"The past is prologue". Right? We are supposed to learn from history aren't we? But all to often we do not.
Let's remember John F. Kennedy and the press. The coverage was a love feast. Reporters were smitten with the hip elegance of the Kennedys and gave them a starry-eyed pass, ignoring or giving short shrift to criticisms that we now know should have gotten much more critical attention.
It has become a journalistic article of faith that we learned our lesson and that public figures should always be closely scrutinized with constant skepticism. That's our job.
Sad to say, it looks like too many of us, less than 50 years later, are being seduced in the same way by the new "New," Barack Obama. The sad truth is that he and his campaign have not suffered the same kind of forceful coverage that rival Hillary Clinton has. In terms of media fairness if he's JFK, she is Richard Nixon.
It's not right. But it is easy to understand. Because quite frankly, she and those behind the bunkers in Hillaryland make no secret of their contempt for reporters. Like Nixon they try and intimidate the ones who cover them and hold them up for public scorn. That's just what Nixon did.
He had good reason and she does. Besides that, given the low regard just about everyone holds for riff-raff reporters, it's a good way to practice martyrdom politics.
Ultimately, though, the bullying doesn't work. It ends up looking like sour grapes. Still we in media need to do our job and apply the same standards to each candidate. At the same time the Clinton people need to realize that they've done a really terrible job of press relations. It shouldn't matter but it does. For proof, look no further back than Kennedy and Nixon.
It would be sad if Hillary Clinton decided to hold one last news conference to tell reporters "You won't have me to kick around anymore."
She and those in her organization who are almost distraught about the coverage must understand that it is not the job of journalists to parrot the "Message of the Day." And those who are following Barack Obama should remember the same thing, no matter how much he causes their hearts to skip a beat.
We should be everyone's adversaries, not sycophants, and those we badger should respect us for it. That's what history should have taught us. Obviously it has not.
Follow Bob Franken on Twitter: www.twitter.com/frankenb
The MSM would have you believe that his inexperience didn't matter, much like the MSM sold GW Bush, and all that mattered was his message of hope and change.
Every day now we are finally being greeted by the truth that exposes the cynical hypocrisy of both the Obama campaign and the MSM negligence in "finding the story" behind the campaign hype.
Once Iraq/Iran is scrutinized we find Obama is vote ducker as he avoided Kyl-Lieberman so he could use Hillary's vote against her, when scrutiny shows that he would have supported his buddy Lieberman's bill just as Hillary did. But the MSM just let Obama get away w castigating Hillary on this.
When we probe further into Iraq we find Obama's great speech only considered Iraq to be a "dumb war" and Obama goes on to list other wars he would be happy to fight.
Today we are finally greeted with the grim truth on NAFTA. Obama has raised Hillary's association with NAFTA again and again to undermine her support. He has gone to cynical lengths position himself as anti-NAFTA forcing the debate to the fringe to the degree that respected economists have become concerned this debate is undermining the US economic position. Now we find out this is just another Obama "strategy". He really does support NAFTA as his Senior economic advisor from his home base at UChicago secretly told Canada not to worry that these were just campaign positions.
The Democrats should dump Obama immediately. The super-delegates should recognize that this campaign is a total fraud and is not representative of the party and is alienating the whole base of the party. This is evident by the extensive Republican enthusiasm for participating in the Democratic primaries, tilting things toward Obama.
The Obama campaign's reverse race-baiting by seeking any ambiguous Clinton comment out of context and cynically trying to blow it up into a "Clintons are racist" is a typical piece of evidence of Republican influence in the Obama campaign. The effect of this strategy has been to undermine the long-standing relationship of the African-American community within the Democratic Party by effectively smearing Democrats who have a long history of Civil Rights support from LBJ to the Clintons.
This is exactly why the super-delegates are in the process. They are there to correct a situation where the voters have been lied to and mislead down a dangerous path that could fragment the Democratic Party for years to come. Their job is to act in the best interest of the Party. That best interest is to start preparing to dump the Obama campaign as a hostile force that has effectively become a strategic arm of the Republicans within the Democratic Party.
If one candidate screams and whines with false pretenses, it is the courageous journalist who takes that candidate to task (especially when she's the establishment candidate). Whereas the go-with-the-flow (traditionally "responsible") journalist will take the easy road, accusing BOTH campaigns of screaming and whining, treating legitimate defense tactics as comparable to sleaze-ball attacks.
These statistics about who's getting more negative coverage are silly. Do we expect The Media to "balance" all their coverage at the expense of presenting an accurate portrait? Bill Clinton lies and then the reporter has to "balance" that with, well, Obama countered the lie, so "Gosh, both campaigns have sure gotten NASTY!" This is just bad reporting.
One of The Clintons' misjudgments, I'll bet, was that a cowed media would not dare to call out the establishment candidate when she put out dishonest smears (such as Obama's fondness for Reagan's ideas). Thank goodness there are a few journalists out there courageous enough to differentiate between legitimate tactics and slime tactics, who consider it their job (whether they are reporters or analysts) to reflect the reality of what's going on out there.
I attribute whatever positive movement we are seeing in this regard, in part, to the wave of desire for a more honest and transparent politics -- the very wave that's ushering Obama in.
All I've seen is some shrugging of shoulders, and interviews to see who these people are, where they shop for food, whether or not they intend to overturn the will of the masses in Colorado. But no one seems to be asking the candidates their philosophical take on the issue of superdelegation( if that's the correct terminology . )
The questions simple. Do you, Hillary or Barack believe its fair that some 22 year old's vote counts five times as much as grendl's. Of course if you ask them about their own vote, they'll more than likely ignore the question, as they have in the debates. But "We" the people want to know. Are some of us small "w"s and others upper case "W"s. And why aren't they being pressed on this matter now?
Some say you can't change the rules at this juncture. Does that mean you can't ask questions at this juncture as well? Does that mean we can't learn about the integrity and dependability of the moral compasses of the candidates before we vote for them.
You sound like someone who feels the press's job is to press for truth. So do your jobs, please.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=1&vote=00371
Please, when you in the media are holding Sen. Obama up for review DO NOT fail to hold Sen. McCain up to the same level of high review. Sen. McCain has been the least vetted of all since the press is afraid to closely and thoroughly vet him because of his military service. No one is looking for Vicki Iseman nor is the press looking closely at Sen. McCain's ties to Mr. Reznick or other lobbyists. No one in the press is looking closely at the money that has gone to Sen. McCain's think tank/foundation in Virginia. Lets have some parity and transparency of all of the canidates by the media.
Look at Tucker Carlson's show. He had Hilary Rosen( strong Clinton) and Eugene Robinson( likes Barack, but doesn't defend him or attack Clinton. In Eugene Robinson's defense, he can't get heavily involved for Obama, because they share the same skin color, but it's fine for Hilary Rosen to tear into Senator Obama and praise Senator Clinton. If anyone is the " teflon candidate, it has been Senator Clinton who should have seen a huge drop in her poll numbers for her abominable behavior in this campaign.
Why does hillary get taken seriously? Seriously, why?
Jane, get me off this crazy thing!
I'm not saying it shouldn't be investigated to see if there's something there. But so far there's no evidence of impropriety on the Obamas' part, so the story shouldn't hang out there like a smelly fish just so The Media can say they're sullying everyone equally.
"Balance" is not always a good principle for journalists. Better to strive for presenting an accurate overall picture. If one person's slimier than another, reporters should not be shy about presenting that unapologetically.
No more excuses from Obama.
No more nutty pretenses.
He's outspent her. He's gotten every major newspaper endorsement. He' s been applauding his own momentum.
So deliver, buddy.
Obama needs no excuses regardless of what happens on Tuesday. He is up big in pledged delegates and simply needs to finish within 20 points of Clinton in each state.
Hillary is a one-trick pony. He main strategy is to appeal to the voters sympathy. She did it in New Hampshire and she is doing it now in Texas and Ohio. I just wonder how long someone can continue to claim to be the biggest victim the world has ever seen before people tire of the act. And each time she does it she turns off people that she will need in the general election.
What will you if there is another terrorist attack?
What will you do if nuclear Pakistan falls to the Mullahs allied with Al Qaeda?
What will you do when China starts exercising its historical power in Southeast Asia?
What will you do when a resurgent Russia starts saber rattling in Europe?
What will you do to ween us off foreign oil?
What will you do get the budget under control?
What will you do stop financing our deficits with foreign money?
What will you do to stop the selling off our assets to foreigners?
When will you start enforcing our immigration laws and deport 13 million Mexicans who are in our country illegally and stealing American jobs?
The US media is worthless, It is the laughingstock of the entire world. Not only do the candidates have contempt for the media, but your average American as well.