home

Obama's Important Advantage: The Media

Last week, Matt Yglesias wrote what I found to be a silly post in which he argued:

I have to say that I find the idea that Hillary Clinton has been "vetted" and thus we can expect "no surprises" in terms of damaging campaign information to be pretty unconvincing. . . [T]his almost seems like a calculated effort to bait me in bringing up things I really don't want to bring up. . . . There's tawdry BS to be dragged up on everyone -- she's no exception and shouldn't be pretending that she is.

Ridiculous to believe that there has not been concerted efforts to bring up everything about the Clintons in the past two decades. And the Obama campaign makes a similarly silly argument (though I can see why they do politically), as Josh Marshall notes:

I really hope the Obama camp is kidding when they say Barack is the most scrutinized candidate in the race. If they're not, they're living in a fantasy world that makes me question whether they're up to the rigors of a national campaign.

Josh is right of course but I think it underplays a very important advantage Barack Obama has - he is a Media darling. Before Obama supporters complain, they should realize this is a VERY good thing. Obama is almost certain to get better coverage than the other two leading Dem candidates, Clinton and Edwards, in a general election campaign. This is no small thing. Furthermore, if when the GOP Swift boaters go on the attack, Obama's status with the Media will put him in a much better position to fend off those attacks than any Dem candidate I can remember. This, to me, is a very strong argument for supporting Obama for the nomination.

< Obama On Healthcare In the Illinois Legislature | It's Official: Dems Co-Own The Iraq Debacle >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    The media will play favorites (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by andgarden on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 12:11:54 PM EST
    but it is also fickle.

    According to NYT today, front page, (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by oculus on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 03:37:08 PM EST
    Hillary Clinton has shifted to a kinder, gentler approach.  

    LIKEABILITY

    Of course (none / 0) (#20)
    by Maryb2004 on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 04:06:57 PM EST
    Just in time for the Christmas détante.  I wonder if any candidate is prepared to risk being called a Scrooge next week by not shifting into kinder and gentler.  

    Parent
    It is interesting, (none / 0) (#21)
    by oculus on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 04:26:27 PM EST
    because the "read" on Hillary Clinton is that she is always cold and calculating, heartless, I could say "shrill" [as that is what Frank Rich actually sd. Sunday].  The NH campaign rally I watched on C-Span did not match that "read."  But the NYT says it was a calculation by her campaign.  

    Parent
    IOW (none / 0) (#24)
    by squeaky on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 05:30:23 PM EST
    She is really cold and calculating, a b*itch. Reads like a hit piece to me.

    Parent
    We saw how it worked when Clinton went after him. (none / 0) (#2)
    by Geekesque on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 12:29:16 PM EST
    Major league "rubber and glue" action.

    I do think that Obama's biographical stuff has been a lot more thoroughly examined--that CNN had to send a reporter to his grade school indicates that kind of scrutiny (as did Kindergate).

    To put it another way:  What's more worthy of discussion in light of Bush's abuses of office--Obama's parking tickets or the whole Travel Office flap?

    Neither (none / 0) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 12:37:10 PM EST
    But the Media discusses what it wants to discuss.

    My point is it is GOOD for Obama that Obama is a Media darling.

    And if he is the nominee, it is good for Democrats.

    Parent

    Of course, his media darling status is in (none / 0) (#4)
    by Geekesque on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 12:39:35 PM EST
    part related to his campaign theme of ending divisiveness and polarization.

    Parent
    I think only to an extent (none / 0) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 12:44:33 PM EST
    Especially NOW, he can go and be muc`h more aggressive.

    Frankly, I think being the Hillary alternative is the main reason.

    Parent

    Hillary (none / 0) (#8)
    by BDB on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 01:09:30 PM EST
    I think it's absolutely true that Obama's media love is driven to a large extent by how much the Chris Matthewses and Maureen Dowds of the world hate Hillary Clinton and want to see her go down.  It helps that the media also don't like Edwards all that much.  It also helps that the conservative talking heads (e.g. Brooks) have decided to push Obama.  I can't decide whether it's because they think he's easier to beat or just that bipartisan talk naturally appeals to them more than, say, Edwards' fight the system spiel.

    If Obama can keep his media darling status, then I agree it's a big advantage.  I'm just not so sure he can keep it.  As I remember it, and certainly my recollection is kind of hazy, the media were fairly kind to John Kerry, especially compared to Howard Dean.  Sure there were a lot of horse race stories about Kerry's campaign tanking early on, but he did get credit for Vietnam service and Medal of Honor and his "electability" pushed.  Certainly the media were happy to push Kerry and kill Dean after Iowa.  None of that mattered, however, when it came to the General Election.

    The problem is that the mainstream media is basically lazy and they want a horserace.  So if Obama is seen as the leader, they'll want to take him down.  In addition, they'll be pushed smear after smear by the GOP and its operatives.  The primary stuff he's had to deal with will look like compliments compared to what the GOP is going to do.

    Now, it's true that both of these things are likely to be true of Clinton and Edwards and it could be worse for them because the media isn't as fond of them.  On the other hand, I can't believe there's a whole lot about either of them that would count as "news" at this point, particularly Clinton, whereas every new Obama revelation can be greeted as "news."  So while Hannity can talk about Vince Foster, I don't think that's going to move very many votes.

    I also think both Clinton and Edwards know what they're in for. I think it's also true that neither expects mainstream media love.  Whereas it has seemed to me that Obama has counted on that at times in this campaign. So far, it's come through for him, but does he have a plan if it doesn't?

    I hope the Obama campaign is just playing politics by saying he's been the most investigated.  Because if they're not, that scares the hell out of me.

    How all of these things balance out into who will do best in the General Election, I don't know.  I think you can make an "electability" argument about each of the candidates.  I suspect they are probably all true - that any of the candidates could win, but that doesn't mean any of them can't lose.  If that makes any sense.

    Parent

    One More Point (none / 0) (#9)
    by BDB on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 01:15:50 PM EST
    Clinton's campaign pushed her "inevitability" hard and we've seen how that's fallen apart and hurt her.  I think in the last week or so, we've started to see a change in strategy from Clinton, designed to prolong the primary process rather than sweep it.  Whether that will work or not, I have no idea.  But, despite some stumbles, she appears to have been able to change course.

    So much of Obama's campaign is an appeal based on who he is as a person.  That he's above politics, that he can bring people together.  When it works, it seems to work quite well.  But if it falls apart under GOP attacks, what does that do to his campaign?  It seems to me that when the person is the message, it can be a lot harder to change course.  

    Parent

    Obama is misleading (none / 0) (#38)
    by Cillalaw on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 11:54:23 AM EST
    Obama is now running ads saying he is the honest candidate. That isn't true if you consider misleading statements to be dishonest.  

    At a recent event I attended, he said, unlike some of his opponents, he didn't vote for the Iraq war. Well duh, he wasn't in the Senate. He also said he didn't vote for declaring the Iranian guard terrorists. No, he didn't vote at all because he didn't bother leaving the campaign trail to vote on something that important.

    I haven't been at one of his events where he answered any really tough questions, even in very small groups.

    Parent

    Your second paragraph: (none / 0) (#16)
    by oculus on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 03:34:32 PM EST
    my thoughts exactly.

    Parent
    This statement surprises me: (none / 0) (#18)
    by oculus on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 03:41:05 PM EST
    This, to me, is a very strong argument for supporting Obama for the nomination.

    Pretty close to saying, pull for the primary candidate who has the best chance to beat the Republican nominee; irrespective of whether one supports that Dem primary candidate's actions.  

    Parent

    My lips are sealed (none / 0) (#6)
    by commissar on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 12:53:38 PM EST
    I won't mention this to any of my conservative blog friends.

    They might get ahold of it, and draw the nasty, unwarranted, out-of-line conclusion that perhaps this media preference extends more generally to Dems rather than Republicans.

    But that would be wrong, so I won't do it. :)

    Very Very True (none / 0) (#7)
    by Anonymous Liberal on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 01:05:59 PM EST
    This is an excellent point, BTD, one that isn't made nearly often enough.  It's not fair, but there's no question that the press corps likes Obama better than either Clinton or Edwards and he is virtually certain to get better press coverage in a general election than either of them.  

    Moreover, if he is the nominee, the subtext to all coverage throughout the campaign will be the historical nature of the election. We'll be treated to countless stories about how we are on the verge of taking a giant leap forward as a country: the first black president.  The press will be openly rooting for him because they want to see that story unfold.

    If Clinton or Edwards is the nominee, there is a very real chance that it will be 2000 all over again, with many members of the mainstream press treating the Democratic nominee very unfairly (just look at people like Chris Matthews already).  

    Again, it's not fair to Clinton or Edwards but it is nevertheless true.  This is a major advantage Obama has.  

    Regardless of the Outcome (none / 0) (#11)
    by BDB on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 01:23:00 PM EST
    We have got to become better at pushing back against mainstream narratives about Democrats.  We have a fairly good set of candidates this year, but it is unacceptable in the long run to let the press choose the Democratic nominee.

    We should not be trying to appease Chris Matthews or use his attacks to try to boost our own preferred dem. candidate, we should be trying to bury him.

    Parent

    Amen! (none / 0) (#31)
    by aztrias on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 08:51:10 PM EST
    Politics is power. Why is this group of chattering citizens off limits to political and social pressure?

    Accommodating MSM is conceding defeat.  

    Holding the MSM accountable for their political involvement is democratic.


    Parent

    Edwards? (none / 0) (#12)
    by Jgarza on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 01:29:43 PM EST
    press corps likes Obama better than either Clinton or Edwards

    Edwards has gotten the ultimate free pass, last week he said he has been fighting against the war since the beginning, the same thing Bill said and got hammered for.

    His position on immigrants as was double talk as BTD pointed out. yet the media allowed him to attack her without a single question.

    He's flip flopped on a number of positions from 2004.  Plus the rhetoric he uses has absolutely no basis in what he did while he was in elected office.  

    He claims he will appeal to more parts of the country than Obama/HIllary, but he was already on a ticket and that didn't happen.  think of how he places in the SC Democratic primary, this is an example of a southern state he claims his southern accent will help him pick up, yet he is a distant 3rd among democrats?  Plus the real reason he didn't run for reelections in SC, is that he couldn't win, cant win reelection so i will run for pres?

    Then there was his debate performance against Chaney, he got killed!  how does he seem like a strong GE candidate?

    Parent

    Double edged sword (none / 0) (#10)
    by Jgarza on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 01:16:25 PM EST
    The media is a double edged sword for the Clinton's everything they do is magnified weather good or bad.  The idea that Obama is getting a free pass, is just whining.  Think of the hit piece on Obama in the WaPo.  How many times did we get to hear Bill attacking Obama on Charlie Rose, then the next day when he makes a gaffe, the bad coverage is unfair?

    How much free publicity has the Hillary I know campaign received. How many stories did they kill. part of her experience argument is that she knows how to leverage this in her favor.  it is clear she doesn't.

    seaking of (none / 0) (#13)
    by Jgarza on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 01:49:46 PM EST
    media bias check out this brave new films video of fox news attacking Obama and Edwards.

    You lost me on this one (none / 0) (#14)
    by koshembos on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 02:04:04 PM EST
    Big D.' assumptions and suppositions couldn't be more wrong. First, to support Obama you must be a Rockefeller Republican, but then you should vote for Romney. Second, I do agree that Obama has a free ride in the MSM and back wind in DailyKos, Huffington's, TFM and RBC. The latter will stay despite the absurdity of left of center Democrats supporting a right of center Democrats. The MSM, however, will switch on a dime. The long term likelihood of a free ride for Obama is zero. Look at 2000 and 2004; they always support the Republican! By the way, Obama is very susceptible to attacks and his story line leaks like a sieve.

    how is Obama (none / 0) (#15)
    by Jgarza on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 02:13:34 PM EST
    republican?  this makes no sense?  Rockefeller republican? the only argument anyone has gotten in over taxes, was when Clinton accused Obama of wanting to raise taxes on the "middle class" which by her definition is people that make six figures.

    By the way, Obama is very susceptible to attacks and his story line leaks like a sieve.

    By "story line" are you referring to this Madrasa Islamic Manchurian candidate garbage that the Clinton camp keeps trying to bring up?

    Parent

    Adding to this... (none / 0) (#29)
    by aztrias on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 08:27:35 PM EST
    MSM isn't fickle as much as they have a political agenda like the bogus Social Security Crisis.  

    Obama is popular because he supports that phony meme and will act to "fix" SS and screw with the most successful New Deal program.

    So Big Tent Dem is saying we need to get behind politicians who pander to MSM which has an agenda contrary to populist interests.

    Pahhh.

    Parent

    Charm Offensive (none / 0) (#19)
    by diogenes on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 03:57:13 PM EST
    I heard about Hillary's Charm Offensive on Rush Limbaugh yesterday; when Rush and the NY Times agree, it must be true.
    However, as Lincoln said, you can't fool all of the people all of the time...
    The ONLY "media darling" among the GOP is McCain.  If Rudy continues to implode and the GOP picks McCain, he might run as an outsider against Hillary as insider-and might win.
    I think that almost everyone here would have picked RFK over Humphrey, experienced or not.  RFK would have beaten Nixon.  Learn from history.  


    hmmm (none / 0) (#22)
    by taylormattd on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 04:43:23 PM EST
    Your point is very obviously true about the primary campaign coverage, but I'm not convinced it would be true during a general election.

    It seems most likely to me that the R nominee will be the "darling" of the media: tough, down-to-earth, manly, drink-a-beer-with-able, etc. Whereas Obama would then turn into the untested, unserious, wimp.

    Unless the nominee was Huckabee.

    Who knows.

    I think the media is treating Obama (none / 0) (#23)
    by oculus on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 05:06:28 PM EST
    gingerly due to his ethnic background.  If Hillary Clinton hadn't been excoriated previously, perhaps the media would do the same with her, although they certainly did not afford Geraldine Ferraro one bit of slack.

    Parent
    The "Michael Dukakis" Strategy of losing (none / 0) (#34)
    by aztrias on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 10:48:11 PM EST
    Michael Dukakis was the most popular Dem in the primary of 1988 and faired well against the field.  he ran a risk adverse primary campaign.

    Of course he tanked on a one-on-one vs Bush 41.

    Obama's the media darling NOW. When it's one-on-one the dynamics change. That Obama's popular with the Media isn't relevant to who is the best candidate.

    Parent

    Obama (none / 0) (#25)
    by squeaky on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 05:37:50 PM EST
    Is a super talent politician but unlike Bill Clinton, he has an aristocratic charm that makes the media think that they are royal handmaidens. This quality reminds me of JFK. He was also loved by the media and worked it to the hilt. He was perhaps the first real tv president.

    made me laugh (none / 0) (#26)
    by Jgarza on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 06:39:02 PM EST
    Is a super talent politician but unlike Bill Clinton, he has an aristocratic charm that makes the media think that they are royal handmaidens.

    He and his Family are pretty too!

    That Darn Media (none / 0) (#27)
    by Aaron on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 07:46:47 PM EST
    They just won't go away when they're supposed to, like when your campaign plants people in the audience to ask questions, or your campaign workers forward defamatory e-mails, or they have their people hint that they've got some kind of dirt on Obama, but have yet to produce anything.  Yeah I suppose the media should just give the Clintons a pass on all their dirty little underhanded tricks.

    The truth is, if Hillary's campaign would just stop screwing up then maybe they would get some good press.  And as for people being likable, well maybe if Hillary could show us that she actually is a real human being once in awhile, instead of some kind of programmed political robot, then maybe more Americans would be able to relate to her as a human being. A little sense of humor once in awhile would go a long way to helping her.  The American people want to know who their candidate, what kind of person they really are, and I've been watching Hillary Clinton for 15 years now, and I haven't got a clue who she really is.

    Notice that the Clinton campaign attacks the press for being too harsh on Hillary, and the next thing you know they go all touchy-feely kissy kissy.  Give me a break people please.  The press is supposed to be putting pressure on these candidates, that's their job. And they come up with these polls showing Hillary way ahead in New Hampshire, but what they don't tell you is that this poll assumes that only the old folks will be voting in the primary, I wouldn't count on that.

    Think about the people who pay the salaries in this corporate controlled media, you think they have more to lose if Hillary becomes president, or Obama becomes president, think about it. Think about who is the establishment candidate in this contest, and who represents reform? Reform always scares the people with the money.  They know Hillary, she's vetted, tested tried-and-true, a known quality to the people who pull the strings in this country.  They know that they will be able to count on her, Obama on the other hand, he could do anything, like actually give this country back to its people.  A thought that genuinely terrifies many.

    By the way Clinton is losing ground in California now, because the people on the West Coast are starting to pay attention to these early primaries, and they're taking a look at Obama, and they like him. Go figure.

    The Clinton campaign realizes that they have to shut down the Obama train in Iowa, New Hampshire and North Carolina, they can't afford to let the rest of America see him, because if they do, it'll be over for them.

    Dude (none / 0) (#28)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 07:52:56 PM EST
    You do realize I hope that the Obama campaign has done EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THESE THINGS:

    They just won't go away when they're supposed to, like when your campaign plants people in the audience to ask questions, or your campaign workers forward defamatory e-mails, or they have their people hint that they've got some kind of dirt on Obama, but have yet to produce anything.

    "Yeah I suppose the media should just give the [Obama campaign] a pass on all their dirty little underhanded tricks."

    You Cultists are freaking hilarious.

    Parent

    Evidence Armando? (none / 0) (#30)
    by Aaron on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 08:46:56 PM EST
    Yeah, the mainstream media is tossing out stories and evidence instead of publishing it, right?

    So let's see it, let's hear about it.  Why aren't you posting it on this blog, since it's become a thinly veiled arm of the Clinton campaign.

    Or are you going to relinquish all semblance of impartiality and credibility, right here and now?  :-)

    Parent

    Are you for real? (none / 0) (#33)
    by illissius on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 09:33:13 PM EST
    IIRC, BTD currently supports Obama (just not very strongly), and all the objections in these recent posts would favor Edwards, not Clinton (who is even worse on these fronts).

    Parent
    Like evidence would convince you (none / 0) (#36)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 02:02:47 AM EST
    It's there if you cared to look.

    Parent
    Don't forget one of the cardinal rules... (none / 0) (#32)
    by Aaron on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 08:54:25 PM EST
    ...of the courtroom.

    Never ask a question, or allow a question to be posed, that you don't already have the answer to.

    I  Know you've got an answer Armando, I'm just waiting for it.  :-)

    Parent

    The evil New York Times bashing the Clintons (none / 0) (#35)
    by Aaron on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 11:27:04 PM EST
    In Charity and Politics, Clinton Donors Overlap

    [The New York Times has compiled the first comprehensive list of 97 donors who gave or pledged a total of $69 million for the Clinton presidential library in the final years of the Clinton administration. The examination found that while some $1 million contributors were longtime Clinton friends, others were seeking policy changes from the administration. Two pledged $1 million each while they or their companies were under investigation by the Justice Department.

    Other donations came from supporters who had been ensnared in campaign finance scandals surrounding Mr. Clinton's 1996 re-election campaign.]

    -------------------------------------------

    [The $31.3 million donation, which was previously undisclosed, came from the Radcliffe Foundation run by Frank Giustra, a Canadian who has made millions financing mining deals around the world. Mr. Giustra has become a member of Mr. Clinton's inner circle, joining him on global trips and lending him the use of his private MD-87 jet.

    For weeks, Clinton Foundation officials had suggested that the $31.3 million contribution listed on its tax return did not come from a single donor. They then said it came from a single source, but declined to identify it. Wednesday afternoon, a representative of Mr. Giustra contacted The Times and acknowledged the Radcliffe contribution.

    This year, Mr. Giustra announced separate plans to give the Clinton Foundation $100 million, plus half of his future earnings from natural resource business ventures, for a joint project to spur economic growth in poor Latin American mining communities. Taken together, the contributions make Mr. Giustra one of the foundation's largest benefactors, if not the single largest.]

    ---------------------------------------

    [To limit the influence of any single donor, federal election law prohibits foreign donations to presidential campaigns and limits Americans to $2,300 per election. But presidential foundations are free to accept unlimited and anonymous contributions, even from foreigners and foreign governments. Indeed, the Saudi royal family, the king of Morocco, a foundation linked to the United Arab Emirates, and the governments of Kuwait and Qatar have made contributions of unknown amounts to the Clinton Foundation.

    "The vast scale of these secret fund-raising operations presents enormous opportunities for abuse," said Representative Henry A. Waxman , Democrat of California, who introduced a bill to force disclosure of presidential foundation donors. The bill passed the House, 390-34, in March but stalled in the Senate. ]

    ------------------------------------------

    [Early on, donations to the library caused perception problems. The day after he left office, Mr. Clinton was embroiled in a scandal over his 11th-hour pardon of the financier Marc Rich who fled the United States in 1983 to avoid tax evasion and other charges. A Congressional hearing later revealed that the pardon came after Mr. Rich's former wife, Denise Rich contributed $450,000 to Mr. Clinton's library.

    That spring, Mrs. Clinton co-sponsored legislation to publicly identify donors to foundations of future sitting presidents. She referred to that legislation in the debate three months ago, although the bill had died in committee.

    Beyond the revelation of the Rich donation, the names of some other donors emerged after the library opened in November 2004, when a New York Sun reporter found a partial contributor list displayed on a public computer there. The list, with neither amounts nor dates, disclosed donations from the Saudi royal family and other foreign sources. After the Sun story, the computer plug was pulled.]




    Whitewater Redux (none / 0) (#37)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 08:48:54 AM EST
    No one will listen now. That's an advantage for Hillary.

    Parent
    wow, what a lot of wasted column inches (none / 0) (#39)
    by cpinva on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 03:00:11 PM EST
    lots of "could be", "might be", "possibly", but when it comes down to it, nothing of substance.

    as far as the marc rich pardon, there was more to it than the times' article indicated, as i recall. while you're certainly free to form your own opinion of whether he should have been pardoned or not, having all the facts might shed a different light on it.

    lack of all facts is nothing new for the times however.

    so, when all is said and done, three pages, and what we have are 3 reporters holding a smudge pot. as BTD noted, these are the same clowns that brought us whitewater.

    Parent