Just How Soft has Obama's Coverage Been?

by Taylor Marsh

Marshmallow soft.

Down pillow soft.

Baby's bottom soft.

So no one should be surprised that Obama had a a nightmare night. He finally got real questions for which he should have had ready answers. Over the last year Barack Obama has gotten a complete pass on his record, his life and everything associated to his political rise. In fact, if Senator Obama had been subjected to the scrutiny that Hillary Clinton has been subjected to he would have turned to ash by now.

So forgive me if all the blogospheric bellyaching permeating Democratic circles is not impressing me much. In fact, it's a laugh out loud moment.

Now don't get me wrong. I'm more than willing to blame the traditional media for piling on a Democrat, which they do often. But do these progressives now crying fowl really believe they could protect Mr. Obama, as his Democratic challengers did all last year, throughout the rest of this campaign? Asking a question about Rev. Wright? A question about William Ayers? The horror! Seriously, is Senator Obama so frail that he shouldn't be subjected to questioning that should have come a long time ago and will inevitably come in the general election? If nothing else and at the very least, everyone in the Democratic party should want to know how he's going to handle this stuff if he's our nominee. Because there can be no doubt that the wingnuts will lock and load Barack's greatest hits, then share them with the electorate in a cascade of negative gifts.

Mind you, this is questioning I've been doing for a year and getting excoriated for it. So I feel Charlie and George's pain. Going for substance isn't easy amidst the Political Idol crowd.

The facts are that the progressive community and Obama supporters have done their candidate no favors by the kid glove treatment they've applied to all things having to do with him and his record, including his associations. What happened last night is a result of one year of people ignoring reality. That's right, reality. Because the closer Obama got to the nomination and the general election, the curtain would eventually be pulled back on every event in his life, good, bad and horror show, which includes Rev. Wright.

This is the reason we lose elections.

What, did Obama's adoring fans think they could hermetically seal him and protect him from the meanies out there, then simply deliver him to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue because "he's the one?" Good grief.

If Obama would have been put through his paces last fall, he might have been past this by now. If his own campaign had faced up to his associations long ago, head on, he wouldn't be dealing with this now.

Again, I'd blame Gibson and Stephanopoulos, but it's not their fault that someone, anyone finally asked questions that have been out there for months and months. It's not tabloid to ask about Ayers any more than it was tabloid to question Bill Clinton about his past. Hillary's been asked about everything more than once, as they reload to ask it all over again.

Oh, and as for Keith He's No Edward R. Murrow Olbermann, don't send a sportscaster to do a political analyst's job. Talking to Howard Wolfson, with Olbermann whining about the questions about Ayers, isn't doing us any favors either. He's just giving Obama fans a false sense of security. It's as if the only people dealing with reality and preparing for the Republican attack machine is the Clinton campaign. Olbermann is on planet Zen if he thinks that Ayers won't be part of the dialogue come September. (You know, because you never roll out a new campaign in August.)

We need a nominee that can walk through fire. Whoever we offer up should be able to withstand anything, and I do mean anything. Because that's what always comes at Democrats, with the traditional press inevitably having a thing for the guy on the other side. Considering that guy will be John McCain, the hero worship will be out in force.

No Democratic politician in the last 20 years has gotten a softer introduction onto the national stage than Barack Obama. Nobody has gotten an easier ride to the top step of presidential politics either. He paid for it last night.

Follow Taylor Marsh on Twitter: www.twitter.com/taylormarsh

Comments

[arthuride]

Taylor has excellent points. It is the velvet-glove treatment that Obama continues to receive that will win him the nomination and cost the Democrats not only the presidency but the Senate and the House this November. There is no way I would ever vote for Obama. The next four years will be bad with McCain as president, but not as bad as they would be with an Obama presidency.

[bakossi]

PS If you really think it's going to be any better for your candidate, you're really naive. There are hundreds of Reverend Wrights, William Ayers, and the like in the Clintons' closet (in fact the Clintons even have a relationship with both Wright and the Weathermen!)--the notion that she's been "vetted" is laughable. There's a huge cast of characters in the Clinton post-presidency alone that haven't really been introduced on the national stage yet (because Obama, unlike Clinton, doesn't believe in this approach), and it's become clear that there's even all kinds of stuff still available from their years in office ("screw the working class" being a recent example) that can/will come out (because the Clintons have burned a lot of Democratic bridges over the years in their all-consuming selfishness). Obama's right--if Hillary is the nominee, there will just be a different set of video clips, and the idea that the American people have already rummaged through the Clinton baggage is belied by the fact that 50% of the American people say they won't vote for her under any circumstance--a number that hasn't, contra Mark Penn, budged at all, and the fact that her negatives in areas like honesty and trustworthiness have gone up sharply in the course of this campaign (to the point where she trails both McCain and Obama by 20+ points in this area). There's simply no evidence her base of support is any more solid than Obama's.

[samson24]

Sorry, your guy is going to lose the GE if he can even pull out the nomination. The Clintons have had their closets and baggage rummaged through over and over again. Nothing there, it's empty.
Obama has so many yet undisclosed questionable relationships, it's frightening. He is a train wreck
waiting to happen. Obama as the Democratic nominee? Maybe that will happen, but Obama as President? Will not happen. And, by the way, 55% of Americans say they won't vote for Obama under any circumstances. His negatives are rising everyday, and his honesty and trustworthiness
have gone up sharply as well. A generic democrat has higher electability ratings against McCain
than Obama. Hillary beats McCain.

[bakossi]

Taylor, if you really believe what you wrote I feel sorry for you. It's you, and people like you, not the working class, who are truly bitter. You claim that Obama and his supporters have been living in a substance-free zone, but if you think that what Barack--and Hillary--were asked about for the first fifty minutes in that debate were "real questions," you're the one who is living free of substance. You're suffering from a severe case of Stockholm Syndrome--you've bought into the Republican definition of how presidents should be decided, hook, line, and sinker. Let me ask you: did you think in 1988 that we should have elected Bush over Dukakis because he looked better in a tank? Did you think we should have elected Bush over Gore because Gore said he "took the initiative in creating the Internet" or didn't seem like much fun to have a beer with? Has it ever occured to you that the reason that Obama has come from nowhere to where he is now is that there are a large number of us--Democrats, Republicans, and Independents--who are tired of deciding elections this way, and aren't going to feel any differently in the general election? Has it occured to you that this might be the reason why Obama's numbers have gone *up* after Reverend Wright and "bittergate?"

[GrainOSand]

If Senator Obama had sought to blow up buildings, I would want to know.
If Senator Obama was himself a slum-lord, that would give me more than pause.
If senator Obama had ever said that he sees or showed signs that he believes America is not worthy of a leader that would lead all the people with no concern for race, religion, or culture of gun-ownership, or culture of religious worship, or culture of socially shunning those who may be different for whatever reason, I would have to rethink my position.

He has done none of these things but implications swirl. When something swirls I always ask from whence it came. Anything associated with the way FOX news, Rush Limbaugh, CNN, ABC, CBS, and MSNBC, etc.... deliver the truth is suspect by nature because they are not independent organizations without bills to pay, be they monetary or political debts. That's the problem with press and money. But circulation, production and distribution all have a monetary component. Thus we have today’s environment. These organizations either will commit to serving the master that is integrity first, profit second, or it will be an ever morphing hybrid with potentially less and less integrity as time rolls on.

My support is steadfast because what has come to me untwisted and un-filtered has been a most acceptable standard of excellence in capability. Intrigued, I will calmly and patiently await more.

[repsac3]

"Anything associated with the way FOX news, Rush Limbaugh, CNN, ABC, CBS, and MSNBC, etc.... deliver the truth is suspect by nature because they are not independent organizations without bills to pay, be they monetary or political debts."

And now one adds Taylor Marsh to that list. Thanks for nothing but anti-Obama spin now being echoed throughout the wingnut world. "Even Taylor Marsh at HuffPo says..."

Brilliant. Just brilliant.

[PioneerKing]

Taylor, the only canidate who has soft media coverage is your beloved Sen. McCain.

Taylor, unlike you, there are real journalists such as Christy Hardin who have the courage and wherewithal to be objective. So, Taylor, how about some substantive reporting on Sen. McCain, the person who is getting the fluffy coverage? Come on Taylor Sen. McCain's bio has led us to believe he can take the heat. Taylor, why don't you shine some light on the reality of who Sen. McCain really is?

"Americans deserve the whole truth -- not just the finger-licking-rib buddy treatment that the media has been giving McCain. Hypocrisy on a signature PR issue ought to be a big story, if the media were functioning properly in its role of asking the tough questions. But, as Media Matters shows, what we've been getting is the rare glimpse of good reporting on these issues surrounded by a whole lot of fluff and nonsense. We deserve better.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christy-hardin-smith/mccains-cronies-busting-m_b_97266.html

[rzan]

Hillary has a lot more baggage to expose than Obama. She brings negative attention on herself.

[EasternSon]

Finally. A great post. Maybe some people will feel remorse about allowing the unprecedented, nasty attacks on Hillary from the media and zealous partisans to have gone on for at least a year. Good at ya, Taylor Marsh.

[GeorgeP922]

Taylor Marsh, who is that?

Is she one of those republican strategists we see on tv?

[EspritDeVoltaire]

She writes on on soft coverage for those who belong to the helmet hair set.

[Jazz42]

Taylor Marsh.
Is a Clinton talking head. She come up for a breath of air occasionlly.

[forsmokey]

Hillary was tarred and feathered by the media and the right wing conspiracy. It was wrong to do it to her and it was even being done by her own party but I think Obama should have his turn. It's only fair because the Republicans will do it so let my candidate get her stab in the back in first. With a "I know Barack's a good man" and a smile.

Pssssssssssssssssssssssssss
I think I hear the air being let out of the Clinton campaign balloon.

[Lindy222]

This must be where the dwindling Clinton supporters gather.

And my goodness, you're up to four pages already! Must be some kind of record! :-)

[FogCityJohn]

"Going for substance isn't easy amidst the Political Idol crowd."

Ah yes, "substance." To Hill Shill Taylor Marsh, what was on display last night was substance. I understand why she would like it to be, because if she and her friends in the Clinton campaign can keep the discussion off the issues and on the kind of petty, negative, and mendacious swill that they've been putting out for the last few weeks, then Hillary might be able to avoid falling further behind in the race.

Of course, if the media had been breathing down Hillary's neck about her famous "cookies" comment or about her Bosnia lies, Marsh would claim that it's all sexism or, at best, media bias in favor of Obama. The fact that the media have barely mentioned those things gives the lie to the claim that the coverage has been unfair to Clinton. So Marsh continues to do things like promote Hillary's race-baiting use of the Jeremiah Wright controversy. And she's likely mystified at how large majorities of Americans see Hillary as both untrustworthy and negative. I'll give Marsh one thing, though. She doesn't mind being odd woman out. Every thoughtful commentator has panned how substance-free last night's debate was. I guess that to Marsh, mendacious vitriol is substance.

[zeph]

Right on Taylor!

You know, if O! fans had ever once helped us fight our long-time adversaries in Corporate Press when they attack and smear Hillary and everything Clinton, I might actually feel bad for them. But they cheered and encouraged the attacking of a fellow Dem when it benefited their golden boy.

I hope the turning of the tables will help O! fans remember, Corporate Press is not our friend and allowing them, encouraging them to attack ANY Dem will hurt us all in the end.

Welcome to our world, O! fans.

[hoodrat]

Ithink the Clintons do that well without help from O fans or anyone else. I criticize her assumption that she was a shoe in for the job - watched her and ol' hubby, and Radio Raheem(Wolfson) do the job of Repubs admirably. And I really criticize the Billary show for the outright lying that highlights the Clinton tears well. No different than the idiots in office now.

[jvarga]

Ok, we have a pretty high concentration of Senator Clinton supporters here, so I'm going to ask this again in the hopes that it might get an answer.

What was the reasoning behind voting against the ban on cluster bombing civilian populations? Note that it wasn't a total ban, just a limitation on where they could be used, given the failure rate of the sub-munitions to detonate upon deployment and the lethal legacy that they leave behind.

I know you guys are busy worrying about what Senator Obama's pastor said, or about him describing people as bitter, or his lapel pin, or about how some guy was acting when Senator Obama was 8 years old, but please for the love of God will someone explain Senator Clinton's vote on this matter? Or do people think a stupid lapel pin is more important than killing civilians?

[Marc1A]

What was the reasoning for voting for Dick Cheney's energy bill? What is the reason for not holding 1 hearing on Afghanistan? What is the reason for lying about not filling out that questionaire regarding a complete ban on handguns?
Btw, Obama has a bigger tie to Ayers than he's admitting. In fact, he seems to continuously distance himself from a number of shady characters. And as soon as you start asking him about it, he starts to cry that he's being attacked or that this is politics as usual. Since when is character not a requisite for becoming president. And how are you going to determine someone's character if the candidate is not properly vetted. You think the Republicans are not going to bring these issues up?

[jvarga]

Ok so what you're saying is that cluster bombing civilians is ok? I will concede that republicans won't bring that vote up since, shockingly, they voted against the ban as well.

[jvarga]

I will give you credit for being the first person to respond (I've asked this a number of times) even though you managed to not actually even try to address the question.

[jvarga]

Ok so no takers on this?

[drbala]

Dude, cluster bombing is a rarely used tactic and is usually used after deliberate considerations. In all of desert strom, it was used only twice. That was a poorly written bill, and almost all military brass was against it. If that had passed, an incidental civilian casualty (collateral damage in military speak) would have led to court marshalls by some overly ambitious military lawyer.

Maybe, she should have voted PRESENT like what Obama has done. But the danger is that, voting PRESENT is an implicit vote for the majority, and in this case it would have been bad if the majority had voted in favor of the ban.

Now, can you answer why Sen. Obama didn't care about conducting a SINGLE hearing on Afghanistan? What was his reason for voting in favor of Bush-Cheney Energy bill? Where was his judgment when he chose to stay in Rev. Wright's church for TWENTY years? (“Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes,” he said in his "speech" in Philadelphia.) Why did he miss the vote on Iran resolution (he could have at least voted PRESENT in his usual style)?

[sarana]

Thank you Taylor for this accurate and interesting look into Obama's time on easy street. I'm so proud of Gibson and Stephanopoulos for not kowtowing to the Kool Aid drinkers who would just as soon throw America under a bus than elect Hillary Clinton.

Clinton was fabulous in the debate. Obama needs to explain his relationship to Ayers. There is this.

http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/04/17/so-who-is-this-bill-ayers/

[frustratedinohio]

Thank you Taylor. I luv the picture of the cream puff. You are so right. These Obama supporters are big belly-aching babies. All day out here it's been "irresponsible broadcasting", "ABC is owned by Hillary and her right-wing machine". It's ironic because she can handle all of this. She could take on McCain. But she won't be the nominee. He will and he'll lose.

BTW, I just luv when you talk about Olbermann. He is such a whiner.