With Clinton It Would Be "Hillary Hates Hicks" -- With Obama It's "Compassion"
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."
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
"I'm not comparing Obama to Bush": Well, I wish somebody would. Point for point. They have a hell of a lot in common. And so do their supporters.
Please. Feel free to provide a point for point comparison. I'm begging you.
The key word here is likable. The press favors the most likable candidate. In 2000 that happened to be Bush. In this campaign the most likable candidate happens to be Obama. Hillary just isn't as likable. She becomes even less likable the longer the campaign goes on. The press will always give the more likable candidate the benefit of the doubt. The less likable candidate will always see this as unfair, which it is, and become even less likable as a result.
You have NO IDEA what your talking about. Obama is fortunate? Yeah he's fortunate to have this issue be the key point for four days straight. IF this was Clinton it would have died down by Saturday evening or Sunday afternoon at the latest. IF Clinton said it this wouldn't be an issue. IF Clinton or McCain make all sorts of gaffes and lie around the clock, it's forgotten about the next day. IF Obama was the one lying about the sniper fire, his chief strategist making back room deals with the Colombians, his wife getting paid $800,000 to help with the Colombian trade deal AND he REFUSED to fire that said strategist what do you think would happen??????????? He'd be out, that's what.
Thanks, but no thanks for your less than accurate assumptions.
"IF Clinton or McCain make all sorts of gaffes and lie around the clock, it's forgotten about the next day."
Really? The Clinton Bosnia flap? Forgotten the next day?
Funny....v
That wasn't a gaffe, she was caught in yet another outright lie.
The same day that this "news" broke about Obama, Hllary was asked if the personal loan she made to her campaign might be viewed as a conflict of interest due to the fact that some of that money might have been the same $800K that Bill was paid for speaking on behalf of the Columbian government on a trade deal that Hillary supposedly opposes. She responded in not just an odd manner, but a highly inappropriate manner without answering a very LEGITIMATE question. This was FORGOTTEN as soon as the "news" broke about Obama answering a question as to why voters in Pennsylvania had been slow to support him.
No free speech here. No wonder the republicans are gonna kick your ass in November, you're even afraid to post anything they say, thinking it might sway the weak minded democrats to vote for what's right for the country. LOL. Get out the weeping towels boy, you're gonna need them in November. Weak assed hack site. Oh that's right, this is just a bitter gun loving midwesterner who actually goes to church. Later losers.
Republicans, and the Democrats who abet them, are the ones who've gotten us into our current mess. McCain will lose, and he should lose. He is no "centrist: or "maverick.
Hey! Hillary Shill. We're not buying it. Hillary is more Republican than McCain. Obama in '08.
The lesson in this is: If you're running for President, don't tell the truth. Obama did, he was absolutely correct, and Hillary is all apoplectic about it. I guess Hillary regards the truth like the Wicked Witch of the West regarded water.
Obama tells the truth!! What planet are you living on. The only thing he's got going for himself is that people know so little about him, it just takes time to dig up his lies!! I never heard my pastor say one bad thing in 20 years, these things people are bringing up, I never heard or saw it. LOL. The church was selling the damn DVDs and Obama never had a clue in over 20 years, man you really need to wake up and have a cup of coffee.
Hey, why don't you go read one or both of his autobiographies??? You know, autobiography? It is a whole book about someone life--in detail.
The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream (384 pages)
Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance (464 pages)
That's 848 pages of information. Maybe then you would know something.
Whaaaa . . . we don't know anything about him. Pathetic. Lazy. A brain dead person in a coma can recite talking points. Why not do a little work yourself?
The republicans did the same crap with John Kerry. "He has NO PLAN!!"--they shouted over and over. Well, anyone could go to his website and download and read his 300+ pages of plans, but nobody did. It is just easier to let someone else do your thinking.
I turned on MSNBC and they are absolutely roasting Obama.
I feel like I've had it with this country. I've been through such disappointment before. Our society destroys it best and brightest.
There's an old apocryphal story about the fall of Contantinople. According to this old tale, as the city was falling a group of leading bishops was meeting in a place of supposed safety to discuss a matter of urgent importance. If a fly falls into the holy water, is the water contaminated or is the fly sanctified? The city fell. They all died.
Well, here we are. The nation is falling. Talk on David Gregory and Joe Scarborough. Talk, talk, talk. And, Hillary, get your armour on (it wasn't real Joan of Arc that saved the French was it? someday people will realize it was really you). We're destroying our hopes, destroying our potential.
Thank god for a good book!! And for Olberman, Stewart, and Colbert.
This whole article is based on what ifs. "If a republican did this ... " is a Hannity move. It is an empty argument. Who knows what would have happened and who cares? What does this idle speculation get us? Nothing.
I also heard "If Obama had been the one to lie about Bosnia, he would have been skewered." Really? How would anyone know, and furthermore, who knows and who cares?
This is just a bunch of empty noise that the punditry is (in)famous for. He said it, she didn't. So the reaction to how she would have said it will never exist.
You write "This whole article is based on what ifs."
Political Science deals with the theory and practice of political behavior. In a campaign for public office, it happens to be the art of anticipating and managing a whole bunch of "what if's" with the goal of winning down the road, in the future.
So thanks for stating the obvious!
What if millions of hunting, church-going Democrats in swing states with HUGE numbers of electoral votes (which is how the president is elected) happen to take offense at the inelegant remarks of Obama, remarks he now admits were poorly chosen?
"What if" McCain makes a pitch for those same offended voters in the fall, which he will?
What if? What if?
It's all about "what if's."
Get a grip, Mr. Williams:
a) don't extrapolate from one news source about how the entire media has treated this- the fact that it's made headline news on any channel is due to the MSM being on Hillary's/McCain's side. Also, how long did the Wright story make the centerpiece to CNN and MSNBC and Fox political coverage..
b) don't take a single telephone poll as definitive evidence the entire media has favored Obama (from 1.5 months ago, no less)
c) don't exclude the campaign each candidate has run- Obama hasn't played gotcha politics, he's built himself publicly as both more genuine and less old-style, lie through your teeth career politician which Clinton has only strengthened through publicly announcing her plan to run a smear campaign. If Clinton said something like this, it would obviously mean something different because she in fact is elitist and totally out of touch with the middle class.
d) you've disproved your own central point by doing exactly what you accuse the MSM of not doing (despite their doing nothing but) taking Obama's thoughts out of context and making crass judgments about tired political gamesmanship.
Gotta face it folks....h
Hmmm...
Your thoughtful, balanced, well researched post will not get any support here. Too logical for this crowd.
I'm sure would say that "redstateleroy". Wonder why?
It's a swell post, though!
The media favors Obama? What are you reading/watching? What I have seen is sound bite after sound bite with Hillary telling lies and misspeaks all the time Barack has had to defend himself then he is blamed for starting it? The Fox loves Hillary as she is them in a pant suit. If Barack is anyting he is hoest and truthful and this plays not too well on MSM where they love the nasty crap the clintons and their group throws at Barack while having a love fest with McCain. No one appears to care that Hillary is a republican wearing a democrat mask. MSM has left Bill and how he has made millions alone when they should be pointing out what he is doing to send money jobs and companies to other countries. He's stiill working NAFTA and now Columbia after Dubai earning a huge show his face bonus while she claims she againest it. She lies as she is as big a part of his "job" now as she was before with every other scandal.
Great post if Hillary had made the comment about choice between your gender or your race that Obama made in SC she would have been branded a racist and the election would have been lost. I am also a "good" democrat and will vote for the nominee but Obama and his press corps is making it harder for me to do.
Oh EXACTLY. Prince Obama is getting at least a half a pass on this one. And that's a shame. Trust me, if he tanks in Both PA and Indiana---you gotta know, even Keith Obamamann's gonna have to acknowledge it(you watch, the only thing Obamamann will talk about is Prince O's 'huge win in NC towards his inevitable march to the nomination
Just today i saw the pundits on CNN talking about Clinton's new ad showing people in Pennsylvania who were insulted by Obama's comments and one of them said "Hillary is so intelligent she should be talking about medical care and this ad is totally disgusting". That is when I went back to watching the Beverly Hillbillies a show with a lot more class.
Bitter Hillary Clinton is clinging to the myth that she's losing because the media is against her...
How about the fact that, when the Clinton camp has a gaff, the Obama campaign doesn't try and turn on the faucet full blast and try and drown the public into what she "said."
On the other hand, when Clinton and McCain both start banging pots and pans together, screaming their heads off about something Obama said, the press is going to talk about that. Suddenly, what's being said by the opposition, and whether or not their attacks are actually truthful or just spin, becomes the story.
That's where this perceived bias is coming from. When the spin is "Obama is an elitist who is talking down to small town America," it's not the press' job to just say okay and run with it. That, as you point out, is what got us eight years of Bush.
You are so right. It was the same when Obama used that "typical white person" line. If Clinton had uttered the phrase "typical black person" is there any doubt what would have happened to her?
Relax Prussian Blue....be
I'm not not AA, so please, don't get all "nervous by the racist Obama supporters" by my pointing that out.
I won't get "all nervous" because frankly I can't make heads or tails of your post.
(1) It is a "positive connotation" that one is presumed "afraid of people of color"?
(2) "I'm not not AA"??? Translation please?
yes it would be very strange if Clinton called her grandma a typical black person.
Nice try, but that's not the point. Is it okay to use a sweeping generalization about an entire race just because you are talking about a family member? If George W. Bush had made some comment about "typical Hispanics" when describing one of his nieces or nephews, would that be okay?
The sheer implication that the media has acted like nothing less than bloodthirsty wolves over this piece is ludicrous. Mr. Jackson, one example in "The National Journal" does not a trend make. Try watching the mainstream press, they're giving him a death by a thousand cuts with the ham-handed analyses.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
