Further Evidence That Obama Is A Media Darling

A few days ago, Jake Tapper of ABC ran this false story:

ABC News has learned that the campaign of Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., has registered the names of two Web sites with the express goal of attacking her chief rival, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill. It's the first time this election cycle a presidential campaign has launched a Web site with the express purpose of of launching serious criticisms on a rival.

(Emphasis supplied.) It is false because as the story itself states, no site had been launched and John Edwards launched an attack site against Hillary Clinton previously. No correction has been made by ABC. It is egregiously bad jounrnalism. There is no question that, as Howard Kurtz reported, the Beltway Media detests Hillary Clinton.

But I also think there is strong evidence that Barack Obama is the Beltway Media darling. For example, consider this Obama "attack" site. Think Jake Tapper will run a story on that? Me neither. How about Obama's planted question?

In an online posting Monday, ABC reported that an Obama volunteer wearing a press pass asked the candidate a friendly question about tax policy at an Iowa event. But several of the assembled reporters huddled and concluded that it was not a story, one of them said. Clinton faced a storm of media criticism over a similar planted question.


Of course all the campaigns do what they do as do all of the pols. But there is not question that Obama is the Media darling. Consider some of Edwards' coverage. It has been ridiculous at times. Obama has had almost universally favorable coverage. Some say it is because of the fanatical anti-Hillary bias in the Beltway Media and that it will not last into a general election. I think that only explains part of it.

I also think it will be difficult for the Media to turn on a dime and be brutally against a historic Presidential candidate. Obama is this cycle's Media darling. This is a good thing.

< Geraldine Ferraro's Campaign Chief Says Hillary Will Prevail | Obama's Changed Positions on Issues >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Come on now (none / 0) (#1)
    by RalphB on Sat Dec 22, 2007 at 08:48:52 AM EST
    anyone who watched the '04 campaign should know that the media can turn on ad dime.  As much as I liked Howard Dean as a candidate, he was built up in the larger public mind by media coverage which then tore him apart in the end.  The same thing will happen with Obama.  They'll build him up, maybe get him the nomination, then rip him to shreds.

    The best thing to happen to the democratic party will be if they turn before the nomination, then we might get the best candidate for a change.  I want a vetted candidate this time around.

    They've Already Started (none / 0) (#2)
    by BDB on Sat Dec 22, 2007 at 10:49:15 AM EST
    Media Matters.  Clinton may have come out worse, but Media Matters is right that Carlson and Matthews have been using the "cocaine" and "Hussein" stuff (hey, that almost rhymes) to hurt both Clinton and Obama.

    I do think whether Obama keeps his media darling status depends on who gets the Republican nominee.  Other than Fox, I don't think the media like Guiliani much.  But Huckabee and McCain are also something of media darlings and I'm not sure Obama wins that lovefest.  He is a democrat with good policy positions.  

    Wonder if Eric Clapton has a song in (none / 0) (#3)
    by oculus on Sat Dec 22, 2007 at 12:36:39 PM EST
    the works?  

    In my view, Hillary Clinton's (none / 0) (#4)
    by oculus on Sat Dec 22, 2007 at 12:37:36 PM EST
    campaign is also "historic."  That can't be the reason the media is so enthralled by Obama.

    historic only that it entrenches dynastic politics (none / 0) (#5)
    by ceti on Mon Dec 24, 2007 at 04:47:00 AM EST
    Hillary will never be likeable to the media, nor actually a majority of the American public. She is seen and has demonstrated how calculating she really is. While Republicans think of her as a Liberal which she ain't (and thus tarnishing all Liberals with the Clintonian corrupting brush), she is has demonstrated her pro-war, pro-corporate views all too clearly in this campaign.

    She is also quite right-wing, opportunistic, as well as militaristic, so would be very bad news for the US. Kind of like a slightly gentler Margaret Thatcher.