Dear Barack

Dear Barack,

Remember how, during your last debate, Senator Clinton accused the media of being biased against her? It registered as pretty self-pitying at the time. But what happened? The coverage turned in her favor. And why? Because the media, as an institution, is incredibly defensive and guilt-ridden and insecure. The right-wing pundits have played on this for years, accusing them of having a liberal bias. But they don't have a liberal bias. They have a bias toward capitalist self-preservation. All they care about at this point is market share. I mention this because you're going to need to mention this if you if you want to change the course of the discussion about your recent description of frustration in small-town Pennsylvania.

I implore you to stop defending yourself and apologizing. Instead, try this approach.

"By now many of you have heard about my rash outbreak of candor regarding the frustrations -- and yes, even bitterness -- of certain Americans who feel economically betrayed by the political system. You have also heard Hillary Clinton call my comments "elitist" and "demeaning" and "out of touch." You musn't blame Senator Clinton. She would like very much to win this election, and she has no chance of doing so without vilifying me. Senator McCain has gotten in on the act, as well. It's not surprising they would find an alliance. After all, Senator McCain has committed himself to preserving the Bush tax cuts for the richest Americans, and Senator Clinton and her husband, as we recently learned, earned 109 million dollars over the past few years. That's how deeply those two feel the pain and frustration of working-class America.

Fortunately for them, they have another powerful ally: the men and women of our vaunted free press. They're the folks who have fanned this into a fake controversy. They've done so because that's the only way they know how to cover campaigns: to treat them like popularity contests, or steel cage matches. It's all about money and poll numbers and the meanest thing said each news cycle. It's about some fake brawl they can stage to keep their audience enthralled.

But it's not about policy. No, it's never about how we're going to solve the common crises of state. How we're going to end this senseless war in Iraq. How we're going to provide health care and rebuild our schools. How we're going to battle climate change by building a green economy.

It used to be that the press was considered 'the people's representative in Washington.' Today, they're Washington's representatives to the people. Virtually all they do is parrot the talking points and cynical attacks of the politicians they cover. They pretend to be some high and mighty impartial moral authority. But they've become part of the inherent corruption that plagues Washington, part of the endless cycle of attacks and counter-attacks that solves nothing. That merely suspends us in a state of perpetual grievance and collects whatever profits can be had.

The only way to fight this, to bring about change in this country, is to tune out the noise. The next time you hear some fancy pundit blabbing about one of these fake controversies, Tune It Out. Insist that the candidates -- myself and Senators Clinton and McCain -- talk about the policies and issues that actually affect you. Make us earn your vote. Because otherwise, you're going to wind up with a president who ignores the American people, who wages war when he wants, who neglects our looming environmental crises, who takes care of his rich buddies, who couldn't care less about the poor and the jobless.

Is that really what you want for yourself and your children?"

Yours in frustration (and yes, even bitterness),

Steve

Comments

[Tejano1]

very cool. obama could use you on the campaign trail.

[standforpeace]

I loved this post and hope that Obama will get a chance to "plagarize" you at Wednesday evening's debate.

[grendl]

I think Barack needs to clarify why exactly a room of wealthy donors on the West Coast were privvy to such accurate and insightful commentary, while the people of Pennsylvania were not.

It smacks of a two tiered system of truth, the more diplomatic, hope filled message the unruly mob in Pennsylvania can handle, and the cold hard reality, that bitterness does indeed seethe within these rapidly disintegrating communities.

That's elitism of a kind. It suggests Barack's thinking that people in Pennsylvania couldn't handle being told they're angry. Many of them have openly admitted it, in fact, stating it very much the obvious. He may as well have accused them of breathing oxygen. But it's the place the comment was made, caught on audio tape which suggests a certain if not duplicity than partial obfuscation.

We want to see Barack raw, uncensored, uncut, anywhere and everywhere. He's the candidate of transparency. Hillary's the one we expect, behind close doors to tear her mask off, and hover over a crystal ball, cackling "poppies, poppies" over the Penssylvanian electorate.

We can handle the truth, Mr. Obama. Not just the rich, but the middle class and poor as well. Give it to all of us, or keep it to yourself.

[inthenitemare]

He didn't just offer the comment. It was part of an answer to a direct question.

[grendl]

Well, it was an inopportune time and place to give an answer the likes of which the electorate wasn't used to.

Such revelations, unassailable truths that they were should have come out in Pennsylvania. Then they wouldn't be these nuclear bombs, Hillary's professing they are.

[efranklin]

To which Hillary will kibitz, "I was going to say that, but you asked Barack first." Waa haa haa.

[MrKnuckles]

I personally agree with the psychology and the message of this post but the idea that Obama should engage in a talking points/pissing contest with the media machine doesn't wash purely because to do so, however well intentioned, would be just shy of suicide.
Yes, the press can be guilt ridden at times, (and it should be), and certainly it is consumed with the holy mirror of their ratings, but it can also be callous and vengeful, and very capable of repeatedly kicking anyone when they're down.
I could almost guarantee that if Obama said anything remotely this confrontational to a press gathering he would be quickly and roundly portrayed as a whiner at best or made to appear that he was losing his composure because he's fundamentally, (take your pick), mean hearted, weak in the knees, a bully, etc.

[zjazzyz]

Dear Steve,

I don't know Senator Obama, I've never worked with Senator Obama,
but you, sir, are no Barack Obama.

(He doesn't need your help.)

[matthewhusseinsmith]

I disagree; I think Obama needs a lot of help from ordinary people; that's whom his campaign purports to be for; so, tell the truth to the PA people, tell them they ought to be angry, do not talk about Pennsylvanians to some rich guys in Frisco.

And while you are at it, choose your words carefully because they will be parsed to death by your opponents and the MSM vultures.

I know you are only 46, but you must be more careful; I do not want to hear a potential future president having to apologize after every other utterance for a poor choice of words.

[Advocate2008]

Check this out:

http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/rezko/894559,CST-NWS-rezko15.article

[Camel54]

What's really infuriating and embittering is hearing reports about the nearly 20,000 avoidable deaths that happen in America each year as a result of no health insurance or too little health insurance; about insurance companies changing their policies to force people to shoulder a third of a drug's cost instead of a small copay and essentially guaranteeing another hundred thousand preventable deaths per year. In addition to that, I thought the Democratic party was the party that wanted to at least curtail gun production and sales. Yet, here we have Hillary Clinton basically taking up a right wing stance on guns and attacking her Democratic opponent. Every time Obama speaks a little adult truth to Americans he's attacked. This Republican strategy of America is just fine, nothing is wrong with this country and especially nothing is wrong with its great citizens is such a pile of horse shit that bitterness doesn't begin to cover what most of us feel toward our "leaders".

[MagisterLudi]

"The only way to fight this, to bring about change in this country"
New flash: the three candidates left standing are ALL representatives of Big Business .
We got two rich Ivy League rich lawyers going against one rich professional politician.

Obama voted to allow credit cards to raise rates beyond 30%. Nice "people" representative.
Obama actively campaigned for Lieberman;
Obama skipped all pro-choice votes in Senate as a kow tow to his Church supporters.
Obama voted against Kerry Iraq withdrawal amendment.

Clinton and McCain are not better.

Those who are brainwashed by Obama campaign and his 40 acres and a mule promises will be bitterly disappointed by his policies.

Change? Candidates that where really for change like Kucinich, are long gone. Only Corporate stooge millionaires are still standing.

What a big surprise for American Imperial politics... not.

[zjazzyz]

Sounds like you're sitting this one out, or voting for some non-viable candidate since you
see no difference. I suppose you also saw no difference between Bush and Kerry.

[MagisterLudi]

One can vote AND understand the limitations of the system to realize that no change is forthcoming.
Some ( hint) apparently are incapable of such complex thinking.
Since I consider Obama and Clinton near identical in policies and I vote for what I know best--Clinton.

[cartopple]

Your screen name implies that you might have a little more grace, among other things.

[Advocate2008]

Write a letter to Obama and ask him to explain further about the possible Tony Rezko-Nadhmi Auchi-Barack Obama connection?

See the following link:
http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/rezko/894559,CST-NWS-rezko15.article

[Shantee]

Advocate....your spinning your wheels....the Rezko story has no legs.....and besides the Clintons have surrounded themselves with thugs and criminals who have or who are currently serving time in jail.

[punkingale]

I tried both your links to The Suntimes and ERROR came up. I really would like to read it. I'll try their website.

[rgersmrk]

HuffPost's Pick

"Fortunately for them, they have another powerful ally: the men and women of our vaunted free press. They're the folks who have fanned this into a fake controversy. They've done so because that's the only way they know how to cover campaigns: to treat them like popularity contests, or steel cage matches. It's all about money and poll numbers and the meanest thing said each news cycle. It's about some fake brawl they can stage to keep their audience enthralled."

You became my hero today writing those words. Thank you sir.

[ProfessorXYZ]

What does it mean that "HuffPost's Pick" is just a quote from the original article? Does this label add some editorial value to the comment section? I don't think so.

p.s. - No insult meant to the poster, rgersmrk, who was just expressing his/her feelings about the article.

[Shantee]

you're being a spoiled sport Professor.

[JasonEverettMiller]

Wonderful take on the subject. The most important lines in this blog are the following:

"It used to be that the press was considered 'the people's representative in Washington.' Today, they're Washington's representatives to the people. Virtually all they do is parrot the talking points and cynical attacks of the politicians they cover. They pretend to be some high and mighty impartial moral authority. But they've become part of the inherent corruption that plagues Washington, part of the endless cycle of attacks and counter-attacks that solves nothing."

That is such a succinct and easy to grasp way of describing the media's failure. A single paragraph that will ring resoundingly true to the vast majority of Americans who still get their news from the Corporate Media.