Coffeecups and Gutterballs: A Precision Media Hit On Obama, A Pass For Clinton

Let's start with a hypothetical situation: Suppose a small group of people controlled the press, and they wanted to ensure a Republican victory in November. A few weeks ago Obama seemed to be riding a wave of inevitability and positive perception. The Democrats seemed to have settled on a candidate, and he scored well against the Republicans because he was seen as post-racial and post-partisan. If this group were to write a memo to the media, what would it say?

Their game plan would have very specific objectives:

1. Extend the Democratic primary race as long as possible.
2. Remind the public that the seemingly "post-racial" Obama is a black man; make him seem as scary-black as possible.
3. Strengthen Hillary Clinton's image with white working-class voters by making her appear populist, folksy, and one of them. Conversely, characterize Obama as an elitist who is out of touch with "real people."
4. Break down Obama's post-partisan appeal to independents and Republicans by linking him to the divisive left/right politics of the 1960s.

Now look back over the media's coverage of the Democratic campaign during the past several weeks. Bingo: Mission accomplished. By giving the primary campaign more of a horse-race feel than it actually has, they've managed to extend it. The Rev. Wright controversy and constant mentions of Louis Farrakhan have made Obama seem more "scary-black." (It should be noted that Clinton has closer political ties to a Farrakhan lover than Obama does. Her PA campaign chair Gov. Ed Rendell said this of him: "His depth on analysis when it comes to the racial ills of this nation is astounding and eye opening. He brings a perspective that is helpful and honest... one of the 20th and 21st century giants of the African American religious experience.")

Those images of Hillary doing shots in Pennsylvania were broadcast morning, noon, and night, emphasizing her working-class image. So were images of Obama bowling a gutterball and looking "elitist." And by promoting Obama's alleged "ties" to Weather Underground radical Bill Ayers while downplaying Clinton I's pardon of two fellow Underground members, Obama was made to look more "leftist" than Clinton.

And that's not all, as they say on the late-night ads ...

Now we have the matter of Hillary's difficulty with a coffee machine. This video has gone viral, complete with goofy and irritating music. It shows Sen. Clinton struggling to operate the coffee maker in a gas station. It's become popular among Obama supporters because it shows the allegedly "populist" Hillary's bafflement at operating a device that is familiar to most working Americans. Why is the coffee-machine video so popular among Obama supporters? Because they think it would be airing 24 hours a day if their candidate had made the same mistake.

And it would.

So, is the coffee-machine video getting airplay on the cable news shows? Not really ... well, wait: CNN did run a piece about it, but only to debunk the idea that this means Hillary's out of touch. "These coffee machines ARE finicky sometimes," says reporter Jeanne Moos, "I nearly broke one at the car dealership ..." Yet CNN breathlessly repeated over and over that Obama only scored a 37 while bowling, without reporting that he never finished the game! And there was no Jeanne Moos to say "we all throw gutterballs sometimes."

But, stop already! Isn't this all ridiculous? Isn't it trivial to concern ourselves with whether the next president is able to go bowling or get a cup of coffee from a vending machine? Of course! But the media make us care about these things. They have an enormous ability to influence what we think about, and they've chosen to emphasize the reality-show aspects of this race. Then, having done that, they skew the race in favor of different candidates in a naked display of their ability to influence the outcome. That's the lesson of the bowling incident and the coffee-cup video: One gets exposure and the other doesn't, because the narrative has already been written.

In this particular reality show, they've decided who they want voted off the island next.

So what does this all mean? Is our hypothetical group real? Did instructions come down from on high? The crystal balls are murky. But it's clear that American media outlets are owned by fewer and more powerful interests. And they don't necessarily have to write memos. All they have to do is hire and promote well-intentioned but biased reporters who don't even realize how they're distorting the news. Throw in a couple of cooperative editors, and you've got yourself a "free press" ready to do the bidding of its owners. And most of those owners are Republican.

We know that the right-wing learned how to spin and manipulate the news using outlets like Drudge and Fox. And rather than fight this system, Clinton campaign advisors like Sid Blumenthal decided to exploit it for their own ends. Blumenthal's been circulating the most scurrilous right-wing attacks against Obama to a mix of friends and journalists, and some of his readers have printed them. (Blumenthal's the guy who found the Obama campaign's idealism infuriating; guess we know why now.) And it turns out that Rev. Wright's latest public tirade was orchestrated by ... a Clinton supporter.

But, some Democrats will ask, don't we want people like than running the Democratic campaign? Won't they be more effective at winning? Maybe - but that argument would be more compelling if they weren't losing. If the Clinton campaign wanted to run such a negative campaign, it should have done so from the very beginning. But they were overconfident. By turning ugly now, when they're behind, they're damaging the party. And, ironically, that may be why they're been getting such favorable media treatment lately.

If the media's first job is to cripple or take out Barack Obama, then the Clinton campaign is just a means to that end. Whether Obama yields to Hillary or takes the nomination in a weakened position, the Democrats will have been wounded. And the extended race will have provided months of extra "horse-race" stories for the media.

At that point Blumenthal et al. will find that their usefulness to the media machine has ended and they're yesterday's news. Their tactics won't work any more. Suddenly Clinton will be the target again - and John McCain will be on his way to the Presidency.

Word to Sidney Blumenthal and all the other Rove-emulating Clintonites: You're disposable tools in a bigger game. You guys, of all people, should understand that.

___________

UPDATE: Two alleged statements by Clinton associate Mickey Kantor have been removed from this post. He says he never said the more extreme statement, and there's evidence the video we saw was doctored. So we take him at his word. Another phrase that he used, "these people are sh*t," seemed to refer to Indiana voters but is ambiguous. (Not that ambiguity would stop the press if they were determined to smear a candidate by association, as the Clinton team knows all too well.)

Kantor reportedly asked that the more extreme statement not be repeated, even as a retraction. Fair enough. We've honored that request, and have also removed the other one. We suggest that Clinton and McCain supporters likewise refrain from repeating scurrilous and false remarks about their opponents in the future, even if only to deny that they believe them.

___________

Blogs:
A Night Light
The Sentinel Effect: Healthcare Blog

Follow RJ Eskow on Twitter: www.twitter.com/rjeskow

Comments

[nazcalito]

12:52 PM on 05/05/2008

It is disturbing that Mickey Kantor can go around threatening lawsuits and getting people to retract their stories about that clip from the movie The War Room. (I gather that's what he's doing from his public statements that the interpretation of the video that has him insulting Indiana voters is libelous.) The above article implies that anyone who suggests that Kantor was dissing Indiana voters will be censored. I have not seen the original version of the War Room and I wouldn't base an opinion on a clip posted on youtube (see, e.g., the silly thing about Hillary supposedly farting in response to a question in a live debate.) There are, however, lots of copies of that movie available and it seems like it would be an interesting movie to see, given this primary, whatever Kantor says about Indiana voters. It was interesting how young all those Clinton advisers were in the movie, and the "diss" interpretation fits with Kantor whispering, as if he was saying something naughty -- but again, I haven't seen the original yet.

[mikekev58]

10:53 PM on 05/03/2008

So Ed Rendell states: "His depth on analysis when it comes to the racial ills of this nation is astounding and eye opening. He brings a perspective that is helpful and honest... one of the 20th and 21st century giants of the African American religious experience."

Could those statements be...true? I mean, whether you like it or not, Farrakhan is one of the giants of the African American religious experience. Hell, I'd go beyond religious. He's had a profound effect on social mores in the black community.

But Ed Rendell didn't give him a medal or make him an honorary Pennsylvanian.

I do think Rev. Wright got a raw deal from the media - and from his "son" - but Wright's relationship with Farrakhan is more than a conversation or two about race. And even with all the good that Farrakhan has done in the black community, he is still on the record with some close to the edge if not out and out racist remarks.
And some suspect that he's a co-conspirator in the assassination of Malcolm X.
I'm just sayin'.

[Tedderdog]

11:36 PM on 05/03/2008

If one is going to judge Blacks for being racist, it becomes imperative to use the same yardstick on white racists, what about the add in Tennessee against Ford with the White woman, it doesn't get much more racist and there wasn't much discussion, if any. It's no wonder Blacks sense a double standard.

[unpaidpundit]

10:53 PM on 05/03/2008

This column is a lot of paranoia. The media was throwing a love fest for Obama until preachergate became too big to ignore. Obama still has not answered relevant questions about his relationship with his former pastor, but whatever Obama says about Rev. Wright is fine with his fans. If Barack Obama were caught on video robbing a bank, half of his fans would say, “Now Barack needs us more than ever. Rally around Barack!” The other half would say, “Why is the media asking him all these bank robbery questions? What does a bank robbery have to do with being president? Why can’t the media ask him about the issues?”

[RRonin]

08:29 PM on 05/03/2008

It has become painfully obvious to me that the this election is already over. The decision was made in board rooms all over the world and you can see the media setting the stage for a McCain victory in November. Senator McCain could bite the head off a live rat in front of a bank of TV cameras and the MSM would either ingnore it or explain it away lightheartedly as a "senior moment." McCain says the most outrageous things ("bomb bomb Iran", 100 years of occupation, the fact we invaded Irag for it's oil) and the MSM barely takes notice. Friday McCain admitted that we had invaded Irag for it's oil, and all day I waited fo CNN to report it. They never did. They didn't gloss over the story or try to laugh it off, they merely chose to ignore it. The only news source that made mention of the story was MSNBC. It wasn't in my local newspapers the next morning, either. Make no mistake about it, the MSM has chosen it's candidate, and it's more obvious that it was in 2000 or 2004.

[certainot]

09:21 PM on 05/03/2008

TV and print ignore stories but it is the talk radio monopoly that makes most of the mountains out of molehills and keeps them in the headlines.

"We know that the right-wing learned how to spin and manipulate the news using outlets like Drudge and Fox. "

Fox TV gets way too much credit- its basically just visual whipped cream on a talk radio turd pie of lies and distortions. until Americans figure out the source of the dumbing down of the media is that uncontested repetition to 50-70MIL that only the talk radio monopoly can provide, progressives will continue to play politics without a front line.

their best progressive candidates and causes will continue to get whacked with an invisible 2x4 while media and political analysts wait for the reading and viewing material that attributes the effects of rove's most important framing tool to political and social shifts instead of coordinated blowhards using the biggest soapboxes in every state.

[StillIRise]

12:45 AM on 05/04/2008

I agree that the MSM and corporate America chose its candidates long ago, but the candidate they chose for the Democratic Party was Hillary Clinton! They never expected Senator Obama to upset their conventional wisdom, and that is why there has been a concerted effort to destroy his candidacy. They may have been giving him a pass in the beginning, but that's because they thought Hillary would be the nominee. Once they realized that their plans had gone awry, the assault on Obama began, and it will not cease. He's not supposed to be the president, and they will continue to do everything they can to stop him! I don't even think McCain is being factored in right now. The media does not seem to be concerned with either helping or hurting McCain at this juncture. Their focus is on Obama, and if he wins the nomination, in spite of their efforts to defeat him, the barrage of assaults will become even more vicious! Better old man McCain, who wants the presidency so badly that he will willingly become no more than a tool for them, than a black man who will make a real difference.

[aofh]

07:35 PM on 05/03/2008

"But, some Democrats will ask, don't we want people like than running the Democratic campaign? Won't they be more effective at winning? Maybe - but that argument would be more compelling if they weren't losing."

Are such tactics ever justifiable? If the candidate uses such tactics to win the nomination and the election, why should he or she stop using them after the election? We need to be able to trust the people we elect to office, we need them to tackle tough issues and not feed us pap and distractions. It is naive to think they are not going to continue using the strategies that helped them get elected. I don't want to elect someone whom I feel is going to lie to me about the things that matter.

[textynn]

05:22 PM on 05/03/2008

Obama an elitist?!!? That is ridiculous. Especially out of the mouth of McCain. Anyone who would believe this obvious attempt at alienating Obama from those who would most likely vote and benefit from Obama as president would have to be seriously weak minded. I thought it was astoundingly underhanded that McCain did not include his wife's wealth in his tax report to the American people. McCain and the republicans are elitists. Everything they do and say smacks of elitism. Health care is a responsibility. That burns me up. How much health care can you get with an $8. an hour job and a couple of kids. Im sure McCain doesn't know. He probably doesn't even know the cost of a loaf of bread. When the furnace burns out in one of his mansions it is probably paid for and fixed without his ever even knowing about it by one of his many servants. The cost of an expensive furnace would not wipe him out for a whole year trying to pay for that and bills. It's a non problem that doesn't even exist because he is well, a rich elitist. The trials and tribulations of working folk are not even on his radar. He is a coddled soft rich boy and knows no more about living on a crappy low income (thanks NAFTA) than a dog knows about birth control.

[mickeyrat]

05:10 PM on 05/03/2008

HuffPo has gotten to be a bore. Come on and everyday its some spin supporting Obama. Look at the comments and they're all Obamabots. You would think that Barack is sweeping all before him, that instead of it being 52/48 (breakdown of both popular vote AND delegates) it's 90-10 Obama.

I guess the Obamabots get a nice warm feeling when they come here. And it's a no wonder why they think Obama IS sweeping all before him.

It's gotten just hella dull.

No, I'm not a Clintonista. I'm a Green. But the puerile, slavish comments of the Obamabots are really boring. You would think that he were the Second Coming or something.

Ah, well, I have to remember, most of these are kids. I had the same self-rigteous surety when I was young--that all GOOD was on my side and all EVIL on the side that disagreed with me.

I grew up. I'm sure--at least, I hope--the Obamabots will as well.

[Independent007]

06:09 PM on 05/03/2008

You grew up and realized that a cynical, pandering politician is what you would prefer instead of a politician that speaks the truth? Pluhesse, I would prefer not to grow up then.

[mikekev58]

10:57 PM on 05/03/2008

Read his post again, 007. He's a Green, not a Hillybilly, like me. Of course, I agree with his take on you guys, but I'll be voting for Barry if he wins the nomination. At least I'm hoping to vote for him. Well, okay, I'll vote for the Democratic platform like I did back in '80.

[drzoon]

09:28 PM on 05/03/2008

and obama folks thing the fix is in. and the clinton folks think the fix is in... and guess what... john mc cain doesn't think the fix is in.

[clevelandchick]

03:24 PM on 05/03/2008

RJ writes:

"At that point Blumenthal et al. will find that their usefulness to the media machine has ended and they're yesterday's news. Their tactics won't work any more. Suddenly Clinton will be the target again - and John McCain will be on his way to the Presidency.

Word to Sidney Blumenthal and all the other Rove-emulating Clintonites: You're disposable tools in a bigger game. You guys, of all people, should understand that."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BINGO!!!!!!! Hasn't even one Hillary supporter thought for a minute as to why Murdoch & Scaife wanted to be all chummy with HRC? She has played into their hands so handily it isn't even funny. From the very beginning The GOP, Fox et al have been giving Hillary a pass because they've always wanted her to be the Nom. They've always attacked the candidate that doesn't give their guy the best shot at the POTUS - at first it was Edwards and then Obama. And by going negative after Iowa, all Hillary did was piss off half the Dem party as well. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

[mikekev58]

11:17 PM on 05/03/2008

"From the very beginning The GOP, Fox et al have been giving Hillary a pass"

Oh, for God's sake, stop it.

Here's what happened. Hillary saw that the people who watch Fox are ... American citizens. So, why not go on Fox, daring to go where almost no Democrat would go. Yeah, it was all about politics and believe it or not, she's always been in it to win the nomination.

This GOP conspiracy to have Hillary nominated is really grassy-knoll stuff. Fox knows that Obama will be the nominee, to my disappointment although I'll hold my nose and vote for him in November.

Fox is all about ratings and whatever will drive them up, they'll use, e.g. the Obama Watch.

As for pissing off half the Democratic party, well Barry's only got a little more than half vote-wise. He didn't piss us off though, at least not the way you claim Hillary did to your half. He pissed us off in the British sense of that phrase, as in "PIss off, O unenlightened ones."

Hell, we're not only unenlightened, we're also dumb enough to vote for him in the fall, because we have this notion that a Democrat in the White House would be better than a Republican. We're not haters, ya see?

[knerd]

01:44 PM on 05/03/2008

Some operatives are figuring out how to merge this strategy to an "American Idol" template so that even more Americans will find themselves "swept along" in the campaign and ready to vote for their (the operatives, of course) favorite. No doubt. Call me cynical right now.

A good book to check out to become familiar with these tactics is Thom Hartmann's recently-published "Cracking the Code." It teaches you how to recognize the meta-narrative behind the dog and pony show. Once you can do that, a lot of things that didn't make much sense before now do.

[mikekev58]

11:21 PM on 05/03/2008

Or, for a very good read everyday (almost), go to http://www.dailyhowler.com

Now, he does give Hillary a fair shake there which might keep some of you away, but his true aim is the media and the "meta-narrative" they weave. The archives at this site are excellent.

[96Bravo]

01:27 PM on 05/03/2008

Yeah, the news this morning is abuzz with plenty of headlines about Clinton's lead in the national polls. Small wonder. Obama constantly hit by Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, the Republicans and (worse) most of the media. For the media it's all about why Obama can't do this or why Obama can't appeal to these people, etc.

Media: If you keep saying Obama can't win over middle-class whites (ignoring the middle-class whites that voted for him in Iowa, WI, MN, WY, etc), the rest of the middle-class white voters will start to wonder too and effect their views of Obama.

Let's say somehow Clinton's strategy works. Why do you think they are so supportive of her right now? Why do you think they have been relatively silent on any Clinton controversy? They want her to be the Nominee. They have weapons against her and they are salivating at the chance to use them. These new polls can suggest Clinton now stands a better shot of beating McCain but wait until they get their chance to attack her...without Obama in the way.

Better yet, let's not wait. Let's admit the inevitable and make Obama the Nominee. Unify the party. Allow us to focus on McCain and the third Bush term.

You'd think he wasn't leading in states, delegates and popular votes.

[antaeus]

03:17 PM on 05/03/2008

And if you keep lumping together caucus states like IA, MN, and WY (especially the ones that no Dem would carry in November) together with pivotal primary states like OH and PA, then your credibility as an electoral analyst suffers.

The DNA of our electoral system makes place like OH, FL, and PA crucial states, and if the demographic you describe doesn't go for Obama, then in fact he has a real general-election problem, not a media-manufactured one.

The media didn't will Obama's poor showing in these place. He couldn't pull it off.

[Breni]

10:51 PM on 05/03/2008

So, when Obama was leading in the beginning, it was O.K. for the media to tout that he was winning with 'highly educated whites'?

[PuritanDescendant]

12:34 PM on 05/03/2008

Someone indicated that McCain spoke at a Hagee gathering a few years ago. Can anyone verify that McCain actually said this "It's very hard trying to do the Lords work in the city of Satan and I'm very grateful to have all of you here."

The city of Satan? Isn't that about the same as "god damn america"?

The man who wants to lead our country believe's its capital is "the city of satan"?!

Shocking. Why isn't FOX news playing the video of McCain calling Washington the city of Satan.

[avraamjack]

04:19 PM on 05/03/2008

.
Have you been to DC? Sounds reasonable to me. They should move the capitol somewhere nice.
.

[cavewoman]

12:26 PM on 05/03/2008

It was very good and decent of you to remove the statements as Mr. Kantor requested. The controversy isn't quite finished, though. A Washington Post review of "The War Room" in Nov. 1993 also reported on Kantor's slur on Indianans. Did he protest to the reviewer at that time, or is only now, on the eve of the Indiana primary? Did Stephanopoulos and Carville protest to the reviewer at the time, if the words spoken did not have the intent that the reviewer assumed? Why not?

I feel like taking a shower for even posting about this, because it's a silly story, but there is a valid point here. Kantor was instantly doing damage control because he knew how a story like this could get legs. He was panicked because if the story was about an Obama surrogate, the Clinton camp would be plastering his slur about Indianans all over the place.

But they know the Obama campaign is not about that. The real story here isn't some gaffe a puffed up Kantor made in 1993. The REAL story here is that the Obama campaign chooses not to make hay out of the glaring bad behavior of Clinton and her surrogates, while the Clinton camp consistently stays on "The Low Road To Victory" (NY Times). Clinton will not win, but she will make quite a lot of stories for the MSM to shout about before she's done ripping the Democratic party to shreds.

[pilgrim7]

06:59 PM on 05/03/2008

I'm sure the Obama campaign has a plan and considering the odds, they're doing an awesome job. But this is not kiddie tyme politics, and it just seems to me the campaign is doing themselves and Americans a disservice by not exposing the truth so that Americans can see the total picture and decide if they've had enough. Does the campaign actually believe the majority of meathead Americans will try to dig out the truth for themselves? Or do they somehow believe the media will apologetically come clean when all it's ever done is give us the news it wants us to hear? Let's get out of LaLa Land. Taking the high road does not mean one cannot deliver an uppercut to the jaw without going below the belt. Unless we're doing the Ghandi thing, this is a fight. If the Obama camp doesn't take responsibility for presenting the facts with the millions of dollars it has at its disposal, then don't blame the media.

(Don't get me wrong. I do believe in miracles, and I do agree the high road is refreshing. I'm just punch-drunk, I guess.)

[burkmark]

01:14 PM on 05/07/2008

"if the story was about an Obama surrogate, the Clinton camp would be plastering his slur about Indianans all over the place."

Exactly! Does anyone think for a minute that the Clinton camp wouldn't have jumped all over the Kantor comments if they were from an Obama team member? For those Clinton supporters that think it would have been the right thing for her to use if she had a Kantor clip against Obama, please wake up and join your Neo-Con brothers and sisters. (FYI- You can be sure that the GOP would have been happy to use it against Hillary if given the chance.)

I wasn't sure that Obama would take the high road and it would have hurt him in my view if he had brought Kantor up like Hillary likes to bring up Wright and Ayers. I'm thrilled that Obama again proved himself to be a different kind of politician - one with integrity !

[Redmom]

12:26 PM on 05/03/2008

Thank you for speaking truth. But, the low info voters will not hear you. Racists like Stephanopoulos will be heard. Clinton is a neo-con, but people will not understand this..This country will get what it deserves.
And, the press laughs while Rome burns.

[mikekev58]

11:35 PM on 05/03/2008

Racists like Stephanopoulos? Huh??? I mean he's a treacherous little weasel - I was calling him Judas long before Carville hung that on Guillermo - but racist? No, no. I don't even know why you'd say such a thing?

Clinton is a neo-con. Do you even know what that is? Have you read her platform? Can you honestly say that Hillary Clinton is kin to William Kristol, William Bennett, and their ilk? Seriously.

I can feel the hatred in your writing, so I'm not trying to dissuade you from your support of another candidate.

But you do sound like a damn fool.

[CTmom13]

11:57 AM on 05/03/2008

Powerful Ad
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/5/3/02017/74782/339/508155


So much for the losing white votes....It's Sen Clinton that really has lost black votes, he has actualy gained white votes


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/03/opinion/03blow.html

[FredfromSwitzerland]

11:39 AM on 05/03/2008

This is the brightest article I've seen since months. Good jop. Operation chaos here. This could explain why the "Wright soundbites" came after Texas and Ohio primaries. Sean Hannity was already on this one year ago. But Obama showed strenghs and nerves despite being attacked by 3 fronts (MSM, Cllinton Campaign and GOP). Some here would say that the 3 fronts are in reality only 1.

[elusiveyo]

12:55 PM on 05/03/2008

let me get this right, now that barry is getting some negative attention, it is a big conspiracy, wow, you pass this off as some kind of analysis, pathetic

[shades3]

06:27 PM on 05/03/2008

So, elusiveyo, you know Barack Obama well enough to call him "barry" [note lower case that you used to further denigrate him]?
Do you also know John McCain well enough to call him "john", or Hillary Clinton well enough to call her "hillary", or even "hill"?
Show some respect, for God's sake!!!