- BIG NEWS:
- Bill Clinton
- |
- Barack Obama
- |
- Dick Cheney
- |
- Terrorism
- |
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
Further showing and being documented as being a intellectual coward. So censor away it is being documented.
The MEDIA has been BRUTAL. Stirring up controversy. Subliminal messages across the screens. These QUESTIONS in headlines that manipulate the public's thinking.
The MEDIA is supposed to report the news and not trying to persuade people how they should think.
They don't even report on all the world events we need to know about. You have to refer to BBC or DW for that or even newspapers in the middle east !!
Since neither Obama or Clinton beats McCain, I fail to understand why putting them together on the same ticket would.
http://fir
If the selection of either without the other would be detrimental to the party, the solution is clear, John Edwards.
Maybe Paul Krugman's philosophy is coming back to haunt him, and Senator Clinton. This philosophy is: the media has to stop treating every issue in a "fair and balanced" way, presenting both sides even when one side is false and beneath the dignity of the press. A real scientist who talks about global warming, and a phoney hired by the American Enterprise Institute or ExxonMobil.
What is real is that most Americans don't like Hillary Clinton. Some of it is irrational and destructive-- "the vast right-wing conspiracy
So the media, for once, is not attempting to be balanced-- they don't like Hillary any more than we do. Add this to the feeling that she is going to do anything to win, no matter how good that other candidates are, and use her machine to steamroll any opposition-- well, they think this gives them a free ticket to talk about her negatively.
Hillary needs a good old-fashioned American come-uppance. She needs to be knocked down (figuratively). Then, when we see her as the underdog, we'll root for her. The Bush family never got theirs, and we paid for it. The Clintons-- though fundamentally more acceptable to America-- need to learn you don't walk over the voters and expect us to coronate you without a second thought.
Molly Ivins said it best when she wrote I Will Not Support Hillary Clinton For President:
http://www
If anything, the press has hidden the true character of both of the Clintons from us.
The way that Hillary treats and the things that Hillary says privately to the people serving her are not printable. The abuse that her campaign staff endures is mystifying in that they put up with it.
Any decent person would not want to be in the same room with these people if they really knew them. What Bill did in the White House is only the tip of the iceberg and it should give you a clue.
I think if Hillary were to win the nomination, Obama would run with Bloomberg. I would pray for that, because I and millions of others simply will not vote for a ticket that has another Clinton on it, and Obama will be a great American president.
And my guess is that Obama doesn't want to be associated with the hyperpartisanship and the history of dirty tricks politicking the Clintons exemplify.
Unfortunately, Jane, while I agree with much of what you say, your column is yet one more example of the problem with the media. Our irresponsible, narcissistic press decided that they were so enthralled with the idea of a race between a black man and woman that no other candidate could be allowed to interfere with that. Issues apparently are a distraction as well. So John Edwards, who has led on just about every issue, gets ignored. And as a result we're going to end up with the media's pick, not the best candidate for the job.
Edwards has *never* taken money from lobbyists/PACs. Obama took $1.3 mil for his senate race and Hillary has taken money from the Carlyle Group for this race. Obama and Clinton favor liquification of coal, which will double the rate of global warming, while Edwards doesn't.
John Edwards is the only one who's made poverty and inequality an issue and yet all you talk about is whether the African-American community will vote for a black man or the wife of 'black president' Bill Clinton. If Edwards' policies got the coverage they deserve, they might actually vote on issues that affect them.
And now, after the press has narrowed the race for us, you're now trying to decide who the VP should be?
I wish the Democratic hopefuls would focus on their own assets and quit pecking at each other like roosters on acid.
The GOP will do more than enough of that after they choose their candidate.
Hillary on the ticket is the same as Lieberman as far as I am concerned. I will not vote for warmonger Hillary so she better not be anywhere near the Dem ticket.
Good leadership starts from the top. There's just no way around that.
You get this hoopla when there aren't any real differences among candidates. Truth is all the Dem candidates were and are a dream-team. And Super Tuesday will blow all those dinky early states' predictions totally away. Wouldn't it be grand to actually have the party delegates select the candidate at the convention? I'm a Hillobama fan.
It's the Narcissistic political establishment that will cut off their nose to spite their face. Clintons and their ilk, i.e, the establishment, friends, and supporters are fighting with themselves over gender or race - a sign of the Old Party. Obama and his supports are mostly men, independents, Republicans and reasonable Democrats, and could care less about thinking too much about gender or race while campaigning.
The Obama supporters here are not thinking about the general election. Obama has flaws that will be explioted to no end by a pliant press and the wingnuts. Hillary has already been through this sort of thing so there's very little they can do that they haven't already tried. Not so for Obama. For instance, his church will become a major issue if not now, then in the general election. His use of cocaine as a young man will not be off limits to the Republicans as so many of you insist. Haven't we learned this already? Hope is not a strategy.
We have all come to this honestly. The MSM (and the HuffPo, et al) ignored the real talent, the truly qualified candidates, and covered money, personality and celebrity. Despite some sterling qualities the current candidates may possess, we allowed ourselves to be robbed.
Why start complaining now?
Our job is to choose the next American Idol,...er
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
