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

Comments

[DMSmith]

sorry: fraud to win, not wing.

[DMSmith]

We must not loose sight of the ultimate goal. We must be sure that ALL Democrats can work together and can reach out as well.

My memory tells me they will and can come together when it's needed. I'm affraid, however, that Obama and his supporters might not wish to play except as the top of it all.

Sad, that. But, we must keep moving toward a strong landing in the general election - enough to overcome the coming fraud-to-wing Republicans.

[blackstar22]

is it not perfectly acceptable to "load the responsibility onto one candidate" if that candidate is the only one actively working to disenfranchise people likely to vote for her rival, allowing a billionaire supporter to stand next to her and compare Mr. Obama to Sidney Poiter's character in "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner?" after he brought up the teenage drug use Mr. Obama has addressed already numerous times, and employed classically Rovian political strategies at every turn?

if Mr. Obama did these things, i myself would call on him to apologize or set them right. but he hasn't. in fact, he's shown tremendous restraint despite obvious race-baiting, bald-faced lies, severely underhanded political tricks like suing to prevent your opposition's supporters from voting and heavy distortion of his record.

it is the EQUIVOCATION of journalists that is killing the free and honest spread of information in this country. the actions of Mrs. Clinton and her campaign have been, thus far, MUCH WORSE than those of Mr. Obama and his campaign. period. and when the rare reporter speaks to this massive disparity in approach to this race, you accuse him of sensationalism and myopia.

oh, and as for the statements issued by both candidates trying to draw down the tone and tempo of the race: Obama called for a cessation of these dirty tricks first, and then Clinton a few hours later. except that as Mrs. Clinton did so, one of her key supporters in Congress was calling Obama "stupid" and implying he only added the issue of his drug use into his book because "he thought it would sell more copies".

OBJECTIVITY is not giving both sides equal blame or equal acclaim all the time. this is another mistake made by the "media" you are evidently a soulmate of. it means holding both campaigns to the same standards. and according to the standards of most Americans i know, the tactics of one of these campaigns have been far, far worse than the other.

[naschkatze]

There has been so much invective between these two camps, but particularly coming from the Clintons, I don't see how they could run together as a team. I am not a Democrat but an independent, and I feel that the Clintons have run such a Rovian campaign that I would not vote for her under any circumstances. If she wins the nomination, Obama on the ticket would not placate me. If she wins the nomination, I will hope that Bloomberg or someone he finds will run as a third party candidate; otherwise it will be Nader or an unknown insignificant candidate. I have been an independent since the mid seventies, and how ironic that I was finally thinking of committing myself to the Democratic Party before November 2006. The performance of the Democratic Congress and the Clinton campaign have ended such thoughts.

[Amuseinc]

After the convention who ever stands as candidate will get my vote! I will caucus for Obama but I will vote a straight Democratic ticket no matter if the Devil himself was our presidential candidate.

And I want any Democrat who says different to Google "George W Bush" and tell me they want another Republican President.

Look at the alternative before you get too involved in this tempest in a teapot.

[ESerafina42]

Yes, I agree with you 100%. Unfortunately, the vast majority of the vitriol seems to be directed at Hillary by people who insist that they will not vote for a ticket with her on it - evidently even if Obama is at the top of it. Those appear to be the people you need to win over. Evidently their hatred of one candidate matters to them more than the future of their country, because however bad you think it will be with her in the WH (debatable since on most issues there's virtually no difference between her and Obama) - it would be immeasurably worse with any of the Republicans. Imagine a Supreme Court composed of 9 versions of Antonin Scalia, if nothing else.

[noexpert]

Didn't both candidates suggest it is time to move on from this heated distraction and get back to the discussing candidates experience, vision, leadership, policy positions etc. The rifts in the party so far can be mended, (but not enough to put have clinton and obama on the same ticket!) I'm not crazy enough to expect these issues to be dropped in the blogs, but do hope candidates and their surrogates will refrain from comments that bring race and gender into the headlines again.

[thegaygardener]

"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."
You do realize that Bai is referring to the fact that the Clinton's are suing to make it more difficult to caucus in Nevada? Right??? They have filed a lawsuit because they are pissed that Obama got the big union endorsement Clinton expected to get! Hellloo?
Obama does not need Hillary. And If Hillary is the nominee the Democratic Party will lose.

[RobtBrock]

That would be a great ticket! Neither have many qualifications to be president! Perfect!

[Politicien]

I for one will rather have John McCain win the presidency than have Hillary at the top of the ticket. I believe the "silent majority" in this country does as well. Come November and Americans begin to think more clearly about Bill back in the White House, independents will flock to the "maverick.­"

The former president has frankly stooped to an all time low. We need a "clean break" with the past.

[kirotahoe]

by the way, did anything result from the meeting of the minds in ok city? hasn't been much press coverage or mention of huff.

[kirotahoe]

here's a conspiracy theory for you - the msm, owned by a power group, fuels the fued between clinton and obama in order to split the party and clear the way for bloomberg or possibly gore to rescue the dems at the convention.

[Ides]

Clinton's DISapproval ratings among Democrats are in the 40's. Across the nation it's even higher. She's not just generally polarizing, she's internally polarizing. You can add Obama and Edwards' disapproval ratings and they don't compare.

A combined ticket would do a lot to make many Democrats feel like they weren't on the wrong side in this fight over the heart of the Democratic party, but it would do nothing to ease the anger of the majority who would feel that the Dems have officially sold out. Asking us to hold our noses to make conservative Democrats and those willing to ignore the substance of a candidate to get Bill back in the White House would be the same as saying, "Hey, if Hillary can play ball, why can't you?"

What Liberal in good conscience would say, "I understand you despise Hillary's politics, but she's a Clinton and a lot of people really like the Clintons! You have to give them something, it's just common sense." Some of us have principles. In fact, enough of us have principles to win the White House without Republican and independent support, and some of us have a message which could win them both over.

What would be historic is a massive populist shift to the Left after years of a desperate rush to the middle in an attempt to take advantage of Progressives having nowhere else to go and the attempt by some people to capitalize on the basest interests of a confused American public -- terror, greed, nationalism.

No, Hillary and Obama on the same ticket would be letting Hillary's politics win, the politics of compromise to the lowest denominator, an absence of vision, and a loss of that common humanity that crosses all political parties and used to be the platform of the Democrats. What's the point of fighting the Republicans if our candidate has the same views on the economy, the war, and foreign affairs? It's not important to get a DEMOCRAT in the White House, it's important to get a Liberal in the White House.

[buzz]

I agree with almost every word.
But, I find this post passing strange, given the conduct of the "net roots" in connection with Lamont/Lieberman. I hope you agree that conduct was extremely hateful and mean-spirited.
So, please clarify. Is your point here that: 1.) hate politics is ok, unless the target is a Democrat (and thus, treating Lieberman hatefully was just fine), or 2.) hate politics is destructive?

[MinerSam]

I have often attributed the moronic Media to the fact that they are beholden to Republicans for Media Consolidation. And to the fact that Republicans thrive on an ignorant electorate.

But whatever the reason, someone pointed out 1 true thing in the US. And that is that the average waiter in Europe is mose able to analyze politics than most College Educated Americans.

I agree with that. And attribute it to a the Blind leading the blind.

We have so called "fair and ballanced you decide" which is the Ronald Reagan cuts to education coming home to roost...wh­ere a Reporter, anchor, or "head," and 1 liar and 1 truth teller on, and FAILS to challange the Liar by siting the fact.

But unfortunately far too many "opinion makers" and so called "jurnalists" DO NOT KNOW WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON.

They create Cascades of Erroneous Assertions and get their so called "facts" from each other.

One of the worst things for our country is that Republican Tim Russert's contract does not expire until 2012.

Psychological Abuser Mathews is only about 35% accurate about a given event. Yet his erroneous assertions are repeated -- as if fact by REPEATERS -- from Washington Week
to Charlie Rose.