The New York Times Gets It Wrong on Obama

After a series of front-page biographical profiles of Hillary Clinton, in which she is portrayed as the inevitable Democratic nominee, the New York Times ran a piece Sunday about Barack Obama's 2000 challenge against Democratic Congressman Bobby Rush.

The article, written by Janny Scott, plays into the Clinton-scripted characterization of Obama as idealistic, inexperienced and not ready for prime time. The author calls Obama's 2000 run a "glaring episode of political miscalculation."

In fact, Obama's unsuccessful challenge in 2000 played a large part in establishing him as a presence in the Illinois political scene and paving the way for his historic 2004 Senate campaign. Without the name recognition, connections and fundraising ties he cultivated in the 2000 race, Obama would not have been positioned to break out of the crowded Senate primary when he ran in 2004.

Obama took a lot of heat in 2000 when he decided to challenge an incumbent Democrat. Incumbent members of Congress tend to think they have a very un-Democratic right to retain their Congressional seat until they choose to retire (and they usually do, winning reelection more than 90 percent of the time).

It takes a lot of courage and gumption to take on a political favorite. Those who do are almost always unsuccessful. But once in awhile a candidate takes on the political establishment and wins. That is, after all, why we have elections.

The New York Times piece would have readers believe that Obama's decision to challenge Rush was foolhardy and overly optimistic, similar to his decision to take on Clinton. But the media should be careful not to fall into Clinton's carefully scripted plotline - that Obama's optimism is a synonym for naivety.

In fact, the characteristics Obama showed in 2000 -- his willingness to take on an established politician when the odds were stacked largely against him -- are the very things that have led him to where he is today.

In 2004, Obama again took on the odds, entering a primary against two candidates it seemed he could not beat -- one with the party machine backing him, and another with millions of his own money to spend. That time, Obama shocked everyone to win 53 percent of the vote in the primary, a win that catapulted him onto the national scene.

Now, Obama is at it again, running against another politician who many people would have you believe can't be beat.

Clinton, like Obama's opponents in the past, thinks she can ride a wave of inevitability to the presidency. She is running to win the primary of pundits, insiders and forecasters -- a primary that admittedly, often decides who wins among the voters.

But sometimes a candidate actually wins by appealing to the voters instead of the insiders.

The Times headlined the article about the 2000 race "A Streetwise Veteran Schooled a Young Obama." That could indeed be the headline following next year's Democratic primary, but contrary to what Hillary Clinton's press releases might say, that story isn't written yet.

Comments

[eaglecapri]

I didn't think the article was slanted at all. I am an Obama supporter. I also live in Chicago. The journalist told the story exactly how it happened.

I focused on a few things from the article:
1) Obama's transformation as a politician
2) the 'Obama phenomenon' among voters
3) how losing the Obama-Rush race was a blessing in disguise
4) Obama defeating more experienced and well-known challengers by an overwhelming majority (67%, the largest margin in Illinois Senate race history) to win the Senate race and
5) how Obama's worst enemy (Rush) became an Obama supporter.

Rush becoming an Obama supporter is significant. How did this happen? The man (Obama) is phenomenal: he's brilliant, incredibly talented, able to make things happen, has a passion for the people of this country and shows you what hope can do. His essence and presence is indescribable. Rush put it superbly: 'I think Obama, his election to the Senate, was divinely ordered' and 'Obama has certain qualities that - I think he is being used for some purpose. I really believe that'. And, I do too. And, I can't wait until we are able to say, 'I think Obama, his election to Presidency, was divinely ordered'.

Obama's beginnings weren't pretty - as the journalist dutifully noted - but as they say, 'it's not where you start, it's where you finish'.

[lafrance]

Hillary, queen of sleaze, is buddies with Murdoch and owns the NY times. the Times has been less than fair in their coverage of Obama . but, they are just acting the same way the cable news outlets are. They are trying to impress upon democratic voters it is useless to vote for their candidate, especially Obama, because Hillary is already the nominee.
They spent the spring to totally derail any threat Edwards might have posed by painting him as some out of touch wealthy eilitist using the poor for his own callous purpose and is a totally vain and selfish man. No wonder his substantial proposals have been ignored.
then, since summer the whole thing has been to destroy Obama. first the cable outlets touted her empty retoric and ducking questions as being presidential in all the debates including the one where she was boo'd. they not only played along with Clinton's charges of a naive and irresponsible rookie, but twisted everything he said. they ignored and covered up the fact that most foreign policy experts said Clinton was wrong and Obama was right. the average voter has no idea about this.
It is widely believed here in Illinois that the 2000 race was essential to Obama learnin some of the lessons and seasoning he needed for his senate primary race. if not for it, there would be no obama, political phenom.
He is now more than able to run against someone sleazy like clinton and out do her.
maybe if the media stopped kissing Hillary's ass and did their job by taking some hard looks at her less than stellar ethics, ect. we would have a fair race. But, the voter is left with the impression they have no choice. she is inevitiable.
Case in Point: this week's appalling cover story.

[WorkingClass]

Still reading the Times? Old habits are hard to break.

[MPeter]

Thank you Mr. Spiegel. Thank you for calling out the NYT and the Clintons. Everything this paper has written has been either to destort or or deride Senator Obama while blowing the horn for the Clintons. To this you could add CNN and the CBS and the plot against Senator Obama is almost clear. The paper has not challenged HRC on any of her policies or the shady connections that have been dripping out regularly.
It is the same nonsense it keeps spewing about her so-called widening national lead in the polls during a Primary season when actually the race that matters--in the states remains extremely ery competitive. Thank you for a well-thought-out piece.

[kroses98]

How about all of us ***BOYCOTTING*** the New York Times again? They are an interfering, war-making, RETHUGICAN newspaper we can live quite well without!

[Pyrum]

Hillary Clinton IS the inevitable democratic nominee. All the others are nothing but Hillary wanabees, and that includes Barack Obama (although possibly not Dennis Kucinich, who hasn't got a snowball's chance in hell anyway).

Face the truth. Hillary will win the democratic nomination and Barack will accept her invitation to be her running mate. Barring a miracle, together they will win the 2008 presidential election. God help us all.

[lafrance]

Hillary Clinton IS the inevitable democratic nominee - Pyrum.

You wish. She will be brought down by the sheer weight of her sleaziness and corrupt ties.
she is simply an embarassment to any real democrat who dearly wishes the Clintons would check the calandar and see it is now 2007, not the 90s. they are old hate and stale and tiresome. We were long past ready for them to leave in 2000.
maybe they can go cry on Murdoch's shoulder for the fact that they are now old and part of the past.

[dora rice]

The question is: Do we want to recover from the Bush's unfortunate, disastrous reign , with an Obama for president? Obama , after Bush, seems to me like this country is going on a rebound.

[xrayman]

"But sometimes a candidate actually wins by appealing to the voters instead of the insiders."
__________­__________­__________­_______

Do the polls reflect the leanings of Washington insiders or potential voters? Clinton's candidacy is not inevitable. All the voters have to do is say that they will vote for Obama, then he will be ahead in the polls.

Most of the talking head insiders would like to see Obama close the gap, as far as I can tell. Many times they talk about Clinton's "inevitability" in a derogatory sense.

The people you have to be angry with are the potential voters not the Washington insiders. They are the ones driving the polls.

[gcee]

"Do the polls reflect the leanings of Washington insiders or potential voters? Clinton's candidacy is not inevitable. All the voters have to do is say that they will vote for Obama, then he will be ahead in the polls."

No the polls reflect only those who have landlines, not cell phones nor cable connects. Admittedly, that is a lot of America but hardly a reflection of the true demographic that is swelling the ranks of Senator Obama's supporters.

[feelfree]

Obama is Senator from Illinois because he didn't have any competition. When the Republican incumbent dropped out they replaced him with Alan Keyes.

I'm sure its not a mistake that you left out the part that working class blacks in the district simmply did not relate to Obama speak. He spoke down to people rather than speaking to them. He presented himself as a Harvard graduate who taught at the University of Chicago who lived in Hyde Park. They simply showed the "white boy" the door in his defeat against Bobby Rush.

[DrVandy]

Great article. When I read that piece in the NYT I was rather annoyed. They seemed to miss the point that this loss made Barack Obama a better candidate and taught him how to win. Mr. Rush just sounded bitter and entitled. Glad to see I wasn't the only one who realized what a slanted piece that was. If they are goint go slant toward Hillary, then they should go aehad and endorse her already and not pretent to be impartial.

[bethinCary]

I think Obama has a very quiet momentum spreading wherever he puts his feet.
Face-to-face can't be overcome by a msm Clinton-devised machine (Murdoch).
He has a loyal following of people who saying glowing things about him and have been loyal to him for years.
He does not ride in on the tails/backs of anyone-and is clearly his own man with his own ideas.

[RealBlackGirl]

Finally! Clearly the traditional media is too afraid of the Clinton's to tell the truth. They developed their script and they will not reconsider the narrative. Fortunately, we still have time and Obama continues to provide enough substance to cause even the most delusional to eventually surrender to the truth; he is our best option to lead us to live the ideals of our nation.

[bklynsam]

jrizal, you might want to read this:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/08/08/powers/

There are plenty of other people who agree, if you really were interested in facts as opposed to political spin - and amazingly, the other candidates are sounding more and more like Obama all the time. Even John Edwards is parroting his words as if they were his very own now...

"As President I will condition future American aid on progress by Pakistan, including strengthening the reach of police forces, and working more effectively with tribal leaders and their members to ensure their acceptance of the government. But I want to be clear about one thing: if we have actionable intelligence about imminent terrorist activity, and the Pakistan government refuses to act, we will.

http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/09/_edwards_echoes_obamas_gettough_rhetoric_on_pakistan.php"

Oh, and for the record, that business about going after terrorists in Pakistan, Hillary said the same thing 2 days before she blasted Obama at the debate. In an interview with he American Urban Network, she said...

"If we had actionable intelligence that Osama BinLanden or other high-value targets were in Pakistan I would ensure that they were targeted and killed or captured."

Obama isn't the one that has a long way to go. Seems everyone else is just trying to keep up with him.

[thatvisionthing]

I want a candidate who says, "No I will not kill innocent bystanders if I get the chance to kill Osama bin Laden." That is my biggest disappointment with Obama, that he accepts assassination, that he accepts killing collateral innocents.

That kind of justice leaves you feeling dirty and crummy, like Saddam's hanging.

When Saddam was hanged, he hadn't faced trial for the gassing of the Kurds -- remember Donald Rumsfeld shaking his hand soon after? Did we have a hand in that? Dead men tell no tales. The FBI doesn't list 9/11 as one of Osama's crimes on his wanted poster because they say they don't have the evidence. There are so many questions about 9/11 and no truthtellers in this govt. What might OBL say?

Terror is a tactic you resort to when you can't be heard otherwise. If OBL had been on, say, Meet the Press in the '90s, and we heard his concerns in his words, would that have stopped the craziness before it started? If we were listening to Iraqis now, would that stop the craziness? I want a candidate strong enough to listen to anybody.

[slc20]

thatvisionthing,

I'm perplexed why you wouldn't see your candidate in Obama. No, he's not totally anti-war, but he is the ONLY CANDIDATE who said he would "rule out" using NUKES in pakistan to get to Bin Laden. I repeat- Obama got flak from Hillary (and the other dem candidates) for saying he would NOT USE NUKES on the hills in Pakistan.
(Is Obama the only sane person in this race?)

Obama has a reputation for listening to all sides, and showing respect for other peoples opinions, and a willingness to weigh peoples' advice into his decisions. He also got crap for saying he would talk/listen to leaders of the so-called "rogue nations".

I think you should research Obama more.
He seems like the closest fit to the candidate you seek.

[stayleft]

Thanks Brendan for a great post. I'm so tired of Hillary being pushed forward as the inevitable Democratic nominee. It was exciting to see Oprah step into the fray and support Obama. I still have hope.

[jrizal]

You just want to spin Obama's mistakes as a learning experience, espcially since he has a long way to go to becoming someone who can take on world leaders bent on screwing the U.S.

[jmpurser]

So far Obama's "mistakes" are the ones I've been hoping a politician would make for over 20 years.

I think the "spin" is coming from "Hillary at any cost" crowd.

[naijaman]

And what "mistakes are you referring to?

Talking to rogue nations? Well turns out Hillary said she would do the same thing when she was interviewed by Keith Olbermann.

Taking out Al Qaeda targets inside Pakistan IF Musharraf refused to do it? Well...Hillary said the same thing ON THE SAME DAY, yet the media allowed her to get away with it while they bashed Obama. Then two days ago, John Edwards in his first foreign policy speech said EXACTLY the same thing regarding actionable intelligence on Al Qaeda targets. I'm still waiting for the media to call Edwards "naive"...of course it won't happen.

Call for scrapping our current embargo towards Cuba? Well...after attacking Obama for it, yesterday Chris Dodd campaigning in Florida said the same thing. Where is the media now??

The media elites and punditry class do not want Obama to win...he has not kissed their asses like they want him to, hence they keep trying to bring him down.

[CaseyBabes]

The NY Times may have gotten it wrong on Barak this time, but they'll make sure to get it right the next time, much to his regret and Mama Red's joy.