done to Obama by such sources. Even if the youth of America has their usual lethargic spell come election day and their voting turnout does not match the multitude increase in campaign support shown for Obama - they have the potential to play a major important role in educating the elders in regards to misinformation and misconceptions they have about Obama. This is why I believe that no one can stress enough, how important it is for Obama to continue to motivate the young people of America, even if it means adding enthusiasm to his campaign rallies that seems to border on the "cult-like" to some.
AA, watch this video, then try to say otherwise.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SpJfWOWkB2Q
In fact, everyone should watch this video. I know it doesn't represent all republicans, and probably most conservatives, but it's who you have cozied up with for the past 10-12 years.
Great video, D. I hope some of the money I send to Lynchburg can be used to get them some factual information.Maybe I should Boycott untill the distillery starts putting out bipartisan reviewed voter pamphlets.
I realize they don't represent a majority of Republicans, but I'll bet there are enough to make a ripple.
"How you can say that the GOP base thinks Obama is a closet Muslim defies reality. But then again it does make for a good rant. Thanks for the laugh!"
-AA
You've got to be kidding. Can we, as a matter of principle, define the GOP base? Is Rep. Jack Kingston a member of that base? Perhaps the entire Tennessee GOP?
Now I know what you're going to say. "But The Tennessee GOP didn't say he was a muslim." No, not directly. but you know that putting that picture up, painting him as anti-semitic, and using his middle name in a wink wink kinda way directly implies that is what they are saying.
Yep. Good analysis. Let's create a hypothetical situation. Let's say that the support Obama is getting was for McCain. Who could deny the republicans and media would both see such support as the American people speaking out against the evil libs? That's exactly how it would be spun. It's just interesting to me to see how perception changes when you add a uterus or some pigmentation to a candidate.
The press will do their best to prop him up, but in this cycle of events, I believe that the positive message that Obama brings will win out.
Many elements of the corporate owned media will go as low into the gutter as they can get away with......
By the time Nov comes around, I wonder just how many people will be so completely revolted by the display that is inevitably coming into our livingrooms.....
I recommend stocking up on air-sickness bags!
I asked my Republican friends in January how they felt about having the corporate media anoint John McCain to be their candidate. Now that I'm supporting Obama (following Edwards's withdrawal) I don't like it any better that they're interfering in my party's selection process.
How can we keep corporate hacks like Russert, Matthews, and their ilk from having such influence in our party? For one thing, we have to call them out, specifically, and by name. Thank goodness that Media Matters does so, repeatedly. We did it with Matthews, and we need to do it with Russert. And not just Clinton. If Obama can denounce Louis Farrakhan, who simply endorsed him, he can and should denounce Russert and Matthews for their unfairness and distortions in the much larger roles they play in selecting a Democratic candidate. And all Democrats should back it up by refusing to go on Russert's and Matthews's shows. Let Russert find other people whose records he can distort, and Matthews other people to talk over, and about whose sex life he can obsess.
I think one of the big things that the pundits do not like about Democrats is that they are not manly enough. We are the "mommy party" after all. The fact that Obama is now being criticised for a "feminine" style is a bad sign. They hated Clinton for "feeling people's pain", clearly a feminine trait. They preferred the macho (faux) Bush to the less manly Gore and they hated that Kerry was an effete elitist who was "too French". Their hatred of Hillary is very sexist.
Clearly a lot of guys in the MSM are insecure in their own masculinity and try to boost their self esteem by lining up with the macho types like McCain, Bush, Rudy and Thompson like losers in high school. It is pathetic and it is ruining our country.
Obama needs to go on the counteroffensive now. Take the stupid comments from his attackers, turn it back on them, and use it as ammunition against them. Obama is not just campaigning against McCain, he's campaigning against an entrenched collusive media/political establishment.
Obama right now has the tallest bully pulpit around. It doesn't matter what George W. Bush says, reporters are begging to repeat the words in Obama's mouth (inaccurately). William Kristol and Peggy Noonan are individuals, and if Obama laughingly confronted and summarily dismissed them he could immediately control the ebb and flow of debate.
It's just reality...
The corporate media is just warming up. Obama will die of a thousand cuts. They may go for the "feminine" style angle. Or any of a couple dozen other angles.
When you control the microphone, you spread the filth. It's just that simple. The corporate media don't want no democrats getting the presidency, and theyll be loaded for bear to bag Obama. He may be able to defeat McLame, but he won't be able to defeat the media. Bank on it.
Look to Hilters rise. He had the same type of following. Same with Jim Jones and the others alike. Obama has played the race card and blamed the others for it. He gets to make misleading statements and out right lie and the media finds a way of making it ok and it's the other candidates fault. This has been the most sexist and bias race. Obama has muslim ties and the media doesn't want to talk about it. Just look to his buddy Rezko. Obama also said that he does not get money from Lobbist on the FEDERAL LIST. What about the one's not on the federal list? Individuals give money but who are they? We don't know because they don't have to give names up to a certain amount of money. The Caususes are a joke. Why didn't the media talk about Hawaii and the Obama people right out front of the doors. Cheating anyone? But if it was Hillary you can bet it would be smeared all over the place.
I know that women have come a long way but it is still having to work twice as hard, be smarter, can't show emotion or your hormonal, can't be strong or your a Bitch. Hillary has shown that she is a tough as nails, get it done, inspirational,and knows the issues facing this country. She is the best and because people like to be swept away first before looking at the substance and this time it may be too late. We will be stuck with another Bush.
Look to Hilters rise
Obama has muslim ties
Lobbist
Caususes
You no talk good. But those first two accusations rhyme. Maybe you could sell them to Mike 'Weiner' Savage? Maybe work them into some sort of dumbass haiku? Make sure you mention that Obama's middle name is Hussein. That amplifies the "muslim ties" angle you so droolingly ooze. Wonder why?
Is this all Clinton supporters have left? I like Senator Clinton, and obviously Jennie is a bad example, but c'mon!!!
...and it's "you're."
CEEMONSTER:
"much of his current support has been based on euphoric infatuation as opposed to reality-based acquaintance and critical-thinking-based evaluation rooted in facts"
I trust you can support this with some sort of evidence. You're basically calling those of us who support Obama stupid. BAD FORM.
oh, gosh, and another key reason obama's press treatment wlll likely turn harsher:
much of his current support has been based on euphoric infatuation as opposed to reality-based acquaintance and critical-thinking-based evaluation rooted in facts and the all-important process of media vetting, which has not occurred to date. sooner or later, reality will set in and vetting will take place, thanks not to the starry-eyed MSN but to republican campaign professionals. and when reality sets in, what is left is an intelligent and sincere, but not-formidably-in-command-of-the-issues individual who hasn't really done much and isn't terribly presidential in the sense of world leadership chops. anyone who isn't blinded by wishful thinking can see it, and unless mccain's lobbying scandal proves to have legs, or the republicans force a hardliner monster onto the ticket with mccain, people WILL see it when obama is juxtaposed with mccain as opposed to the scary-mommy of all the little american white boys' oedipal nightmares....
If Hillary does not get the nom (my first choice)---then I will vote my conscience and that will be for the real change agent, Ralph Nader (middle-eastern descent, by the way)---forget this ridiculousness of allowing Obama to fill me with "hope"---no thanks, can supply that myself.
That Obama could not outright "reject" Farrakhan's endorsement, without being pushed into the corner on it the other night, made up my mind.
I think that with the planted "innuendo" and real dirt all about Obama coming after March 4, then McCain will win any way---so I'm going ALL THE WAY FOR REAL CHANGE and voting my convictions about the economy, the environment, mid-east relations, and so on at that point and casting my vote for Ralph Nader.
And I am an OHIOAN.