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

[riconap]

The moment Obama came into view last night, we saw the face of a man who didn't want to be where he was. He knew beforehand that none of the other debates had dealt with Rev. Wright or "Bitterness" and that this one probably would. He knew that he would not be not able to launch his Axelrod Homily, where he commands the room and works the crowd. He knew that for the first time it would be he, not Clinton, whose feet would be held to the fire and he didn't like the feeling at all. The public already knows the platform differences and nuances between each candidate and now the public knows who can better survive the test of personal scrutiny and thereby hold form against an impending Republican onslaught.
Yes, the Clintons are street fighters and sometimes take dramatic liberty with their tactics, but that is precisely why Hillary would undoubtedly deliver a winning campaign and a productive presidency. Obama, as has been clarified for all to see. is nothing more than an elegantly cloaked "question mark" that gets larger with the passage of time.

[eli10]

Because Obama has no record of accomplishing anything, he has to try and talk his way out of all his political problems. Last night showed that he can't. I don't think anyone could. There's too much baggage, with nothing positive to counter it.

[MikeP33477]

Nice to see Taylor back! I haven't logged on to HuffPost in awhile for Obamaious reasons. I've been reading up on Sen. McCain as I am one of those Hillary supporters that will not vote for Obama, but after last night, I deleted the bookmark to his web site and cleared the RSS feeds to him! HILLARY IS BACK!!!!!!­!!!!!!!!!!­!!!!

I am watching MSNBC's Morning Joe as he seems to be the only one that isn't anti Hillary, and NBC has a poll as to who won the debate, and 78% texted in and said Obama did. How telling of how affected Obama's supporters are!

[dmj618]

What should be telling is that a republican shill like Joe Scarborough loves Hillary Clinton. As for so many people saying Obama won the debate, all it means is the negative campaigning isn't working and people saw through the unfairness of the debate and think that Obama handled it well anyway.

[sjl106]

ROFLMAO!!! The only ones claiming obama handled it good are you and other obama supporters. Not ready for prime time, if he is the nominee the Republicans will mop the floor with him.

[frustratedinohio]

I agree. Obama supporters are affected. It's a lasting side affect of the Kool-Aid. So you had Obamacitus for awhile. Glad you're back. We could use the help.

[wingman1]

So America and the Democratic Party needs a candidate to walk through fire. And what fire is that, specifically? Let me tell you: the only "fire" that everyone has their knockers in a twist about is the fire of Republican attacks in the general election. This debate wasn't about the candidates' ability to wisely and ably steward the USA through domestic or foreign policy, through global challenges, through the demands of these times. It was about the candidates' ability to field what has become the lingua franca of American politics: gutter attacks based on hearsay and innuendo, pioneered by Lee Atwater, perfected bgy Karl Rove and now, sadly, deployed by Hillary Clinton. The US mainstream media is obsessed with these attacks and the prospect of them. We have fallen to a situation where a democrat candidate is valued more for his or her ability to weather such attacks rather than his or her ability of effectively lead the country. The self-referential, calcified mainstream media perpetuates this.

What the mainstream media doesn't (yet) acknowledge, report or reflect is that people - voters, normal human beings outside of television and print media's out of touch elite - are fed up to their back teeth of all this nonsense and this year, in large numbers, are planning to vote on issues other than those propelled by negative attack ads. The game has changed. Taylor Marsh take note.

[sharpz111]

What is it with the condescending, patronizing attitude Obama supporters get from people like YOU?

Do you think we are all like children with some Panglossian belief that Obama is the next embodiment of Christ?

I am disgusted when I see comments like this (or subtle insult you might say):

"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."

Lots of Democrats, including myself, were disappointed with the performance of ABC last night because half the questions weren't substantive on the issues we want to hear about!

I can understand why some simulation of Republican attacks is useful for the general election, and by the way you failed to mention that Obama stood up to the questioning valiantly, but its a problem when it drowns out debate about other more important issues!

So we aren't naive, wide-eyed members of the occult, we understand the barrage the GOP will give Obama: we've seen it too (not forgetting Clinton...­oh yes there are skeletons in the closet there as well..by the bucket load).

We would like to take a look at what our candidates stand for because we can most certainly beat McCain on the issues in this election.

Stop talking down to me, and the millions of other supporters of Senator Barack Obama because I've damn near had enough of it.

[MoMule]

Go read TPM or Daily Kos and you will feel all better.

[Aengil]

See, the problem I have is that these really aren't issues. Serving on a board with a professor of English at Chicago University is not an issue. The past history of that professor is just that - past. It's an extremely tenuous link to Obama. Being part of an administration that actually pardoned members of the Weather Underground, that would seem to be a more direct link - yet apparently that doesn't count.

Which is why, basically, the impression I get is that it's Clinton who's getting an easy ride - effectively the argument seems to be "We already know about all her baggage, so it doesn't count." Huh? "Everybody already knows I'm a liar!" is hardly a good argument to be the best candidate.

There seems to be this idea as well, that both candidates should get equal amounts of negative coverage. That's absurd. The coverage should reflect the actual negatives and positives of the candidates. If one candidate has more negatives than the other, the coverage should reflect that - it shouldn't result in the media rummaging around trying to find something, anything, about the other candidate so they can blow it out of proportion and say "Look! We're unbiased!"

[dmj618]

That's what I don't get about the Ayers thing. Obama served on a board with him and they live in the same general neighborhood, they weren't BFF, it appears they don't really know each other just tangentially. I'm sure if people dug around enough they'd find unsavory characters and weirdos in any neighborhood, even Clinton's and McCain's, but so what?

[LDW]

No, they SOCIALIZED together. Went to each others' houses. They were (are?) FRIENDS. For lots and lots and lots of years.

[ruffmama]

Uh...those were REAL questions?

[TeresaInPa]

hang in there Taylor, the fact that the guys think you should be nicer to poor Obama is hysterical.
Why is it that they always think women should shut up and sit down.

[dill]

Honey, you seem to imply that all of the pro Obama comments here have been made by men. Trust me, there are quite a large number of women who have been completely turned off by Hillary and her kitchen sink (and toilet) strategy. What we want are discussions of policies and how the candidates plan to repair the damage Bush has done to this country, not some silly discussion about how Obama sat on a charity board with someone who was a Weatherman 40 years ago and how he is somehow tainted because of the association.

TheresaInSC

[SamiNJ]

Anti-Hillary woman checking in! Could that post have been more presumptio­us?... yeah, it's only guys who support Obama. How could a woman NOT want Hillary to be the candidate? Makes no sense. Unless of course you THINK about it.

[skidz12]

If we thought she cried in New Hamshire just weight until the convention

[Disparaged]

"We need a nominee that can walk through fire"! Well Taylor Marsh, we have a candidate who can walk through fire and his name is Barack Obama. If you think for one second that HRC has, even in the slightest, a small chance of being 'elected' as the Dem nominee, you better rethink your position. Why in God's name would the american public want a LIAR "leading" our citizens and our country? The problem with the media is that they have NOT vetted HRC for the past 8 years, so don't try to tell me that she has even been looked at recently and certainly NOT like Obama has been. Furthermore, when she was vetted at back in the 1990s, we all saw exactly who she was (the most sellfish LIAR) - out for herself and Bill and 'screw the rest of us' because she felt we did not belong in her (their) elitist level. The media need to take a HARD LOOK at her and start telling it like it really is instead of pussy footing around her and WJC (they are not gods). The american people (of whom I am one) already realize that the Clintons are just seeking more fortune and fame, but they will not get it from me because I NEVER want LIARS AND CHEATS running my country or tellling me lies - I've had enough of that from Bushco and enough of that from the Clintons! Start vetting the Clintons NOW!

[Faye12]

HELLO - The media has beat up Hillary for 14 months and then add on 30 years!!! This is the first time someone asked Obama a question since the media has babied him all these months.
This is just the beginning. Get use to it. This is for the highest office in the land. It isn't for STUDENT COUNCIL.

[AlejandroK]

The press has all the right in the world to question Obama in the BitterGate and now that Obama worked for terrorist William Ayers. He said he was 8 when Ayers bombed New York. Nice try. But he was 30something when he served on a board with Mr. Ayers in the 1990’s, the Woods Foundation, which was a paid, underlined PAID directorship position. They worked together, attended fundraisers together, Ayers held fundraisers and was a contributor to Obama’s Chicago’s campaign, plus they are neighbors and visited each other quite often. Enough said. This relationship deserves being vetted. As an adult Obama made the decision to work with a terrorist. This is a legitimate issue, the judgment and associations of the possible nominee. Its goes straight to the reason why democrats have lost the last two elections. It is fair to argue Obama’s condescension to the small town folk because it goes directly to issues like religion, xenophobia, gun ownership and culture. And his associations with Farrahkan, Wright, Ayers and Refko should be fully vetted.

[nancy50]

The Obama camp's outrage over last night's debate, is a direct result of the media being too soft on Obama for months. They have not had to deal with the slanted "news" stories, the hurtful and misogynistic remarks by people like Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann. Basically , the job of POTUS is tough, if you're going to whine about a debate being too tough, consider how tough the Republicans are going to be on you.

As for Olbermann, by his daily vitriolic and hubris remarks, he is single handedly insuring victory for the Republicans. He is creating the great divide between the Obama followers and the Clinton supporters. It's going to be very difficult for the party to unify after hearing all the nasty remarks he has spewed.

[frustratedinohio]

You have a good point about Olbermann. This stuff is dividing us.

[Gibbons]

Thanks for a great post.

[Palito]

great article.

Really, It seems like Obama fans have never witnessed how the media treats the Dem candidates.
The absurdity of all this is to see the same "progressives" who cheer when the media ridicules and bashes HIllary Clinton on a daily basis, now complaining when the media turns the heat on their candidate. Did they really think that Obama would get a free pass all the way to the WH? Don;t they know by now that all Dem candidates get al-gored and swifboated ?

[rss]

Thanks, Taylor. It was about time but it might actually be too late. I always thought Hillary was already running against the Republicans and the rabid conservatives from day one. In Iowa, the same conservatives who voted for Huckabee are the ones who voted against Hillary and therefore, for Obama and John Edwards. After that, the rest was predictable. It is in fact surprising that Hillary has done so well.

But as predictable as the Republicans and conservative hacks have been, it is remarkable how much the media and a lot of Democrats went along. There was an astonishing Meet The Press segment earlier this year with both Peggy Noonan and Maureen Dowd and a perpetually smiling Tim Russert tearing into the Clintons that was very emblematic of the type of coverage and opinion that was arrayed against Hillary. Noonan and Dowd went on to respctively build up Obama and tear down Hillary in their columns for the rest of the season. The whole media circus was so blatant that some actually looked in the mirror and didn't like what they saw. But it is too late. Regardless of who gets nominated, the Democrats will have conspired with the enemy to lose the general election.

[dmj618]

You do realize that makes no sense at all? A person can't attend two caucuses in one night, so the ones who voted for Huckabee couldn't possibly also vote against Hillary unless you think the entire state is in the tank for Huckabee and there was a conspiracy for half to attend the republican caucuses and half to attend the democratic ones. And democratic caucuses are attended by democrats, no republican would invest that kind of time and effort to be a spoiler, unlike a primary where you just go into a booth and vote for Hillary so McCain can blow her away in the general, "operation chaos" style.

[rss]

You do realize that Republicans are not the only ones who happen to be conservative.