|
||
Clinton, Obama and Our Narcissistic Press
We're at the mercy of a narcissistic and irresponsible press. Matt Bai's blog post in the New York Times being "Exhibit A":
No one expects Mrs. Clinton to stand down and let Mr. Obama make his case unchallenged. She could, however, send a clear message to the cogs in the machinery she's built that there is a line she will not cross. She could tell her Nevada allies that the job of the Democratic Party she grew up in is to make it easier for people to caucus, not harder. She could tell Robert Johnson that he needs to apologize, the same way she forced Bill Shaheen, her New Hampshire co-chairman, to resign last month. She can make it plain to all those people trying to get jobs in the next Clinton Administration that there is way to win--a rough and combative way, even--that nonetheless won't destroy all the good that the Clintons, at least for a lot of Democrats, have come to represent.
By loading all the responsibility onto one candidate, as if the other had no place in it, it just heightens the antagonistic environment and makes the problem worse. Did Bai call for Obama's national co-chair Jesse Jackson Jr. to be fired after he said Hillary Clinton cried over her appearance and didn't care about the victims of Hurricaine Katrina? Did he even mention that this isn't a one-way battle? No. He's smugly content to pour gasoline over an already volatile situation then stand back and watch it burn.
Myopic journalists like Bai inflame these things to the detriment of the political environment and the Democratic party without any consideration of the cost involved. I realize destroying any kind of coalition that could win against the Republicans next November is an acceptable price for some people, but some of us actually do care what happens to the country going forward.
Both Clinton and Obama have issued statements calling for an end to the pie fight, which is a good thing. The responsible thing to do is to refuse to let people like Bai egg them on. We'll see if it's all rhetoric or if their actions back it up. But barring an Edwards resurgence, I frankly don't see how we win the next election without both Clinton and Obama on the ticket in some order. If the antagonism we see online is any evidence, coming together again as a party without it is going to be awfully difficult.
If no decisive victor emerges before the convention, the superdelegates could force both Clinton and Obama onto a ticket. While I'm sure neither would be happy with that situation, it may be the best thing for the party as a whole. It certainly would be an unbeatable and historic combination, ushering in an era where we can hopefully begin to talk about these things. And after the damage that their mutual mud slinging contest has done to any kind of future coalition, the onus may be on them to suck it up for the good of the country.
Because it doesn't look like our high-minded press -- full of egomaniacs like Bai with no more imagination than to flog the horserace story for their own amusement -- will content itself with anything less than scorched earth.
Jane Hamsher blogs at firedoglake.com
Follow Jane Hamsher on Twitter: www.twitter.com/janehamsher
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
Good one Jane! I'll take an order of Bai eggs and ham (I am) with Dem toast on the side please. If Edwards is not on the ticket then all we are left with is a pair of Leibermans albeit one black and one female that are both repugs all dressed up in blue. At that point I personally will have to go with the candidate that will certainly generate the most laughs and that will have to be Mitt the bit/soundbyte. He has it all! A stand that agrees with whoever he is talking to at the moment and 'Magic Underwear'! Now I know you are lots smarter than me so could you or your other fans/readers (and I honestly do love your writing here on HuffPo) answer for me a couple of questions I still have about the possibility of another far right neocrud like him getting to be president. Does his secret underwear enable him to fly and if so doesn't that make for like a really serious wedgy? What about the 'stripe' caused by said wedgy? Are people allowed more than 1 pair or do they have to spend time in a towel or something while their magic ware is washed and dried? Since the evaporation of all textile jobs in America where is magic underware actually made? I am also rather excited about the possibility if he were to be elected that the dream of a 'Garden of Eden Paradise' theme park in Missouri where we could eat apples and ride live dinosaurs would become a reality at last! Glory! One last question and this is a biggie, would all the lost tribe of Isreal folks now known as American Indians have to convert all of their gaming casinos into temples and trade in their feathered headresses for beanies?
For their own selfish reasons, the Clinton's will destroy the chance of another Democrat taking the oval office other than them. Theyare fine with another republican, but not another Democrat. Have you all wondered why.
Bill and Hillary Clinton have waged the kind of antagonistic campaign that the media loves and will keep Democrats and the nation divided. And in the worst way. They rolled out the racial divide in a way that Republicans could only dream of. Its sick and its true.
Nevada shows us all there is nothing these two won't do to win. Nothing. Divide and conquer. Dirty tricks-fine, lies-you bet, distortions-of course, back room deals-they only way to win. Is this what you want when there is a chance to make a break from the past and start to chart a new course. Are you all a bunch of Bush supporters, win at all costs, no moral limits?
From here on out, any one supporting the Clinton's need to also agree that they support division and dirty politics. And that the Clinton's can do and say whatever they want from here on out, as long as they win. You don't really care about the collateral damage to this country.
Here's the deal: Obama has limits, morals and manners. He has not and will not even elude to Monica, Impeachment, Whitewater, dirty heath care dealings, Rose Law Form, Foster, Philandering, her hypocritical voting record, and on and on and on. Even when these two political monsters attack him to his core. He doesn't retaliate.
Do you think for one minute that Republicans will show the same manners? For God Sake wake up. The media is leading you down a path. They can not wait to have yet another political contest that has nothing to do with the American People. Neither do the Clinton's.
The question is-Do you?
Clinton is under no obligation to pick Obama as VP.
I prefer that she pick someone who is actually qualified for the job, like Wes Clark.
I reject any candidate that the corporatist media tries to jam down my throat. Those candidates that aren't owned and operated by the big money on Wall Street or in the board rooms of our largest corporations and the multi-national corporations have been winnowed out and run out of the election. They have been marginalized (see Kucinich being questioned about UFO's), denigrated (see much ado about nothing regarding Edwards' and mostly marginalized (see early coverage of Biden/Dodd/Richardson/Gravel) in whatever coverage they've been given. For those that simply won't go quietly in the night, the corporatist media has taken a more battering-ram approach and just simply rejected them (see Kucinich's recent rejection from Nevada televised conversation with other candidates). I want my country back, I want my government back, I want my Democratic Party back from the DLC/Republican Lites; and I'm pretty sure that any candidate that the corporatist press is really interested in is a candidate that won't accomplish what I want! While I will vote for the Democratic candidate, whoever that is, I won't actively participate in the campaign unless that candidate is Edwards or Gore. I don't think I'm alone in that sentiment. So, DLC, good luck.
Your premise is flawed. It's hard to imagine either ``front runner'' accepting the #2 spot, or that combining the two would mollifying their (particularly Clinton's) detractors.
Secondly, you've forgotten that the Democrats have the ideal candidate in the wings, and a deadlocked convention would turn to him in a heartbeat.
Imagine a nominee who was right on the war, right on healthcare, right on the Internet, who energizes youth and has more experience than any of the other contenders.
(And oh, yes; he's right about global warming, too.)
How about Gore-(Edwards, Obama or Clinton), 2008 coming out of Denver in the last week of August?
Perfect! A narcissistic press to serve the malignant narcissists in this cur administration.
The forgotten man in all this is John Edwards; there was a time when his Horatio Alger story would would make him a champion of the people.
When Edwards is not being ignored he is sneered at; how can a multi-millionaire be a man of the people?!
Well, Edwards was not born to wealth and has earn all he has; how dare he not be a part of the "greed is good" gang! He'd actually like to see a time when the middle-class was a force to be reckoned with; and a fair shake for us all! IMAGINE!
None of us is perfect and that includes all of the candidates; but wouldn't it be great to have a president who is on a mission for all of the people?!
I'm so sick of Republicans and their brethren in the Democratic Party; the DINOS!
Let's give this some thought and support John Edwards; I believe he means what he says. In any event, he has been so careful about from whom he will take contributions, he will only owe "we the people" his loyalty.
Best blog yet on this issue. Thanks.
An Obama cultist sent me this last week ...
Having caught "Obama fever" like so many others rallying in support of Obama Jan 10 in SC. As Barack worked the line after his speech, there was a surge of people moving forward hoping to get close enough to shake Barack's hand. I was about 20 feet away when I noticed that a tall guy standing in front of me had stretched far enough above the crowd and shook hands with Barack. As the guy drew back his hand back I asked him, "You shook his hand didn't you?" Happily the guy said "Yes." I then said, "give me some of that" and the guy shook my hand with the same hand he had just clasped with Barack's. A friend standing next to me saw me shake hands with him. I said "He just shook hands with Barack," to which she responded..."Hey, give it up." We then shook hands. She then turned to the person next to her and shook hands. This chain of handshakes went on for about five or six more persons. I did not know the tall guy in front of me; he is white, I am black. But at the moment we shook hands, I felt some solidarity with this stranger, consummated by a handshake and our support of Obama and his core message of UNITY! I call this hand-shake scenario the "BAM" because, descriptively, it takes a bit of Obama's name and it's the sound of a collision, of People Coming Together
To answer that above missive, I have modified the bible verse (Matthew 9:20-22) just a little bit to fit in with their lunacy.
"Just then a woman, who had been subject to bleeding for twelve years, came up behind Barack and touched the hem of His garment; for she said to herself, 'If I only touch His cloak, I will be healed.' Barack turned and saw her. 'Take heart, daughter,' He said, "your vote will help me ." And the woman was insane from that moment."
I love the "loading responsibility on one candidate" and "the other [candidate]" stuff. I guess John Edwards really _doesn't_ exist, after all, even though so many people think he's winning debate after debate. I'd heard the rumors...
I share your sentiment Jane, but let's face it, America is a bloodthirsty society, and if both top candidates aren't beaten to a bloody pulp in this battle, Americans blood lust will never be sated. And without the back stabbing bloodbath, cable news will lose ratings, and print media won't sell papers. And we all know that the bottom line is WAY more important than issues, or fairness, or democracy. Americans want blood, and the media splatter it across the face of every front page and newscast, in a shallow attempt to cash in on America's unquenchable thirst for blood.
i don't think you understand that the repugnants are selecting their candidate to run against one or both of these people -- each of whom has (separate but equal) fatal flaws on the national, rural front. there are a substantial percentage of the voting population who will NEVER vote for clinton and i know of no rural whites who will think a black man can respresent their interests. blame reconstruction, blame johnson, blame whoever you want -- never.
which leaves the candidate that seems to drive the party position but gets studiously ignored by the mega-corporations controlling main stream media. oh. he's against further consolidation of the press which already is an unprofitable (um, direct profits that is) part of a holding company also owning defense contractors, insurance companies and various other big corps with white-house lobbyists writing the legislation intended to regulate them. why do you suppose edwards doesn't get any mention -- until they HAVE to. then they get to spin the message out of control.
vote for edwards. early and often. oh. contribute to his campaign. he's not on the take from the "industries" like all the other candidates.
"If no decisive victor emerges before the convention, the superdelegates could force both Clinton and Obama onto a ticket. While I'm sure neither would be happy with that situation, it may be the best thing for the party as a whole."
Wrong, for 2 reasons.
1: A Clinton victory would validate for too many the Clinton/DLC devotion to shabby political calculation which has for so long vitiated the Democratic party. It would encourage those who condescendingly confuse abject political cowardice and opportunism with "pragmatism." It would denigrate the value of true leadership which moves the American people towards a desired goal rather than following the people as they seem to appear to pollsters. It makes winning an election the end goal rather than the means to an end. We might not recover for generations.
2: Whoever would be Clinton's VP is by no means assured a bright political future. Such has not much been the case for VPs in our recent history. And a failed presidency, which seems to me a very real possibility should Clinton achieve the office, would certainly doom the political future of her VP. Why would we want to put any of our best leadership talent into such jeopardy?
Ok when are we going to start acting like adults and get down to the issues? Isn't he said she said kind of junior high bullshit? we are electing a president not play ground king!
Jane, either one -or- both will lose in the general. The only hope we have is Edwards.
Polls the media does not want you to see:
http://firedoglake.com/2008/01/14/the-polls-you-wont-hear-much-about/
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
