Unlike Bush, I don't buy into the "you're with us or you're with the enemy" mindset. I'll proudly vote for the Democratic nominee in November, so I don't bow exclusively at the alter of either Obama or Clinton. That's for blood relatives, rabid supporters, or me if I'm on the payroll.
Overt favoritism from quality news outlets is a different category. It bothers me.
Take The National Journal, widely respected by Democrats and Republicans as bipartisan. I've read Charlie Cook's weekly "Off To The Races" for years. He handicaps politics better than anybody in the business.
On April 11, the Journal's tip sheet The Hotline had a piece titled "Small Town Stew" by editor Jennifer Skalka. It concerned Obama's remarks about small town voters, delivered at a recent closed-door San Francisco fundraiser and first revealed on Huffington Post.
He said that with years of struggling economically, "it's not surprising they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them...as a way to explain their frustrations."
Republicans always play the offensive God, guns and gays card, but if bemoaning it was where Obama was aiming, he missed the mark. He now says he meant that it's good for Americans to rely on faith in hard times, even though he lumped it in with guns and fear of foreigners. That's a political problem, and it opens up millions of voters for the Republicans next fall in crucial swing states like Ohio, Pennsylvania and who knows where else.
Fortunately for Obama, the mainstream press continues to assist him in ways Clinton can only dream about. In her Hotline piece, Skalka briefly explained the issue and quoted his comments in full. Then came something that jumped out at me:
"Bitter is a loaded word. No doubt. But I'm guessing Obama meant to say that he has compassion for members of the middle class, who are watching their jobs get shipped overseas and their communities struggle."
How nice of her to reorient the reader's perspective toward what the senator probably meant, like a dutiful press secretary. She wasn't finished, next offering her own version of the script:
"He could've said there's no place in America for blame, however. Immigrants are not the problem. Isolationism is not the answer. And God, while great, isn't going to solve our nation's economic ills. That might've been more palatable, no?"
Yes, that sounds better, but Skalka is basically batting cleanup for a candidate who admits stubbing his verbal toe. And her work is couched as straight reporting with analysis thrown in, not opinion writing. Whether or not she personally supports Obama, I bet she'd be the first to tell you she intended to show no preference. She'd doubtless point to this lone sentence, which appears after casting Obama's words in the most favorable light:
"Obama stirred up a boiling cauldron of religion and guns and hate, and he pointed a finger at the good voters of PA for clinging to the wrong stuff."
Aha! There's the fair and balanced part!
Now, try imagining a Clinton fundraiser at Stephen Spielberg's house, packed with wealthy liberals like those at Obama's event. Audio emerges of her saying the same things about small town America. Does the press write that she "meant to say" she really has "compassion" for regular folks? Do they add a helpful rewrite on her behalf so it appears more populist than elitist and put-downish? In other words, do they instinctively cover her back like Skalka did for Obama?
Not a chance, and you know it. She'd get bludgeoned. We'd have lots of "Hillary Hates Hicks" and no benefit of the doubt.
Hotline's approach is the latest evidence that the mainstream media shows Obama greater deference. The MSM did the same thing for Bush in the 2000 general election (repub vs. dem), so they're equal opportunity offenders. Gore was constantly crucified for being an insufferable know-it-all, while Shrub got a pass at every turn for being likable, remember?
I'm not comparing Obama to Bush. I'm saying the Fourth Estate hasn't changed a bit. They tee up the agreed-upon meme and run with it like the rat pack they are. It will be interesting to spot the pro-McCain tilt in the general election. They've historically indulged him, you know. Chris Matthews, September 10, 2006: "The press loves McCain. We're his base."
A friend suggests the press simply loves Obama, too, more than Clinton. OK, it's a free country, and it isn't why she's behind in delegates. Still, there's no use denying that deference affects news coverage -- and thus public perception. Always has.
Postscript: Democrats strongly agree. According to the Saturday, March 1 New York Times, "a New York Times/CBS News telephone poll {reveals that} nearly half of respondents who described themselves as voters in Democratic primaries or caucuses said the news media had been 'harder' on Mrs. Clinton....Only about 1 in 10 suggested the news media had been harder on Mr. Obama."