Will Anyone in the Media Ever Cop To Helping Create Much of the Alleged Clinton "Drama"?

One way to look at the job of president, or at least the kind of president who leads a broad-based national movement for change and promises to be a major transformative figure, is as the sharpest eyed and smartest media critic in the land. He can see through the flimflam - the layer of media-created conventional wisdom that often takes on a life of its own - to perceive the truth below as no one else can.

Barack Obama, in short, understands the media better than anyone else living, because he is the one who created the narrative that took over our national life; he is the one whose choices and nonchoices have, to a degree we have not seen in years, resulted in a press that is behind him and excited by him and yes, impressed by him.

All with one big exception: the focus on the "drama" a choice of Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State would allegedly bring.

If you're Maureen Dowd, whose tragic decline from a great columnist and stylist to cranky obsessive fantasist is now complete, then you can write "Clinton" and "drama" and "Clinton" and "drama" and "Clinton" and "drama" week after week after week, and then, with not a twitch of shame or embarrassment, write a column declaring, "Whenever the Clintons are mentioned, the talk soon turns to drama."

Obama is not bitter and is not worried that his best days are behind him; he has the wisdom to look for larger truths, not focus on some endless self-perpetuating vendetta. Obama knows that while Dowd and Keith Olbermann and a lot of smart people were telling us that the Obama campaign had been damaged beyond repair by the tough Hillary Clinton challenge, in fact the opposite was true; he was going to be just fine in the end. Once she was out of the race, and convention coverage focused on a tiny minority of angry women Hillary supporters, Obama had the perspective to see through all the chatter and to admire Hillary's convention speech for the masterpiece it was. He was and is No Drama Obama. He watched with a professional eye, and saw real political skill - that he wanted for himself.

Why can't we all respect Obama a little more? Why the patronizing spin that he's somehow failing to notice some epic, unstoppable, GARGANTUAN "drama" factor that anyone who gorges on the media will tell you "must" be there, since so many reporter types get so excited when talking about it?

I think anyone who doubts how smart Obama is makes a major mistake. He sees a world in crisis and a nation in crisis - a global emergency, nothing less - and wants to get to work on January 20. He knows it's going to take work - and lots of it - to begin to address the damage of the Bush years, to begin to reach out to our allies and would-be allies not for the sort of Photo Op Diplomacy practiced by the Bush administration, but real give and take, real talking and listening, real brain-storming for new solutions to old problems.

If you think one or both Clintons are great villains, fine - that's your opinion. But can we please try to heed Obama's message that this is a time to look beyond old frustrations and discontents, old grudges or reservations, and focus not just on personalities, but on the job at hand?

A whole foreign-policy establishment would love to bring back the days when they had a Secretary of State Kissinger to write about - with an elaborate world view that can be parsed in academic journals endlessly. But the job has changed over the years. The No. 1 job of the U.S. Secretary of State in the years ahead will be to work to reverse the dramatic international trend that has led to greatly diminished U.S. credibility and respect in the world. Specific challenges loom - the Palestinians and Israel, Georgia and Ukraine and NATO, how to convince Turkey to accept an autonomous Iraqi Kurdistan - but none can be addressed without first tackling the underlying problem of near-zero U.S. influence in recent years.

The majority viewpoint abroad - not unanimous, but majority - is that Hillary Clinton would be a very effective representative of Obama abroad in this all-important work. It will be fascinating to watch how the Obama administration handles this challenge. Mostly it will be a lot of hand-shaking and plane-ramp-descending and group-picture-taking - a long, difficult grind; Hillary loves hard work. What it will not be, however, is very dramatic - no matter how many times Maureen Dowd tells us it is.

Comments

[BobGee]

A very good commentary on the tendency of certain media figures to "dramatize" anything the Clintons do. I think Hillary will be an excellent SoS, restoring respect and trust for the U.S. worldwide. As to Maureen Dowd, I remember being amused by her outrage at the "louche" Bill Clinton during the impeachment farce years ago. She is still energized by the dynamic duo!

[ReaganDem]

Amusing, yes, but it was also sad, sad, sad, watching Dowd fritter away her own credibility.

[arizonawonder]

Bravo Steve. I don't agree with everything you've stated, but this is a good piece of writing. And as such, is thoughful, balanced journalism. I am surprised yet delighted to read it on this post. I hope you will continue to work, write and help build respect and integrity back in a toxic, destructive profession.

I say this for not only for Hillary's sake but for McCain, Sarah and Obama. Our elected leaders are not perfect but they're not what and who they are routinely cast as by the media either. Nevertheless, their characters, words and records are routinely defamed and misused with too few circling back to correct the wrongs done to them at the point of a pen and the end of a mic.

Hillary Clinton is proof that despite all the good she's done and work she's accomplished the narrative on her is that of a 'bad guy'. A total fiction, but it sells.

We all pay the price for the vulture mentality that exist now, but we must fight back and hold the media accountable for this behavior. Left unchecked their position grows stronger and that should be of great concern to us all.

Steve please write a book about the destruction of america through the MSM. Name names and make them even more famous...or infamous.

[arizonawonder]

Bravo Steve. I don't agree with everything you've stated, but this is a good piece of writing. And as such, is thoughful, balanced journalism. I am surprised yet delighted to read it on this post. I hope you will continue to work, write and help build respect and integrity back in a toxic, destructive profession.

I say this for not only for Hillary's sake but for McCain, Sarah and Obama. Our elected leaders are not perfect but they're not what and who they are routinely cast as by the media either. Nevertheless, their characters, words and records are routinely defamed and misused with too few circling back to correct the wrongs done to them at the point of a pen and the end of a mic.

Hillary Clinton is proof that despite all the good she's done and work she's accomplished the narrative on her is that of a 'bad guy'. A total fiction, but it sells.

We all pay the price for the vulture mentality that exist now, but we must fight back and hold the media accountable for this behavior. Left unchecked their position grows stronger and that should be of great concern to us all.

Steve please write a book about the destruction of america through the MSM. Name names and make them even more famous...or infamous.

[cclowe]

Steve K. wrote: "If you think one or both Clintons are great villains, fine - that's your opinion. But can we please try to heed Obama's message that this is a time to look beyond old frustrations and discontents, old grudges or reservations, and focus not just on personalities, but on the job at hand?"

This is a patronizing straw man. I have no problem with the personality of either of the Clintons, nor do I conflate them as individuals. But I think the policies that Hillary Clinton advocates are deeply problematic and will tend to reinforce the worse rather than the better parts of Obama's own rather mixed quality foreign program, as laid out in his campaign. It's exactly the likelihood of botching the job at hand with excessive militarism that worries me.

[ohmercy]

please share which of "the policies Hillary Clinton is advocating..." that are problematic.

[Steve Kettmann - Huffpost Blogger]

Thanks for the comment. If you're only focused on policy, then I would think it would bother you the way that so many in the media try to steer a story of substance (ie, future policy decisions) toward one of personalities. For example, a Washington Post columnist who I will do the favor of not mentioning by name has a new column out on Condi Rice that is fawning and celebratory, as if she's been a GOOD Secretary of State, all because people seem to admire her style and her "discipline."
But I digress. Your point is a serious one: You worry that Hillary Clinton will emphasize militarism in the role of SOS. That means you should be much more focused on Gates at Defense. As SOS Hillary's job will be diplomacy - the only one who will make the decision to send us to war or to send troops into a situation or to order an air strike will be President Obama. He's absolutely going to be in charge - as he made clear this week in press conferences.
And even if you're just worried about the advice a SOS Clinton would have for Obama, I guarantee you'll find her views more nuanced and flexible, once she's in the role of SOS, than it may have appeared when she was on the campaign trail.

[Promise]

I disagree with this week's popular idea that it's the media who have created the idea that the Clintons create drama. The media has just reported what they have done--they are expert is creating drama, each in his own way.

[ohmercy]

it isn't just this week's idea.
Some of us have been saying it for years- it is just that this week the media created drama was at such a fevered pitch, bordering on hysteria that one would have to be completely oblivious or deliberately obtuse not to notice.
If they were actually just reporting there would have been no story.

The media has had an anti Clinton bias for quite some time.
When people like drama queen Chris Matthews can actually be quoted as saying "I hate them..." can get away with misrepresentations by changing words in what is supposed to be a quote, can give his opinion as if it is fact and then be quoted like Holy Writ there is something wrong.
They aren't reporting the facts they are spewing out their own wild projections, transference and obsessions.

This week with the whole SoS thing should have made that abundently clear to anyone who was paying attention to the sequence of events, the
"... say sources close to ..." the non stop fantasies and spinning these pundits do, again, spewing out their own opinions as if they are speaking some universal truth that they are personally privy too when it is clear it is speculation

If they were actually just reporting there would have been no story.

there are quite a few on air quotes from these supposed journalists who couldn't stop themselves in time and wound up outing their own bias on air.

Sickening really.

[Steve Kettmann - Huffpost Blogger]

Dear Promise:
Obama did an amazing job of developing and protecting his brand. But critics can also try to brand something or someone negatively. In the history of U.S. politics, more money has been spent on trying to defame and smear the Clintons than any other figures in American politics. That's just fact. Elements on the right embarked on a strategy of depicting Bill Clinton as "unfit" for office, even before he had been inaugurated. It was nothing less than a hate campaign, and it had much to do with years of "controversy" over the Clintons. Yet many of the alleged "scandals" were completely bogus.
Bill Clinton left office with the highest end-of-term approval rating of any two-term president in history (since such measurements began), edging out Ronald Reagan. His approval rating went UP during the impeachment ordeal. His mistakes will always be part of his legacy, but too often, virulently anti-Clinton elements in the media stop doing their job - stop maintaining some semblance of fairness - all out of some bizarre emotional reaction to Clinton.

[GeorgeKaplan]

Eleanor Roosevelt was hated by many durning her tenure as first lady. I love ER and think she was one on the most remarkable people in the 20th century. I don't think Hillary's negatives tell the whole story nor should they. When you set out to change things - say healthcare - you will make a lot of enemies. Following Bill Clinton through life is not as easy it looks. I think Obama can deal with her. Not afraid of it.

[Stephen C. Rose - Huffpost Blogger]

I am sure half the NONmedia people who read and comment here could provide the MSM with ten stories a day that OUGHT to be told. The tabloidization of ALL media is something that has grown since the Enquirer turned out the be one of the most reliable source regarding the last moments in Jonestown -- thirty years ago. This was the beginning. With the coming of the Web and the cheapness of Web publishing the decline continues. The coverage during the day on MSNBC (which I barely watch anymore) has become so uneven that it is at times unbearable. It is no wonder that we seek aggregators elsewhere.

[Steve Kettmann - Huffpost Blogger]

Thanks for the comment - nice to hear from a fellow Huffpost Blogger! It's a great point to make, too, about the opportunity cost of "drama" coverage - all the things that should get a little time and attention, and don't.

[Bivab]

“..unstoppable, GARGANTUAN "drama" factor that anyone who gorges on the media will tell you "must" be there, since so many reporter types get so excited when talking about it?”
The “drama” concerns over Hillary Clinton are not unwarranted. The “drama” is situational and is not based actual behavior. Without getting into details, the drama comes from the Clinton’s long history of media attention and their unfortunate “celebrity” status. It is impossible for the public not to believe that “drama” must arise from this history. It’s not necessarily the reporter types that get so excited it’s the average citizen. Why? Because they want the “drama” and expect it. Sadly, qualifications have little to do with it. The minutest controversy is blown out of proportion to feed this need and to fill the GARGANTUAN airtime available today. And if no “drama” exists… I fear it will be created.

[ReaganDem]

So true - the only thing to do is fight back by demanding more substance and less flash.

[susumar]

Thank goodness someone in the media finally admits to the media's role in creating the Clinton drama. I like the Clintons alot - so sue me. We all know that the media are thrilled at the prospect of bashing Hillary endlessly as SOS (along with Bill); it will make for good copy and Obama may be too non-dramatic or boring while effective.

[ReaganDem]

Kind of chilling to see, here on the Huff Post Media page, that Ted Koppel is taking a buyout and leaving his documentary gig at the Discovery Channel six months earlier. This is where journalism is heading - Dowd holds her column long after it has become an embarrassment to the New York Times and the man who taught a lot of journalists how to think - and work - past their assumptions to honest, open inquiry ... he's being put out to pasture.

[GeorgeKaplan]

Koppel is too good for most of these cable networks. His documentaries are too good to make the money and ratings to sustain him. It is a tragedy that a talent like Koppel can find no outlet for his work. HIs doc on Iran was great. I learned things about Iran I never knew and made me have some hope that we can eventually have an understanding with the Iranians. Maybe PBS can find a place for Ted. The American Experience and Frontline are the two best shows on any network in America. You will never see anything that good on network or most cable outlets.

[kapo]

Nice piece Steve. I disagree with you about the potential of the role of the next SoS however. The role under Bush would necessarily result in even the most able person ending up with their reputation in the toilet since he pursued a stupid war policy. Some big potential problems loom for the SoS such as persuading Turkey to accept an independent Iraqi Kurdistan and coming to terms with Russia, but the big payday is the potential for peace in Palestine. Not only America, but Israel is also slowly declining relative to the Arab countries. The military might of both appears overwhelming but is likely to be ultimately compromised by the economic realities. A window of opportunity exists over the next decade for Israel to normalize relations with nations which are not nuclear armed, still at an early stage of their modernization and do not have a major sponsor antagonistic to the US. Those factors may well change in the future.

[Wigelah]

Thanks Steve. Sometimes I think I'm the only one who thinks what I think. Then, I realize I have been reading too many Sarah Palin quotes and go back to talking in real sentences again. But, thanks for writing what I think.

[Grulg]

Great post. Olbermann just needs to have something froth at the mouth over, now that Rumsfeld/Rove/W etc are out the door/leaving, it's gotta be Hillary for some reason or other. You would think Olbermann would bloody Get Over It. It was the Clintonistas' right to push right to the convention if they'd wanted to-and they didn't. It wasn't much different than what Reagan did vs Ford in '76, and hey, things worked out okay in the end for RR now didn't they?

I think Hillary will likely: be a very good Sec of State, Olbermann will Never give her any credit for anything just because, and people will move on to something else sooner or later.

[ReaganDem]

How about Ted Kennedy in '80? Taking the fight to the convention - and then, this year, urging Hillary to get out early.

[NightAdder]

Um em. I think you're missing the whole point or ignoring certain realities behind the so called "drama" reporting about the Senator. The media is well aware of the fact the a large portion of the country has an unfavorable opinion about H.R.C. Most polling shows that. Many people are tired of her family's influence dominating every aspect of the democratic party and the political establishment in Washington. Just because the media picked up on this aspect of public opinion, it does not mean that the media is purposely stirring-the-pot. Are you saying that media should ignore the fact that many people will be upset if we repeat the politics of the '90's?

[pundit27]

NA - I think you're observant but conclude wrongly . . . the media don't "help create" the drama, or simply stir the pot, they (or at least some of the main outlets) choose to re-create and frame the context, which provides the drama -- instantly . . . to a certain degree, of course, the people around the Clintons may assist in the drama when it suits their purposes, but the Clintons themselves are playing hard ball with their own plans and ambitions and barack's team and can't worry too much about media hype at this point . . . .and yes, there is a huge population out there that views her skeptically

[Steve Kettmann - Huffpost Blogger]

Thanks for the comment, but not sure you've looked at the polls lately. In fact, what they show is that Hillary has gotten more popular, rather than less, in recent months. The CBS/NYT poll, for example, which is from September, puts her favorable rating at 51 percent and her not favorable at 35 percent. Sure, there is a segment of the population that has a negative viewpoint of her - many of the same people who are Sarah Palin's biggest fans - but even among people who do not view her "favorably," she is generally perceived to be competent and hard-working.
To your point about repeating the politics of the '90s, why the fear? We've elected a new president, Obama, who when he assumes office on January 20 is clearly going to be in charge and clearly leading the country forward. He's earned the right to pick the people who he thinks will work best with him. If he thinks Hillary is that person, isn't it prudent to assume he's a lot smarter on this point than I am or you are?

[jdona]

"Once she was out of the race, and convention coverage focused on a tiny minority of angry women Hillary supporters"
You missed the boat there, dude. Pumas are not a minority of angry women Hillary supporters. Pumas are men and women, we are Hillary supporters, but our beef is with the DNC and its dirty shenanigans, the caucus fraud, the illegal allocation of delegates, the abandonment of the principle of one person/one vote, and the overwhelming deafening sound of silence of the sexism directed at our candidate, and with the blatant, open warfare declared by DNC, the Obama campaign, the supporters of Obama, the Huffington Post, the Daily Kos, the Democratic Underground and all the other so called progressive blogs towards not only Senator Clinton, but to her supporters. As far as the drama angle, just go back and read the blogs here from the primaries, and you will see drama. The term Hillary Derangement Syndrome was coined from the total BS written on this blog and Daily Kos. And those "angry, minority women voters" you like to belittle? We aren't ready to make nice.

[JKKlingner]

You may not know it, but Steve Kettmann was (and is) a very strong Hillary supporter, and was (and is) behind her 100%. His point is about the media and how they covered the Democratic National Convention. And I think it's very well taken.

[Steve Kettmann - Huffpost Blogger]

Great to hear from you! We're not so far apart, you and I, jdona. But what are you arguing? I was saying that Hillary Clinton would be a great Secretary of State - as I wrote in a previous post, which you could find by clicking on my bio - and that it's a false argument to claim she wouldn't be good because of some "drama" factor associated with her. You're saying ... what? That she WOULDN'T be a good choice? Because of the drama?
As for my Pumas reference, it was in the context of media coverage - and most media coverage featured female members. I meant no disrespect to any male Pumas. I do, however, stand firm in my contention that it was always a minority of former Hillary supporters who were going to fail - in the end - to support the Democratic ticket.
And if you felt my post belittled you or anyone, I'm truly sorry - other than arrogant media people like Maureen Dowd, I did mean to belittle anyone. I respect your passion and your being involved enough to take the time to read and offer comment. But as for the anti-Clinon tone one sees out there, I'd argue the only way to do something about it is to make YOUR viewpoint known and to bring along others who also are pro-Clinton, and want to have their viewpoints heard as well; that might provide more balance