Media Darling

Bob Somerby writes:

Readers! It may be hard for some Dems to believe, but an increasing number of mainstream scribes are now hacking away on your side! . . . Something else happens when hacks take your side—Josh Marshall rushes to praise their hackistry.

Somerby's mistake is that the Media scribes are taking Obama's side, not the Dems' side. Obama is the Media Darling. Not "a Dem." I think this lasts through his probable battle with McCain, which must come as a great shock to the "Straight Talk Expresser." But there it is.

Is it enough for Obama to win in November? I do not know, but it sure don't hurt.

Discussing the same Somerby piece, Digby worries the love affair won't last.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

Comments now closed.

< Hillary and Obama Campaign in Puerto Rico | Overnight Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Is it enough to win when 25% or more of (5.00 / 8) (#1)
    by MarkL on Sat May 24, 2008 at 07:52:25 PM EST
    Democrats are planning to vote against him or stay at home? I can't see how.

    Don't forget those that voted for obama during (5.00 / 5) (#3)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat May 24, 2008 at 07:55:34 PM EST
    the primaries and now are suffering buyer's remorse.

    obama's FREE PASS EXPRESS is going to be demolished by the (supposed) STRAIGHT TALK EXPRESS!!!!


    I have a plan, in that case. (5.00 / 13) (#5)
    by MarkL on Sat May 24, 2008 at 07:58:25 PM EST
    I will make new accounts at the Obama blogs and write from the position of an Obama supporter who is trying to get over the pain of the loss.
    I will have handles like "ObamaRising" and
    "ILoveObama". I will be SOOOO smooth---no one will guess that I am actually a Hillary supporter.

    Mark, be sure to express concern (5.00 / 13) (#7)
    by Kathy on Sat May 24, 2008 at 07:59:58 PM EST
    for Obama's legacy and the need for him to save face.

    Well, I believe Hillary is up to the (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by MarkL on Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:03:50 PM EST
    task, unlike Obama.
    Obama insults the legions of Hillary voters by merely trying to sweet talk them now.

    sounds like a plan! (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by stillife on Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:10:33 PM EST
    Trolling 101 requires the pretense of being a former Hillary supporter who has seen the light, so I'll post as "OverTheHill".  I will testify that I have been turned off by her negative campaigning, ignorant supporters and evil quest for power.

    yup pretend to be a hillary supporter (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by hellothere on Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:13:39 PM EST
    however never ever say anything nice about her. naw, say somethng nice like her hair was actually done this time. otherwise, you'll be spotted.

    I'll add something (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by stillife on Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:19:17 PM EST
    about cleavage, makeup and ankles.  Oh, and the cackle!  It makes me cross my legs - and I'm a woman!  

    Whose "evil quest for power"? (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by Billie Jean on Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:41:39 PM EST
    Oh, come on.  With all the race-baiting and "harry and louise" ads and the middle-finger-scratching-the-nose, and his fevered, beatle-mania-type supporters....and what in the world is so "evil" about Hillary's run for the white house.  Is McCain having a fit of "evil quest for power"?  Is Obama?  You would think a freshman senator would take a few years to...uh....learn how to write legislation, chair committees, and other such trivial matters, before running for POTUS....but, no, he's not on an "evil quest for power", Hillary is, because she's a WOMAN, and any woman that isn't satisfied running a library program and baking cookies has to be evil!  Right?

    I think you missed (none / 0) (#120)
    by stillife on Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:50:12 PM EST
    my irony.

    lmao.... (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:22:03 PM EST
    Hah!! (none / 0) (#25)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:12:24 PM EST
    If anyone can do it, you can, MarkL!

    At the risk of being... (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by rottenart on Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:05:55 PM EST
    ...flamed into oblivion, I fear it is the same attitude that Hillary supporters decry in Obama's base that will be problematic in this instance. For all the talk here of not supporting Obama should he win or even voting Mccain, don't you think Obama's base feels the same way? The bottom line is that whomever wins the nod will need the others' support, like it or not. If Hillary were to somehow pull it off, she'd need the record numbers of new Dems that Obama has produced. After reading some of the comments on this blog and others, I fear that this fact is being lost in the zeal...

    Welll, actually the polls don't show that. (5.00 / 6) (#15)
    by MarkL on Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:06:47 PM EST
    It's the Hillary voters who won't vote for Obama---not vice versa.
    Make of that what you will.

    Yes... (none / 0) (#27)
    by rottenart on Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:12:50 PM EST
    I DO make of that what I will... ;)

    It's because we have CLASS--- (5.00 / 5) (#33)
    by MarkL on Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:14:49 PM EST
    middle class, that is:)

    Exactly! This has been obvious all along (5.00 / 4) (#104)
    by cymro on Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:41:15 PM EST
    Candidates win by capturing the center of the political spectrum, not by alienating the voters in the center. This is what is so hard to comprehend about the Obama supporters -- why is this simple fact not obvious to them?

    They all claim to be smart, educated, and politically astute and yet they seem to have this HUGE blind spot. How can they possible imagine that Obama could defeat McCain when (for the GOP) he is the perfect choice to capture the center.


    You're So Important n/t (none / 0) (#185)
    by kaleidescope on Sat May 24, 2008 at 10:05:07 PM EST
    No (5.00 / 7) (#56)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:22:39 PM EST
    she wouldn't need the record number of "new dems". Many of these "new dems" were Obama's "dems for a day" and probably will vote for McCain or stay home. Hillary has a broad enough demographic base that she isn't dependent only on AA's or only on upper income whites.

    Obama's problem is that he has only two demographics. He has lost the center and the center will go to McCain. You can't just win with the left wing of the Democratic party.

    Hillary has not tried to run of the base either. Even though she has lost AA's 9-1 she has still been trying for their votes. Obama hasn't been trying for anyother votes outside of his demographics.


    As a former Dean operative (5.00 / 7) (#93)
    by txpolitico67 on Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:37:09 PM EST
    (I was a Deaniac YES...operative word being WAS),
    Dean was also given a lot of credit for bringing in new voters to the fold.  And he did.


    those voters were primarily YOUNG.  I was registering people to vote in HIGH SCHOOLS.  I was at flea markets registering Hispanics who's children were about to be or of voting age.

    The youth vote ALWAYS spikes.  Doesn't anyone remember Bill Clinton and Tabitha Soren from MTV and Rock The Vote?  Young people will always come out and register and vote the primary.  But they won't come back in November:  they're too busy getting ready for finals, the holidays...and it's a CHORE getting them to the polls.  You have to practically turn off their Playstations and throw water on them to move.

    So for all those "new voters" (that Dems see practically every election cycle), I wouldn't put too much stock into them.  Rock stars and movie stars help some (like when Bruce Springsteen had a jillion people in WI for a free concert to help Kerry), but the youth vote does NOT translate to electoral victories.

    I stand to be corrected if someone can provide incontrivertible evidence to the contrary.


    Objectively speaking (5.00 / 8) (#207)
    by gandy007 on Sat May 24, 2008 at 10:32:13 PM EST
    exit polls, national polls, and otherwise, consistently show that at least 10%+ more of Clinton's supporters say they will not vote for Obama than the converse.

    Let's not let facts interfere too much.

    He needs to do just a tad more work and not expect us to flock back to fawn over him or even hold our noses, gag, and pull the lever for him.  I'd say he needs Hillary's folks a lot more than vice versa.

    Here's one 44 year Yellow Dog Democrat that's a lost cause and that's not my age, it's the number of years I've voted for Democrats through thick or thin.

    But then, I'm probably just a latent racist, just took that long for it to show.


    This is an argument for (none / 0) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:08:49 PM EST
    a Unity Ticket.

    Now where have I read that before . . . ?


    I don't think it will happen... (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by Teresa on Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:13:38 PM EST
    Dan Gerstein, a Democratic strategist and Obama supporter, said Clinton ``turns off a decent chunk'' of voters, especially independents, so choosing her as vice president would be inconsistent with Obama's central theme: ``He has spent the last several months saying that she is what's wrong with Washington.''



    Dan Gerstein (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:15:38 PM EST
    is a nobody in Obama World.

    If he was commenting about what Joe Lieberman is going to do, then he has cred. But on Obama? He knows nothing.


    Obama (5.00 / 8) (#68)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:26:14 PM EST
    would have to do a flip flop then. His campaign has already put out numerous statements about how they don't want her. Again, this really doesn't help Obama. Top of the ticket. Top of ticket. Always remember that rule. Obama's problems are Obama's. Hillary can not solve them.

    KO and Jonathan Alter (5.00 / 4) (#143)
    by zfran on Sat May 24, 2008 at 09:06:49 PM EST
    were warming their hands discussing Hillary's latest blunder (Ha)yesterday and at the end of it KO said so with this, there is absolutely no chance of Hillary being picked for vp now, and Alter shook his head, defeatedly and said no chance. So I guess BTD, that's it.

    And look at what the weasel had to say (none / 0) (#161)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat May 24, 2008 at 09:40:40 PM EST
    Does anyone know if there's (5.00 / 4) (#163)
    by zfran on Sat May 24, 2008 at 09:44:42 PM EST
    any chance she would run as an independent?

    Can't see her doing that (5.00 / 4) (#164)
    by RalphB on Sat May 24, 2008 at 09:46:38 PM EST
    but I'd be happy as a clam if she did.  :-)

    There's (5.00 / 5) (#171)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat May 24, 2008 at 09:52:43 PM EST
    a burgeoning movement for her to do that. Rasmussen has even been polling on it.She takes 1/2 of the party from the start.

    1/2 the party (5.00 / 4) (#186)
    by RalphB on Sat May 24, 2008 at 10:05:21 PM EST
    plus a lot of GOP women would be formidable.

    it is 1/2 of the party that won't be in (5.00 / 6) (#210)
    by hellothere on Sat May 24, 2008 at 10:35:52 PM EST
    the tank for obama no matter whose darling he is.

    where have you read it before? (5.00 / 8) (#37)
    by Kathy on Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:15:46 PM EST
    Maybe you read it backward when you glanced and the mirror to check out the new tattoo on your hiney?

    Haha!  You have been calling for a unity ticket forever.  I think it's (1) too late and (2) never going to happen if Obama is at the top of the ticket.

    Clinton would do it because she's a politician and she knows to do the politically expedient thing.  Obama doesn't think he needs her.


    Heh (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:17:11 PM EST
    Please vote for Hillary :) (5.00 / 2) (#169)
    by ghost2 on Sat May 24, 2008 at 09:51:41 PM EST

    New argument for why she shouldn't. (5.00 / 4) (#167)
    by ghost2 on Sat May 24, 2008 at 09:50:56 PM EST
    VP brings nothing for Hillary, nothing.  In fact, it diminishes her stature, not elevates it.  She has lived in the White House in a ceremonial post. Why would she want to go live in the Observatory in another ceremonial post, and with far less impact than the first time?

    Having watched Obama this campaign, I can say his arrogance is like That of Bush.  After winning, he would snob Hillary, and she'll have no role in policy making, etc.  She can be enormously effective in Senate.  

    Hillary wouldn't do it b/c she is a politician.  Although that's what the media would say everyday, and would add how 'poor' Obama was forced to choose her.  

    The only reason she'll do it is that she genuinely cares about democratic chances, and may believe that she may affect policy. On the other hand, will Kerry, Daschle and other old f&&ts be willing to have her in a position of power and reduce their own?  Remember they backed Obama from the beginning.  He is essentially their candidate, chosen to get rid of Hillary (and nothing else).  They will hate that.

    Yes, to the principles, it's a lose-lose situation.


    It's the only way. (none / 0) (#24)
    by pie on Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:11:57 PM EST
    Otherwise, he's toast.

    yeswewill- according to all the polling (5.00 / 8) (#22)
    by kenosharick on Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:11:30 PM EST
    that I have seen, many millions more of Hillary's supporters (including me) would not vote for him rather than the other way around.

    She can take the GE (5.00 / 6) (#28)
    by txpolitico67 on Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:12:56 PM EST
    because she has FAR MORE crossover appeal than Obama.

    Despite what the media wants to shove down our throats, more of the Clinton side not voting Obama will hurt him more than his side not voting for her.  HE's not the one getting the crossover votes, SHE IS.

    And spare me the Rush Limbaugh angle. It doesn't differ one bit from his "Dem For A Day" schtick.


    yeswewill08....you know you aren't a very good (5.00 / 3) (#53)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:21:03 PM EST
    troll....transparent as all hell would be a good description.  If obama is paying you, you should give him his money back.

    You mean all those new, young voters? (5.00 / 5) (#58)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:22:43 PM EST
    The feeling that Obama has manipulated, cheated, and stolen the nomination is widespread. Sometimes karma, sometimes just a big backfire, but almost always we don't get to keep what we haven't earned.

    If Hillary Somehow wins... (5.00 / 5) (#90)
    by Billie Jean on Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:35:10 PM EST
    I agree that even if a miracle occurs and the supers flip for her, the backlash will be unbelievably ugly.  It makes me almost relieved that Obama is the "presumptive nominee".  But one thing is certain - Obama cannot win without a strong showing of support from the Clinton camp and he and his followers have proven to be so alienating and divisive I can't see alot of them voting for him, no matter how dreadful McCain is.  Personally, I think McCain is going to win in November.  I'm focusing my prayers on winning more democratic seats in congress, at this point.

    Look at it this way: (5.00 / 9) (#99)
    by Kathy on Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:39:49 PM EST
    Kerry didn't tick off and insult the working class and he STILL couldn't win them.  In this day and age, presidents do not win without the white working class.  Kerry could not energize them to get to the polls.  Obama will keep them in their seats or drive them to McCain.

    And they don't win without women, which (5.00 / 9) (#112)
    by Anne on Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:46:10 PM EST
    is going to hurt Obama more than he realizes if he is the nominee.

    It is not the fault of we Hillary supporers.. (5.00 / 9) (#166)
    by AX10 on Sat May 24, 2008 at 09:48:27 PM EST
    or Hillary if Obama loses in the fall.  Obama will be mostly to blame because he decided to divide the party based upon income and race.
    Everyone is entitled to vote for whom they want to.

    Ding! (5.00 / 3) (#138)
    by Pacific John on Sat May 24, 2008 at 09:04:39 PM EST
    The light just went on. It's pretty obvious that Obama at the top of the ticket is another Dukakis, no matter who is VP. This is obvious to all outside of the Team Obama people who willfully overlook Obama's weakness with middle class voters.


    Hillary, the happy warrior, would be happy to offer herself up as VP. She has nothing to lose, and everything to gain. She gets credit for healing rifts, doing all the right things, AND she is guaranteed to be 2012's Edwards (tho' with a hell of a lot more meat her resume).

    I'd be good with that.

    But first, we win the popular vote.


    Yes, she will be the same or greater problem (2.33 / 3) (#101)
    by riddlerandy on Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:40:03 PM EST
    The Hillary is more electable argument ends up being quandary when it is played out.  With Obama in the cross-hairs of the RW death machine, his GE numbers are down.  With Hillary not the focus of the GOP, and folks asked in the abstract if they prefer over McCain, she does well.
    The problem comes when this is taken out of the abstract.  For Hillary to have a chance to capture the nomination, she is going to have to engage in a bare-knuckle fight from now until August.  If those tactics succeed and she is the nominee, she will have torn the party up so much as to guarantee that she cannot be elected.  

    So the idea that, in the real world, here electability is better than Obama's doesn't hold water.


    Trolls post the same content repeatedly (5.00 / 8) (#125)
    by cymro on Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:52:24 PM EST
    Spare us any more repititions, it was not worth reading once.

    Wow, a little reality (1.00 / 3) (#168)
    by riddlerandy on Sat May 24, 2008 at 09:51:30 PM EST
    really upsets your day, huh?

    Ha. (5.00 / 2) (#209)
    by Marco21 on Sat May 24, 2008 at 10:34:10 PM EST
    Is there room for originality in your reality? Guess not.

    Too funny.


    Great catch!!!! (none / 0) (#151)
    by Shainzona on Sat May 24, 2008 at 09:16:37 PM EST
    She's losing, not gaining, support (1.00 / 2) (#94)
    by riddlerandy on Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:37:31 PM EST
    " A co-chair of Hillary Clinton's National Hispanic Leadership Council has defected and pledged his support to Barack Obama, Clinton's rival for the Democratic presidential nomination. He was joined by another California superdelegate.

    The defections came as a new poll showed that Obama would handily defeat John McCain in California in November -- and do so by a larger margin than Clinton would.

    U.S. Rep. Dennis Cardoza, whom Clinton named to his Hispanic leadership post in December, shortly after Cardoza announced he would support her for the nomination, announced he was switching sides on Friday. "I believe that Senator Obama will inevitably be our party's nominee for president," Cardoza, a Democrat from Merced, in the San Joaquin Valley, said."


    What a stupid reason. (5.00 / 1) (#226)
    by echinopsia on Sat May 24, 2008 at 10:57:35 PM EST
    "I believe that Senator Obama will inevitably be our party's nominee for president,"

    Bob's observation (5.00 / 9) (#2)
    by andgarden on Sat May 24, 2008 at 07:52:43 PM EST
    about the person who kidnapped Josh Marshall stands, however.

    he has the press now (5.00 / 13) (#6)
    by Kathy on Sat May 24, 2008 at 07:58:59 PM EST
    and he still can't wrap it up.  He has all the money he could possibly raise, and he still hasn't wrapped it up.

    How many more assists that just miss the mark can this guy get before he falls flat on his face?

    The thing about your media darling theory is this: if he loses the media, he is dead in the water.  More than dead; he is pulverized.  He's proven he can't take even a little bit of heat without withering.  

    What happens if it's taken away?  Clinton has shown time and again that she can battle it through without the media.

    It's the same thing with the electoral map: why take the risk when you can go with the sure thing and WIN?

    This is true (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:00:09 PM EST
    If he loses the Media, I believe he loses. I think he won't.

    Then the McCain (5.00 / 6) (#18)
    by pie on Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:09:12 PM EST
    campaign will just have to work harder.

    Seriously, there is no there, there.  Obama is the least qualified of the three candidates.  

    He announced he was running for president in early May, 2007. He's had a year to make his case, and he hasn't done it.

    Too late.


    When u put it like that (5.00 / 3) (#192)
    by txpolitico67 on Sat May 24, 2008 at 10:11:26 PM EST
    Obama's candidacy looks bad.  

    I'm not so sure he'll keep them after seeing (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by Teresa on Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:10:00 PM EST
    the reaction to the NY Times article about McCain and the lobbyist/lady friend. Have you ever seen the rest of the media rise to a Democrat's defense like it did for McCain?

    He will lose (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by TheViking on Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:11:18 PM EST
    the Media if becomes the Nominee and moves in to the GE race.

    That's a guarantee.

    Let's not forget for one minute that he's only being helped buy the CorpOwned/RightWing Media because they want to face him in the General and not Hillary.

    And the sad thing this , the Obama Supporters, think this is happening because he's "The One".

    No --  It's because they want to win in Nov...


    i think he will lose an important chunk of (5.00 / 4) (#38)
    by hellothere on Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:16:12 PM EST
    the media to mccain. sure he will keep ko, but is that anything to keep? the answer is no. and then maybe they'll won't be such much in the tank for obama either. take that into account. that won't do him much good with the big repub guns begin.

    Big risk "if he loses the media" (5.00 / 5) (#45)
    by Kathy on Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:18:29 PM EST
    Why gamble?  Why take the chance?

    I firmly believe that the media will go with McCain over Obama.  Hopefully, we won't get to test our theories.  Clinton is still in this thing, and she still keeps winning no matter what the press does.


    The media is already taking swipes at him (5.00 / 7) (#69)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:26:38 PM EST
    Even Cokie Roberts has come out and finally said he's the weaker candidate, and pundits on every channel are showcasing his mistakes. I am of the feeling they are doing this so they can bring these things up after convention (if he's the nominee) and show how they covered his flaws, it's not their fault.

    Cokie also said (5.00 / 5) (#195)
    by txpolitico67 on Sat May 24, 2008 at 10:12:49 PM EST
    "he can win primaries and caucuses all day long in Utah and Idaho, but they won't be his come November!"



    I think he'll lose the media (5.00 / 4) (#116)
    by cosbo on Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:48:30 PM EST
    when the  dirt starts flying. I figure he's probably going to fail the... who's the most patriotic?.... test and it'll be downhill from there.

    Also, we've been suckered too many times by the media already for me to believe they'll stay on our side. I say, the minute they go one on one, the collective mass media flips to McCain, the hero. And the voting masses will probably fall for it because when the chips are down the American people chose tough over intelligence.


    What they (5.00 / 5) (#137)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat May 24, 2008 at 09:03:19 PM EST
    did to Edwards was horrific. And totally uncalled for. That's another failure in leadership for Dean. He should have tried to do something there also.

    I remember the days when we had chairmans like Ron Brown that called the candidates down publicly for their behavior. Even Terry Mac stood up.


    now the dnc is too busy chasing (5.00 / 5) (#213)
    by hellothere on Sat May 24, 2008 at 10:40:15 PM EST
    young voters and money to do their real job. (personal opinion)

    cosbo (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by sleepingdogs on Sat May 24, 2008 at 10:01:45 PM EST
    re:  your last sentence

    There are some (myself included) who feel toughness and intelligence are not an either/or proposition in a McCain vs. Obama contest.

    I would guess it would offend a large number of people a great deal if that is the planned attack of the Obama GE campaign. IOW: Brain vs. Braun

    Just sayin'


    So far, BTD (none / 0) (#35)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:15:34 PM EST
    the early signs, at least, seem to point to the MSM siding with Obama over their other darling, McCain.  I'm surprised at that, frankly, but that's what I've been seeing in the couple of minor dust-ups we've had so far.

    I'va always assumed (5.00 / 3) (#64)
    by rnibs on Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:24:14 PM EST
    he would lose his media darling status for the GE.  It's possible that it won't happen, but the GOP has been very effective in getting the media on their side.  Maybe it won't happen this time.  

    But then again, people so far have shown a certain resilience after being clobbered day in and day out with pro-Obama messages, they still have come out in droves for Hillary.

    And McCain has that maverick label.  If Obama disrespects McCain the way he has Clinton, it might start pushing people toward McCain.  


    Here is a GREAT article (5.00 / 9) (#81)
    by Kathy on Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:30:01 PM EST
    about what the media does to dems, this one Al Gore:

    Vanity Fair

    Eight years ago, in the bastions of the "liberal media" that were supposed to love Gore--The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Boston Globe, CNN--he was variously described as "repellent," "delusional," a vote-rigger, a man who "lies like a rug," "Pinocchio." Eric Pooley, who covered him for Time magazine, says, "He brought out the creative-writing student in so many reporters.... Everybody kind of let loose on the guy."

    (Please note that if the RFK cover of Vanity Fair pops up in the corner, I am not advocating assassinations of any kind.)


    I left the party in 2000 (5.00 / 5) (#144)
    by RalphB on Sat May 24, 2008 at 09:06:58 PM EST
    because of the way some democrats were pushing for Gore to give up, "for the good of the country".  It was pathetic and I realized that if they wouldn't stand up for Gore, they wouldn't stand up for me.

    It's waaaaay too good a story for them to pass on! (none / 0) (#50)
    by rottenart on Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:20:17 PM EST
    I agree with you.

    Right, and the press mostly loathes (5.00 / 7) (#10)
    by MarkL on Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:00:23 PM EST
    Hillary. They will find it very easy to take McCain's side, after which a testy, glowering Obama will slide off the page of history into oblivion.

    When the media turns on Obama (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by txpolitico67 on Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:14:53 PM EST
    it will be Michelle who will come undone.

    OMG that would be, as in Moulin Rouge, "Spectacular, Spectacular!"


    The media darling argument (5.00 / 7) (#41)
    by stillife on Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:17:26 PM EST
    makes me even less inclined to vote for him.  These are the same creeps who savaged Gore, pronounced Dubya a great guy to have a beer with, enabled the swiftboating of Kerry and brought us the Iraq War.  Tell me, why should I trust them now, even though Obama is (nominally) a Democrat?  

    Yes, I know (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by stillife on Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:28:47 PM EST
    I had conveniently forgotten about it but Somerby reminded me of the "Practically Lactating" comment.

    I'm not going to let these fools choose my President!


    The Obamaisms just keep growing (5.00 / 0) (#92)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:36:30 PM EST
    How long will the media report his Bush-like errors before they actually start pointing out all the other similarities?

    The unity pony... (none / 0) (#103)
    by pie on Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:40:38 PM EST
    But then he said it again, and again -- "When we are unified sunshine, nobody can stop us!"

    It sounds so hollow.  Ugh.

    That poor pony is hobbling.


    Hillary has proven herself here. (5.00 / 4) (#189)
    by ghost2 on Sat May 24, 2008 at 10:08:12 PM EST
    She said right at the beginning that she has been subject to the worst amount of vile attacks for 16 years, and she is still standing.

    Now, the billion dollar press industry has been against her.  Do you realize how deadly that is? Do you know any politician who could survive it? Do you know anyone anywhere who has?

    Not only she was subject to the worst kinds of attacks and humiliation for 16 years, but it intensified 100 fold during this primary season.  It's as if the Russerts of this world (or his boss) hated her, and wanted to get rid of her.


    She is leading in the popular vote.

    Her major mistake was in hiring her campaign manager, and strategist.  A major mistake, and they were overconfident.  They didn't anticipate problems and exposed themselves.  They almost sank her.  

    I say that Obama's campaign operation is superior to hers.  But still, if she had her current team, he would have no chance.  Even with all the media love.  

    Her tenacity is amazing.  Back to the initial point, when dems said that she had baggage, and she said, yes, but she is also a fighter and a survivor, SHE WAS RIGHT.  

    I always remember a quote I read about her from an anonymous Democratic Senator during impeachment: If I was in a war, I'd want her to cover my back.  She is not one to run away from a fight.  


    I wonder... (5.00 / 8) (#11)
    by kempis on Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:00:29 PM EST
    It seems likely that the press will be more enamored of the Obama-winning-the-presidency narrative than the McCain-winning-the-presidency narrative. So I agree with you that Obama is likely to be the "Media Darling."

    Still I wonder....McCain is not as intensely disliked by the press as Hillary Clinton is. And there has to be some sentimental longing to see McCain finally win it. Plus, a McCain executive pitted against a Democratic Congress could be enticing to them (assuming the Dems hold Congress).

    And finally, it looks like McCain is going to be as accessible as always to the press while Obama is being more carefully managed--in an unnerving Bushian way. I think his handlers are walking on eggshells, worried about Obama Unplugged. McCain just lets 'er rip and it seems that the press helps him cover his rear-end in gratitude for the access.

    So I wouldn't be so sure that the embers of the press's old torch for McCain are cold. This will be interesting to watch....

    If the media feels that the candidate... (5.00 / 0) (#180)
    by AX10 on Sat May 24, 2008 at 10:01:38 PM EST
    is not showing them "respect", that could be enough to do them in

    Whew! After reading Somerby's quotes (5.00 / 9) (#14)
    by Anne on Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:06:04 PM EST
    I was worried I might have to call 911 to come un-pretzel-ize me, but I seem to have miraculously freed my arms and legs from positions I did not think were possible.  How did I do it?  I simply visualized Hillary Clinton having a clear and cogent discussion of the issues - which she prepared for - and before I knew it, I was feeling so much better.

    I was struck by two things: (1) how Obama's tortured explanation of what "preconditions" means was eerily reminiscent of things he has said on the subject of revotes in Michigan and Florida,and (2) that Obama and Daschle could give Abbott and Costello a run for their money.

    At this stage, I wouldn't even hire Obama to be my latex salesman. [Seinfeld reference for those who need a hint]

    I will not vote for Obama without (5.00 / 6) (#16)
    by MarkL on Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:07:20 PM EST

    it's 2000 all over again (5.00 / 5) (#26)
    by Josey on Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:12:27 PM EST
    and Obama is Bush getting a free ride on the corporate media express.

    Which makes me wonder (5.00 / 5) (#57)
    by stillife on Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:22:42 PM EST
    where all his money comes from.  Surely not college kids giving $25.  

    I has not helped hjim the last three months. (5.00 / 5) (#31)
    by masslib on Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:13:39 PM EST
    He's lost the last three months in the primary.  Of course, McCain is no Hillary Clinton.  Buth, then, the media doesn't hate John McCain.

    Chilling quote from Somerby that (5.00 / 3) (#46)
    by andgarden on Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:18:39 PM EST
    I noticed only at Digby's:
    ANDERSEN (9/13/99): I too like Bill Bradley, and expect to vote for him in the primary.

    Gag me.

    Obama is the new Bradley + (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by Exeter on Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:23:01 PM EST
    African American votes.  In fact, both got 37% of the vote in Iowa.

    Obama owes Edwards big time (none / 0) (#96)
    by andgarden on Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:38:32 PM EST
    Somerby's general contention (5.00 / 7) (#48)
    by Radiowalla on Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:19:42 PM EST
    is that the press gangs up on major Democrats in a systematic way, pushing their gong-show inspired, utterly daft narratives in such a way that the public runs fleeing into the arms of Republicans.  They  certainly ganged up on Al Gore and did a pretty good job on Kerry as well.  What they are presently doing to Clinton is part and parcel of the same demented behavior.

    What will happen to Obama if he is the nominee?  How will they compare him to the sainted McCain?  

    My prediction is that they will tread lightly against Obama for fear of being called racists.  They are more afraid of being called out for racism than they are for being called out as "too liberal."  

    Even if the media continue the BO love-fest (5.00 / 11) (#176)
    by Valhalla on Sat May 24, 2008 at 09:59:11 PM EST
    they simply will not be able to tap into the vein of misogyny and hatred for McCain that they did with Hillary.

    They just cannot drive up that kind of terrified fury with a man, even less with a man who is a war hero.

    And I'm sorry, BTD and others who think that the 3rd-term Bush push will be effective, I just don't think it will.  Because I don't think the DNC or BO understands the nature of the opposition to the war.  Some part of the people who oppose the war, most of whom are already in BO's camp, were against the war from the beginning.  But a large part are against the mismanagement of the war.  The fact that McCain actually served in a war will go a very far way against Obama.

    And remember, demographics matter.  The same Boomers who remember RFK's assassignation in June, remember what a horror show getting out of Vietnam was.  It will be a mess no matter what, but who are you going to put your faith in to do the right thing, the guy whose greatest challenge is a primary campaign, or the guy who actually knows what it is to fight?  Who has a son in the fight?  

    I'm not saying I think McCain has a plan, much less a good plan.  But I just don't think BO will win that contest on the 100 years of war deal.

    Oops, sorry, this post was kind of all over the place.


    I admire Somerby. (5.00 / 3) (#201)
    by ghost2 on Sat May 24, 2008 at 10:18:10 PM EST
    He is the anti-spin, anti-narratives, and anti-politics.  He searches for the truth and journalistic standards (mostly lack thereof).

    There was a cartoon (Taylor Marsh had it, the cartoonist's name escapes me) about couple of weeks ago.  It was a picture of press expressing regret for how they had let Bush get away with falsehood in runup to the War. In the next panel, the press was saying, NEVER AGAIN, and at the same time was wearing a HUGE OBAMA 2008 button.

    Democrats can trust the corporate press and take the shortcut of buddying with them at their own peril.    


    tepid? when the big repub guns (5.00 / 2) (#228)
    by hellothere on Sat May 24, 2008 at 11:03:14 PM EST
    start shooting at obama, the media won't be that much in the tank for him to sweep it under the rug. they'll throw enough that stick and stick it will. they won't turn on mccain. count on that also.

    They aren't going to turn on McCain (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by Exeter on Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:19:46 PM EST
    There will be adulation for both of them. The meme will be something along the lines of "can you EVER remember when there was two candidates THIS GREAT?!?"

    Amazingly (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by andgarden on Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:20:48 PM EST
    they do seem to be turning on McCain. I almost don't believe what I'm seeing.

    Just like the turned on (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by pie on Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:24:59 PM EST
    Reagan, I'll bet.

    They might give him a token roughing up (5.00 / 0) (#79)
    by Exeter on Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:29:29 PM EST
    But I don't think it will be like Gore in 2000 or Hillary this year.  Plus I still think the MSM is racist and will turn on Obama in a heartbeat if they perceive him as being too cocky or not being grateful for the media's benevelence.

    while the PACs and 527s roll in the mud? (5.00 / 7) (#60)
    by Kathy on Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:23:24 PM EST
    Lookit, Obama doesn't have a record to stand on.  This is why he attacked Clinton.  If he hadn't torn her down, then he wouldn't be here today.  He will have to attack McCain because he can't stand toe to toe with him.  McCain has a temper and he's made it clear he's not going to put up with the same BS Clinton has been getting.

    An Obama-McCain match-up would be dirtier than Adams-Jefferson, and that was pretty f-ing dirty.


    Obama v. McCain (5.00 / 4) (#61)
    by cygnus on Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:23:30 PM EST
    In the media, white liberal guilt will do battle with Vietnam guilt and hero worship.  Close, but McCain gets the edge simply because Obama is fundamentally a very weak candidate.  That will become painfully obvious even to Joe Klein once the Hillary dust settles.

    Has anyone bothered to ask "Why?" (5.00 / 3) (#62)
    by Edgar08 on Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:23:48 PM EST
    Why has the media fallen in love with Barack Obama?

    Why Do Fools Fall In Love? (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by txpolitico67 on Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:30:52 PM EST
    good question.

    Why did you (none / 0) (#131)
    by magisterludi on Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:58:17 PM EST
    get troll rated?

    Media Darling vs Media Spittoon (5.00 / 8) (#70)
    by txpolitico67 on Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:27:02 PM EST
    Here's the biggest rub in all this media bullsh1t:

    In America, we have always been told that hard work and determination are rewarded.

    That's a load of crap.

    In America, we can be anything we want.

    Another load of crap.

    The Constitution says that all men (and presuming women) are created equal.  Biggest load right there.

    Obama is an opportunist of the highest degree because he has not worked as hard as Hillary Clinton has to get where he is.  He was an experiment from IL that propogated itself all the way to the path of the White House.

    We can't be anything we want if the media is thoroughly against you.  There is NO logical reason for her to be treated the way she is.  Yet, so many think it's okay.  Pitiful.  It says a lot about who we are and how the media drives the narrative of a woman's place in society.

    And because her being a woman, she is not being treated equally by the media.  She's being treated WORSE.  The Clintons are used to an uneven/unfair playing field, but this is a freaking joke.  

    So for all the Obama supporters and the media who have hollowed out the good years between 1993 and 2000, who have trampled on the good name of Bill Clinton, who, was the lone Democrat to stop what would have been a 20+ year grip on the White House, can go forth and win the election with me.

    Just remember, the media is very fickle.  And when the time comes that they turn on Obama, there will be no turning back.  The media calls McCain a "maverick".  His beautiful wife has not said anything remotely CLOSE to what Michelle Obama has said.

    It will be a spectacle for all to see.  And then watching the Democratic party go down in flames...again.

    Now that part, is fair.  Since they seem so obtuse to choosing a loser instead of a winner.

    The primary (5.00 / 4) (#106)
    by txpolitico67 on Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:42:05 PM EST
    probably, the GE...no way.  He'll go down Dukakis style.

    Dukakis is an interesting study (5.00 / 3) (#124)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:51:39 PM EST
    Here's why. While he was not a Media Darling, George H.W. Bush was absolutely despised by the Media.

    And Bush skillfully ran against the MEdia AND against Dukakis.

    There is actually a lot for McCain to learn from Bush 41's 1988 campaign.


    Willie Horton (none / 0) (#133)
    by txpolitico67 on Sat May 24, 2008 at 09:00:47 PM EST
    comes to mind.

    Certainly (none / 0) (#142)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 24, 2008 at 09:06:32 PM EST
    A dirty business. Politics is what it is.

    Thanks (none / 0) (#147)
    by txpolitico67 on Sat May 24, 2008 at 09:09:14 PM EST
    though, for doing your part to sanitize it.

    And he will be a loser (5.00 / 6) (#110)
    by stillife on Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:43:58 PM EST
    There are signs that the voters are defying the media.  WV, KY, TX, OH, PA.  Her campaign was pronounced DOA, but people are still coming out to vote for her.  What's that all about?  

    Americans are conservative at heart.  Obama has too many associations that are perceived as anti-American.  I'm not passing judgment on his patriotism, but to the average voter, it doesn't look good.  We're used to sex scandals and money scandals, but Obama's baggage is full of associations that will be seen as anti-American.  If the Republicans can swiftboat Kerry, Obama will be child's play.  They don't even have to lie.

    Plus, he doesn't have the common touch.  He may have charisma in a big crowd where he's being treated like the new Messiah, but he has no gift for connecting with folks on a more personal level (especially those who aren't already in the tank for him).

    He's an electoral disaster waiting to happen.


    Electoral Disaster (5.00 / 8) (#122)
    by txpolitico67 on Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:51:04 PM EST
    That's hilarious!  Poor Obama.  He's his own worst 527, next to the missus.

    Drem on (none / 0) (#98)
    by feet on earth on Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:39:35 PM EST
    Hope - on
    Believe - on
    Yes we can - on
    Torn the page - on

    And no - NOBAMA in November


    Why? (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by Edgar08 on Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:27:26 PM EST
    Because McCain is worse?

    Not good enough.

    You're entitled, of course (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by rottenart on Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:29:52 PM EST
    but that's dangerous, IMO. I hated Kerry, but I voted for him over the chimp in charge because ANYONE would have been an improvement. I really don't understand how this is not a persuasive argument. Perhaps if say it louder? ;)

    More Comparisons to Kerry (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by Edgar08 on Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:30:52 PM EST
    It's a good thing this primary isn't over.

    There (5.00 / 5) (#100)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:39:57 PM EST
    just haven't been any arguments made as to why we should vote for Obama other than he's a democrat. Besides, if Hillary doesn't get the nomination I'm becoming an independent anyway and I have no party loyalties.

    I wouldn't vote (5.00 / 3) (#118)
    by txpolitico67 on Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:49:26 PM EST
    for Obama if Hillary, Bill AND Chelsea asked me to.  How's that?

    Sadly, all three prob will (5.00 / 4) (#141)
    by nycstray on Sat May 24, 2008 at 09:06:02 PM EST
    Good loyal Dems that they are.

    Since I left the party, it will be easier to disconnect my brain from the GE. It's going to be hard watching them work their tails off for the party that has shown them so little respect.


    Hard watching (5.00 / 3) (#148)
    by RalphB on Sat May 24, 2008 at 09:12:37 PM EST
    it would be, if I were going to do it.  I think I'm just going to take up drinking again until after November  :-)

    baseball, football, and photography (5.00 / 2) (#155)
    by nycstray on Sat May 24, 2008 at 09:26:37 PM EST
    will take up the time along with learning new recipes to use for my CSA produce/poultry/fruit. I may also try wine making, I'll def be drinking it either way!

    more angering than (5.00 / 5) (#152)
    by txpolitico67 on Sat May 24, 2008 at 09:17:06 PM EST

    Bill and Hillary Clinton made me PROUD to be a Democrat.  I was 24 when I voted for him in 1992.  When he won and I heard Maya Angelou recite her poem and saw Fleetwood Mac perfrom "Don't Stop", wearing their AIDS pins...MAN I was SOOOOOOOOOO  freaking PROUD!!!!!

    Now I am so angry that I denounced and rejected my status of being a Democrat.  If they can do that to the President that brought it home for me, well, they don't need me.

    BTW, and o/t,  Ann Richards started the ball rolling for me when I volunteered for her here in TX and she won in 1990.  VERY proud of her.  I miss her so much.


    Sangry! (5.00 / 0) (#159)
    by nycstray on Sat May 24, 2008 at 09:30:21 PM EST
    I'll be going back and forth between the 2, so I will limit media. For the next 4 yrs!



    Not sangry now (none / 0) (#162)
    by RalphB on Sat May 24, 2008 at 09:43:38 PM EST
    I'm watching the Libertarian Candidates debate at their convention in Denver.  It's quite scary and funny.  Bob Barr and Mike Gravel are a hoot.

    Iron Chef and wine here! :D (5.00 / 0) (#175)
    by nycstray on Sat May 24, 2008 at 09:57:55 PM EST
    cspan? (none / 0) (#218)
    by hellothere on Sat May 24, 2008 at 10:45:29 PM EST
    Libertarians are on C-SPAN (none / 0) (#227)
    by RalphB on Sat May 24, 2008 at 10:59:24 PM EST
    Ann (5.00 / 4) (#173)
    by DJ on Sat May 24, 2008 at 09:54:04 PM EST
    was wonderful.  She was pushed out by a less experienced, less competent young fella.  Sound familiar?

    I wish we had Ann today.  She would have stood up for Hillary in her own gutsy way.


    The only way I'd vote for Obama (5.00 / 2) (#188)
    by Valhalla on Sat May 24, 2008 at 10:05:49 PM EST
    is if he ceded the nomination to Hillary.

    Oh, wait...


    Hopefully not!!! Go Hillary!! (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by MarkL on Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:27:54 PM EST

    No way Jose (5.00 / 4) (#76)
    by txpolitico67 on Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:28:53 PM EST
    not me.  I will write in Hillary's name.

    No (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by RalphB on Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:32:33 PM EST

    BTD (5.00 / 3) (#113)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:46:21 PM EST
    have you considered the fact that the "media darling" status could actually be hurting Obama? If white working class voters perceive that he is getting favorable treatment since he is an AA it could create even more problems than he has now. And it really hasn't helped him that much in the primaries in lots of ways. Look at what his treatment has even done in the Dem primary. It has caused huge rifts in the party. Of course in the general election, it wouldn't mean a rift, just a huge number of votes that he wouldn't be able to collect.

    That's why the most recent primaries (5.00 / 4) (#132)
    by andgarden on Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:59:13 PM EST
    in Ohio, Pennsylvania, etc. are dispositive. The media couldn't win it for him there.

    It's very concerning.


    Interesting point here. (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by Faust on Sat May 24, 2008 at 09:15:39 PM EST
    Indeed. (5.00 / 2) (#154)
    by pie on Sat May 24, 2008 at 09:24:22 PM EST
    But which party is more divided?

    And really, I don't care that the democratic party is.

    Both parties are in the gutter at this point.


    I think that is a real risk (none / 0) (#117)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:48:56 PM EST
    The question is will McCain be able to creditably run against the Media after himself being a Media Darling for so many years.

    I think he can not.

    In that sense, McCain is the perfect opponent for Obama.


    Let's not forget (5.00 / 10) (#128)
    by Kathy on Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:53:35 PM EST
    that McCain had his neck sliced open by Bush and Rove.  He knows how to fight with knives now, and he won't take any crap from Obama.  

    Remember the rumors about his adopted daughter?  McCain won't stand for that kind of crap anymore.  He will chew Obama for breakfast.

    The only way Obama has ever won, and this is going back to his first campaign, is to discredit his competition.  He has never run on record--not any record that holds up.  He either did legal challenges, had divorce papers leaked, or gamed the system.

    The only race he lost was the race where he couldn't effectively attack his opponent, and he lost bad.


    McCain has already come out twice with (5.00 / 10) (#134)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat May 24, 2008 at 09:01:47 PM EST
    very harsh and very accurate criticisms of the way Obama campaigns, plus doing a good job of calling him out on his lacking foreign affairs knowledge.

    Obama is messing up constantly. Don't know if it's the exhausion, the lack of interest in the people, or if he is just so dam* smart he doesn't feel he needs to listen to the people trying to tell him where he is.

    He gets the simple things wrong, and he doesn't care. He also feels no need to apologize. He makes excuses and thinks people will just have to understand.


    All your points (5.00 / 5) (#140)
    by txpolitico67 on Sat May 24, 2008 at 09:05:39 PM EST
    make me think of Bush43.

    I would like to think that the party of FDR would care more about our nation than to send someone like that to run in the GE, much less run the country.


    Will the Hillary-hating bloggers (5.00 / 2) (#149)
    by magisterludi on Sat May 24, 2008 at 09:14:40 PM EST
    get as nasty and over-heated about McCain?

    I wonder how that's going to work?


    my thoughts exactly! (5.00 / 2) (#223)
    by hellothere on Sat May 24, 2008 at 10:50:43 PM EST
    obama ran for the senate and had two crediable opponents with personable problems. his earlier campaign for the ill sentate isn't anything to brag about. his campaign in the primaries isn't anything to brag about again. racists dog whistles, gender bashing, and a reliance on caucuses! now that is not how general elections are won. he can't even close the deal now, and we think he'll trounce mccain in the ge. please! take a look at the baggage from michelle to rev wright. that hasn't gone away and won't.

    Here's (5.00 / 9) (#153)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat May 24, 2008 at 09:17:53 PM EST
    the fallacy that I'm seeing in this. The GOP doesn't care about Media darling status. They use talk radio etc to craft their own narratives and then inject them into the MSM. They start bullying and yelling until the MSM does what they wnat them to do. It's a much more effective way than what Obama is doing. He is relying too much on the media to do that job for him. They are fickle and they can turn on a dime. Already McCain is getting the better of Obama in the back and forths.

    yup, what the right wing does is repeat in unison (5.00 / 3) (#224)
    by hellothere on Sat May 24, 2008 at 10:51:35 PM EST
    till the media falls in line. it happens everytime.

    You worry me, BTD (5.00 / 10) (#139)
    by goldberry on Sat May 24, 2008 at 09:05:23 PM EST
    He may be the media darling (now), but there are a lot of voters who find him about as appealing as George E. Bush.  No matter how much the media plays him up, he leaves us non-plussed. Seriously.  There is nothing about him that inspires confidence or inspiration.  We just don't see it.  Presumably, the  party still needs our votes or they wouldn't be making such public pronouncements of wishful thinking that we will come around.  But I guarantee you, it will not happen this year.  I don't like Obama, won't vote for him and don't particularly care about what happens to the party that insists on shoving him down my throat.

    I couldn't agree more goldberry (5.00 / 7) (#145)
    by txpolitico67 on Sat May 24, 2008 at 09:08:02 PM EST
    I don't know what's worse:  the hatred the DNC has for the Clintons (and thus LOSING) or the annointing of Obama (GE be damned).

    This primary is def one for the history books.


    Exactly. (5.00 / 4) (#158)
    by masslib on Sat May 24, 2008 at 09:30:13 PM EST
    It's the economy, stupid. (5.00 / 4) (#156)
    by wurman on Sat May 24, 2008 at 09:28:50 PM EST
    I often read a lot of economic & financial information, the dreariest crap imaginable.

    Warren Buffet says we're in for a long, deep recession--now.

    Crude will go to prices above $135 shortly & your gasoline will cost about $5 per gallon.  And the devalued dollar will be smaller quantities of the crude, which will be increasingly priced in Euros.

    Food will cost 50% more in mid-November; that means what was your $15 Bill Clinton turkey & your $25 Bu$hInc turkey will cost $40 in 6 months.  You won't be able to afford a salad & tomatoes will cost as much as or more than red meat.

    It is very likely that the Dow Jones Industrial average will be lower than when George xliii took office, thus de-valuing all retirement funds & savings; investors will have lost money for the past 7.7 years.

    Your home equity will be approximately half what it was in January 2008.  Your neighborhood will look like a combat zone with boarded up houses in foreclosure.  Your bank will be getting free money from Ben Bernanke & loaning it to you at 6 to 8 percent for a home loan (if you can qualify); 10 to 14 percent for your business or auto; 22 to 41 percent for you credit card balance(s).

    Paul Volker destroyed the economy in its transition from Carter in November 1980 to Reagan through January 1983.  The Fed discount rate was just over 20% when Reagan took over & the Board of Governors kept it at & above 20% until late in 1981--& even the horrible 15% for months actually seemed like a relief.  That expensive money will be here again soon.

    If the Obama campaign (certainly not him; he has no clue about this stuff) can tar & feather McCain with the Bu$hInc financial debacle & the global economic disaster, then the GOoPerz will go down in flaming destruction.  McCain will not be able to deflect the damage, but it will require a massive, focused story line by Sen. Obama to convince the USA voters that the economic doom is a direct result of ignorant republikon "beliefs" in market forces that their corporate masters & partners control.

    My personal opinion is that Sen. Obama will flub the narrative, screw-up the message, miss the windows for media reporting on major monetary ruin & the election will be a 50-50 muddle once again--which McCain may be able to salvage by pretending he has some rescue plan that will work.

    It'll be a "historic" election, but the story won't be about race or gender.  It really is the economy.

    Well (5.00 / 7) (#165)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat May 24, 2008 at 09:48:11 PM EST
    that's why even though the economy is bad it's not really going to help us because if Obama is the nominee he's not offering any solutions.

    Milton Friedman school of economics (mccain)
    Milton Friedman school of ecnomincs (obama)

    Forget about it. Might as well vote for someone who'll keep us safe. Whatever.


    Hopefully (5.00 / 3) (#172)
    by Jackson Hunter on Sat May 24, 2008 at 09:52:47 PM EST
    you're right BTD.  I'm just very afraid that the media is more anti-Clinton than it is pro-Obama, and once she is gone and they VRWC cranks up their whining little war cries he'll be a terrorist supporter whose boss stands on the American Flag and has a pastor who screams out nutty conspiracy theories.  These things don't bother me, but unless there are soup lines in November, I have a sneaking suspicion that those issues, as trivial as they are, will not compare favorably to 5 years in a tiger cage.

    If I can avoid reading the pro-Obama blogs (as they drive me literally insane) he'll probably have my vote, but God I hate getting on the bus to Dukakisville with McGovern at the wheel and the Precious pointing (down) the way to a glorious future...of winning about 10 states.  If he is lucky, he'll win the 10 the Duke did plus Cali, but i don't remember all of the other 10, so I may be wrong even with that bleak assessment.


    Heh, (5.00 / 2) (#179)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat May 24, 2008 at 10:00:42 PM EST
    why even hop on a bus to disaster is my thoughts.

    He'll carry the dukakis states plus IL less WI and a couple of other New England states.

    McCain has been able to successfully keep the conversation on national security as I had imagined he would. Why not? It's his strength.

    Obama is such a horrible candidate. The media might like him but it doesn't seem to matter to the voters.


    Do any (5.00 / 4) (#174)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat May 24, 2008 at 09:56:43 PM EST
    of you remember how the media treated Hillary in her run for the NY senate seat? Just as badly as they do now. She forgot about the media narrative and went out and talked to every voter she could and won them over. It's what she's doing now. She doesn't need the media. Obama does and I happen to think that's a very bad thing. In the end, the media always does in the Democrat. Obama will be no different.

    Somewhat... (5.00 / 2) (#193)
    by Jackson Hunter on Sat May 24, 2008 at 10:11:49 PM EST
    I remember how much open rooting there was for lazio as the media were still hung up on the stained dress.  The media turned around somewhat for her when that jerk Lazio made the mistake of physically approaching her in an intimidating way.  That was enough for even the sternest "objective" Clinton critics, although the Regressives continued in their delusions as is their want.  The press and the D.C. establishment hate both Clintons and probably even Chelsea.  No one likes being out manouvered by a "hick", and the Clintons ran circles around the press.  Remember, they had NO, as in ZERO, friends in the media during the impeachment 'crisis'.  Even after he was the first second term president to gain more seats in his sixth year in a really long time, and that was because the people were rejecting and denouncing this purely political impeachment.  Did the media care.  Not really.  Sam and Cokie kept talking how he should quit and all that frlipping garbage.  It still p*sses me the Hell off.



    Sorry... (5.00 / 1) (#199)
    by Jackson Hunter on Sat May 24, 2008 at 10:16:34 PM EST
    for that garbled mess of a post.  I'll try to remember that preview is my friend.  LOL

    BO's unfair good press = blowback now/later (5.00 / 5) (#177)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sat May 24, 2008 at 09:59:35 PM EST
    To Ga6hdem: I agree that the "media darling" status could actually be hurting Obama. But I don't agree that it hurts him because "white working class voters perceive that he is getting favorable treatment since he is an AA".

    I believe it is hurting him because his favorable press is so blatantly unfair with respect to his opponent (Senator Clinton); who millions of voters believe to be a superior candidate. Blowback.

    If the press continued to favor the 'upstart' Obama in a GE match-up with McCain, I think millions of voters would see this as horribly unfair toward McCain; the 'elder statesman, maverick, war-hero'. Blowback.

    Love Digby, (5.00 / 6) (#183)
    by eleanora on Sat May 24, 2008 at 10:04:37 PM EST
    "They have the attention spans of a six week old ferret and the fidelity of a cat in heat."

    Counting on the press to carry you anywhere is dangerous for a candidate. You're likely to wind up dropped in the mud and wondering WTF happened.

    Remember in TX (5.00 / 3) (#204)
    by txpolitico67 on Sat May 24, 2008 at 10:22:01 PM EST
    when Obama cried, "aw come one guys, we've already answered like 8 questions for you!" to the press corps following him (re: Rezko trial going on).

    Obama acted like a man who had been bitten by his own dog THEN.  Can you imagine when they go FULL throttle on him in the fall?



    The MSM has always been too ignorant (5.00 / 2) (#196)
    by WillBFair on Sat May 24, 2008 at 10:13:36 PM EST
    for me. But now it's off the scale. I especially like how paid journalists can spin irrelevancies to prove anything they like.
    In Salon today, some dingbat has a theory that a vague if not invented civility in Chicago government will somehow be transmitted through Obama's shallow rhetoric to the congress, media, and red States.
    On CNN, Hillary's mention of Bill's and RFK's June campaigns is parsed into her wish that Obama be asassinated.
    The shock to me is that Americans actually listen to this trash and don't laugh the entire profession off the stage.

    Hate the media with a purple passion (5.00 / 5) (#200)
    by RalphB on Sat May 24, 2008 at 10:18:10 PM EST
    and I've been kind of gratified to see so many people are not taking them seriously.  If they were Hillary wouldn't have done nearly this well.

    The only people who seem to take the whacky media seriously are the "Creative Class".  To me, that tells me all I need to know about them.


    What if... (none / 0) (#23)
    by rottenart on Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:11:34 PM EST
    ... and bear with me here, we actually didn't allow the media to control the narrative for once? Sure, they're powerful, but so are we. Yes, I'm an Obama supporter, but I've said time and time again that beating Mccain is the priority, and I'd work just as hard for Hillz if she got the nod. ! sure work my a** off counter-acting the BS media narratives day in and day out now. Why should we sit back and act disgusted when the MSM trots out their grand schemes. It's not a foregone conclusion! We the people are supposed to have the power; why aren't we standing up and saying, "not this time?"

    I'm making an attempt at least.

    There are more at fault here than (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by pie on Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:16:58 PM EST
    the media.  The party leadership should be kicked to the curb, too.

    I don't think the bubbleheads realize the intensity of the anger here.

    One way people can have a say is at the polls.  On the bright side, it's not as painful or permanent as a guillotine.



    It's because Obama supporters haven't (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Teresa on Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:18:06 PM EST
    ! sure work my a** off counter-acting the BS media narratives day in and day out now

    If you are doing that, you need to convince more like you to do that. It should have been counter-attacked loud and clear before now.


    Whether it's (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by rottenart on Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:28:00 PM EST
    Obama is a Muslim, or Mccain is a maverick, or Hillary is a b**, I try my hardest to let everyone I come into contact with IRL that these are manufactured slurs and have nothing to do with facts. I have my own reasons for supporting Obama over Hillary but, as many of you I'm sure will agree, that doesn't mean that she deserves slander from the MSM boy's club.

    Of course, I believe Obama deserves the same, so...

    what the hell do I know? ;)


    I applaud you for that. (5.00 / 2) (#108)
    by Teresa on Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:43:19 PM EST
    I wish so many of the blogs hadn't forgotten what they once stood for. The silence on some of this media hate has really saddened me.

    BTD (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by Kathy on Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:50:32 PM EST
    Speaking of blogs, have you seen Vanity Fair's take on the blog wars?  Here is a caption from one of the photos.

    The vicious Clinton-versus-Obama rupture at Daily Kos, the most activist site in the liberal blogosphere, reflects a party-wide split.



    I expected the hate (5.00 / 6) (#127)
    by pie on Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:53:14 PM EST
    from those on wingnut sites.  When it started on the blogs, well, my favorite, at least, it was just a few doing it, and it was fairly mild.  But then the vitriol slowly built up and became totally unacceptable.  Calls for reason and toning down the rhetoric were ignored.  I couldn't believe these people were democrats, some supposedly women.

    Obviously, there was more going on, and a plan was in place, because this has been a concerted effort.

    Good luck in November.  You'll need it.


    what if indeed? (5.00 / 8) (#78)
    by RalphB on Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:29:08 PM EST
    What if a democratic politician, like Obama or Howard Dean, had stood up for Clinton against all the rampant sexism and blatant unfairness during the campaign.  They might now have some respect from her supporters.  

    But no, the only person to complain about it was John McCain.  It's too late for some of us, he'll just have to stew in his own juices and I hope he boils in them.


    Sad isn't it? (5.00 / 9) (#95)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:38:03 PM EST
    Hillary gets better treatment from McCain than she does from the DNC or Obama.

    Of course I know he has an ulterior motive but you would think that the other parties would have a vested interest in keeping Hillary supporters happy. Apparently not. Perhaps they really do think that we're "white trash".


    Frankly, I think we've found the low class (5.00 / 7) (#129)
    by RalphB on Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:54:26 PM EST
    group and it's not Hillary's supporters.  It's not so bad under the bus.  Almost everyone is here now :-)

    Where was Obama and his camps when (5.00 / 5) (#89)
    by feet on earth on Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:35:10 PM EST
    the media was/is accusing Hill of the most insane things, expressing the most horrendous misogyny, even coming up with the psychotic notion that she is contemplating Obama's assassination?

    They where nowhere to be found, on the contrary they pumped the horrors!!!  

    I'll be very fair to them: same treatment.


    Claire McCaskill was one of the worse... (5.00 / 2) (#187)
    by AX10 on Sat May 24, 2008 at 10:05:43 PM EST
    ones out there along with Randi Rhodes, Kos, and Ameriblog.

    Well (none / 0) (#32)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:13:46 PM EST
    If you have been reading this blog, you would know we have been fighting the Media narratives about Clinton.

    But if Obama is the nominee, I will be in the tank for Obama. I won't be complaining about the unfair treatment the Republican McCain gets.


    I could not stand it (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by pie on Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:20:18 PM EST
    when the media gave Bush a pass.

    And I will not tolerate it if they do the same for Obama.

    OMG.  It's too horrible to contemplate.


    Personally... (none / 0) (#63)
    by rottenart on Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:24:14 PM EST
    I'd like to see our side, i.e. the Dems, get a free pass for once. Sure would beat what they've gotten for the past, ohhh... twenty years or so? Of course, that's not to say they didn't deserve scorn for most of it, but still...

    The Media ownership is pretty much (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:29:07 PM EST
    solid Republican.

    BTW, (5.00 / 7) (#88)
    by pie on Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:32:57 PM EST
    many on the blogs always said they would hold a politician's feet to the fire if he or she did something that didn't advance the platform (whatever that is.  Any more, who knows.)

    And they have.  Except now the dunderheads are supporting the very same politicans because they support Obama.  Pathetic.

    I've been horrifed, disappointed, angry, and frustrated for the past eight years, but Bush is not the only one to blame, although history will not be kind to the Worst President Ever.

    The dems have enabled the behavior and the crimes.

    They get NO pass any more.


    Right on (5.00 / 7) (#126)
    by rnibs on Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:52:33 PM EST
    The Dems have been enabling the behavior against Clinton.  It will ring false if they start complaining when the same things happen to Obama.
    (Though I'm still holding out hope for Hillary.  Appalachia loves her and would put her in the WH no matter what the media tried to do.)

    But as (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by rnibs on Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:39:07 PM EST
    BTD said, many on this site having been trying to fight MSM media regarding their blatant unfairness to Hillary, and it hasn't changed a thing.  

    Even though Hillary is supposedly only "likeable enough", in the broad scheme of things, Obama is no more likeable than she is (or they wouldn't be neck and neck).  Given that, I doubt the media would listen to anyone's concerns should they start treating Obama the way they're treating Hillary.  


    Free passes (5.00 / 3) (#157)
    by txpolitico67 on Sat May 24, 2008 at 09:30:05 PM EST
    are usually at the expense of the little guy (Iraq war anyone?)

    You shouldn't want that.  It gives the appearance of weakness.


    I know (none / 0) (#91)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:35:54 PM EST
    it's tempting but there's a larger issue at play here. Do you want one term of Obama and then the media to turn him into a Jimmy Carter when he runs for reelection?

    No, I know this... (none / 0) (#42)
    by rottenart on Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:18:02 PM EST
    and I applaud the effort. I wasn't suggesting that TL readers are not doing the job. I just meant that so many commentators, in the media, in the blogosphere, wherever, are apoplectic about the effect of the media narrative. I've decided that I don't give a darn what the MSM tries to sell me. I know many here feel the exact same way.

    I just want this to be the election where the people give a collective FU to the corporate media beast. It would be so satisfying to let them know that they are neither as powerful nor as relevant as they believe.


    Don't worry. (none / 0) (#54)
    by pie on Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:21:40 PM EST
    But it won't be for the reasons you cite.

    If he wins I will. (none / 0) (#82)
    by Burned on Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:30:28 PM EST
    I wished for Gore and then Edwards and then Clinton and I'll wish for Obama, if I have to.
    I'd rather he took eight years as VP first.

    Even if he wins, (none / 0) (#146)
    by kredwyn on Sat May 24, 2008 at 09:08:25 PM EST
    the "Darling" status will not survive the first month or two.

    Gotta hope it doesn't go two months (5.00 / 1) (#212)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat May 24, 2008 at 10:39:16 PM EST
    There are only two months to the GE.

    Query (none / 0) (#178)
    by kaleidescope on Sat May 24, 2008 at 10:00:38 PM EST
    Can anyone remember how the courtier elite media treated Bill Clinton during the 1992 election?  My memory is that they were pretty harsh on that poor old pork rind chompin Yankee blue blood, George H.W. Bush.  This was deservedly so, since Iran-Contra continued on its merry way, with Casper (the friendly Scrot) Weinberger on his way to indictment shortly before the election (persecuted by my old boss, James Brosnahan).

    In any event, my memory is that the press was hard on Bush, but I can't remember how they treated Bill Clinton.

    Immediately after the election, we all remember what happened.  And it's still happening.

    They (5.00 / 3) (#182)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat May 24, 2008 at 10:02:56 PM EST
    mostly treated him pretty badly imo. They were nice at first but then turned on him later. The front pages were full of bogus stories about whitewater and his draft issues. People even bought full page ads in the papers telling people not to vote for him. So, he really didn't have it that easy but he had a spine.

    If memory serves, and it may not, (5.00 / 3) (#194)
    by RalphB on Sat May 24, 2008 at 10:12:26 PM EST
    the media treated Bill badly.  NYT and WaPo pushed Whitewater and bimbo eruptions like it was going out of style, but he just stood up to it and the spine got him through.

    Also note though the media actively disliked (5.00 / 4) (#206)
    by Serene1 on Sat May 24, 2008 at 10:27:36 PM EST
    Bill C and made no bones about it, Bill C still left office with a very high approval rating.
    Also note inspite of not being the media darling and inspite of being still associated with the MSM hated Bill C's admin, Gore almost won the election and would definitely have been the next resident in the WH if he didn't loose his nerve at the last minute and bowed down to MSM, republicans and Dem elites pressures to just quit.
    MSM sold us Bush Jr. and the Iraq war. Going by past precedents I would be very wary of MSM's choice.

    Try reading Political Fictions (5.00 / 4) (#217)
    by mulletov cocktails on Sat May 24, 2008 at 10:44:36 PM EST
    by Joan Didon.  I was 13 when Bill was elected, and my memories are tainted by Limbaugh and The Nationl Review.  

    The Clintons were never media darlings and were/are tolerated by the heads of the Democratic party.


    What I remember most about 1992 (none / 0) (#219)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat May 24, 2008 at 10:46:05 PM EST
    was Gennifer Flowers' press conference.

    And Hillary and Bill's presser about (5.00 / 1) (#229)
    by oculus on Sat May 24, 2008 at 11:33:45 PM EST
    Gennifer w/a "G."

    Just Wondering.... (none / 0) (#230)
    by HsLdyAngl on Sun May 25, 2008 at 02:45:30 AM EST
    as many of you are wondering too, will Obama remain the media darling if he gets the Democratic nomination and runs against McCain.  If Hillary gets the nomination, it will be a foregone conclusion that she will not be embraced by the MSM.

    But what I even find more intriguing is what will happen here on Talk Left, in the very real possibility of Obama securing the Democratic nomination. Considering the fact that TL is now a VERY pro-Hillary blog, how will the general tone of posts change or will they remain the same, criticizing Obama at every turn, even though he would be the Democratic nominee.  

    Jeralyn has posted that she will support the eventual Democratic nominee.  BTD has posted a similar position.  I wonder about all of the strong Hillary supporters on this blog.....will you continue to post here....will you remain here, but work to discredit Obama....will you find another blog to vent your dislike for Obama....will you nominally support Obama without otherwise supporting his candidacy....will you positively embrace the Obama candidacy and work for his election in the GE.....

    In the spirit of transparency, I am strong Obama supporter.  I mostly lurk on TL in order to understand the POV of Hillary supporters in order to gain insight into the reasons for your support of Hillary and your aversion to Obama.  Needless to say, that on the few occasions that I have posted pro-Obama comments, they were not well received here.  Therefore, I returned to lurking status and try to learn from your posts.


    LA Times NY Black-lash Against Hill (none / 0) (#231)
    by fctchekr on Sun May 25, 2008 at 08:00:37 AM EST
    The NY black community is angry at her, remember she went to Tavis Smiley's, MLK Commem; he didn't. New Black Mayor has spoken out against her. Sharpton says SHE has to heal divide because she is deemed as making dissmissive comments about Obama.