McCain's Dilemma: The Media

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 09:49:30 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

For the past decade, John McCain has been the Media Darling of Washington. Paradoxically, I believe a lot of his trouble with the GOP base stemmed in large part from his carefully cultivated Media status as a "maverick," even though the record demonstrates that he was no maverick at all.

Now the Media Darling is Barack Obama and McCain's potential path to victory depends, imo, in part, on picking a fight with the Media. He certainly can not win on the issues and thus he needs to negatively brand Obama. With the Media unwilling to do to Obama what it did to Bill Clinton, Gore, Kerry and Hillary Clinton, McCain must now abandon his old Media constituency and strike at both Obama and the Media. Turkana points to this Politico piece that discusses the McCain execution of this strategy:

It’s not just been the candidate himself who has turned feistier, but his campaign as well — especially toward the press. Since winning the GOP nomination, McCain has been on the receiving end of a number of tough investigatory articles. With no horse race to cover, the press has devoted much of its coverage of the Republican nominee to scrutinizing McCain’s 25 years in Congress.

At the same time, there has not been similar such treatment of Obama — because reporters have been largely focused on the daily back-and-forth of the epic Democratic primary, and also because Obama’s shorter stay on the national stage has left him with less of a record to defend.

Whatever the reasons, McCain aides are exasperated at the difference in coverage.

This must be doubly exasperating for McCain because he expected to be the Media Darling against the Media hated Hillary Clinton. He expected the wildly favorable treatment that Obama is getting and a Media pile-on on Clinton. Now he is the one getting the pile-on.

So what to do? Run against the Media AS WELL as Obama of course:

“We can’t sit back when the press clearly, clearly is giving Obama very favorable coverage and very little tough scrutiny and not sort of call fouls when they happen,” added Black.

It will be interesting to see how this story develops. But one thing for sure, McCain can not listen to friends like this one:

Yet some McCain sympathizers are concerned about how their candidate is presenting himself. “It lacked graciousness, lacked civility and it was small,” one friend of McCain said in describing the candidate’s attacks on Obama on the night the Democrat made history by becoming the first African-American to run as a major party’s nominee.

One assumes that the McCain camp knows he is not going to win on the issues and the Media is not going to do his work for him to destroy the Democratic presidential candidate as it has done in the past. He has to do the dirty work, and that includes a battle with the Media.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< Late Night: Losing My Religion | Report: Guantanamo Detainees and Mental Illness >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

McCain's Dilemma: The Media | 199 comments (199 topical)

They'll turn back to him. All part of the game. (5.00 / 0) (#1)
by Angel on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 09:52:21 AM EST

I disagree (none / 0) (#30)
by Josey on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:14:40 AM EST

imho the media will continue promoting Obama as they did Bush in 2000.
They are foremost in the business of enhancing their bottom line and Obama is their guy and our next Empty Suit.

[ Parent ]

Exactly (none / 0) (#40)
by Y Knot on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:18:22 AM EST

As Obama's numbers rise, the media will decide they don't want to risk a landslide, that would be boring... so they'll attack him for a few weeks to give McCain a boost... then if it goes the other way, the trend will reverse.

It's basic story telling. Obama's on the rise now. The next chapter is his fall. One can only hope that when early November comes around, we're in the "Obama re-emerges stronger than ever" chapter.

[ Parent ]

: I agree with you, except (5.00 / 2) (#124)
by stefystef on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 11:03:29 AM EST

I think Obama is on the decline now.
The last 5-6 primaries proved that.
Obama could not stop Hillary before the end of the primary season. He tried to get his surrogates to bad mouth her and he had the MSM (especially MSNBO) to slander Hillary and help promote sexism in politics.
But Obama "failed" to put Hillary away. In the end, she left on her own terms.
McCain will be the same way. If the MSM, who loved him, now give their love to the new "strange", then McCain will use this as an example to the conservative/right-wing voters as media control and manipulation.
This may work for McCain in the end.
Let's not forget 1972.

[ Parent ]

McCain's battle w/the media was quite (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by oculus on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 09:54:36 AM EST

successful as to the NYT article about him and the female lobbyist. As confirmation of his success, this Sunday the public editor of the NYT acknowledged the unnamed source should not have been relied on by the writers of the article.

That's a good point (none / 0) (#12)
by Salo on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:05:36 AM EST

however the Cottage Cheeese on Lime Jello quip, though about style is proabably the most telling thing in th econtest between the two. i'm very surprised McCain bothered to indrude on the night that clinton demised and Obama picked up the nomination.

[ Parent ]

Please stop with the cottage cheese and (5.00 / 1) (#169)
by PssttCmere08 on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 11:33:24 AM EST

lime jello references....I love that stuff, especially with pineapple... :)

Seriously, we are three days into the supposed new battle between McCain and the other guy. McCain has always done well with the press...he will again, like it or not.

[ Parent ]

intrude. (none / 0) (#15)
by Salo on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:06:15 AM EST

[ Parent ]

: Premise of this article seems flawed (5.00 / 3) (#177)
by RedSox04 on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 11:40:24 AM EST

It's based on the canard of a "liberal media". Just because the media strongly favored Obama over Clinton doesn't mean they will favor Obama over McCain.
Since the 1990s, the media has become heavily anti-liberal/anti-Democratic Party, even as the VRWC's propaganda campaign to convince the public of a "liberal media bias" has succeeded in convincing the public of that claim.
One could point to a variety of reasons for this shift: a concerted effort by the VRWC to "work the refs", the consolidation of media ownership (into entities that have strong profit interests and which have been historically pro-Republican), and the elitist backgrounds of most reporters (which may lead to them being more "liberal" than average Americans on certain issues such as abortion and gay marriage-- something that has been strongly countered by the VRWC-- but also leads to them being much more RW than the average American on other issues, most notably the economy). One could look at these reasons as sufficiently compelling to conclude that the media at this point is hopelessly anti-Democratic, anti-progressive, and needs major reform.
Or one could look at this phenomenon, coupled with the media's one-sided support of Obama over Clinton and Edwards, and conclude that the media just hated Clinton, hated Gore, hated Kerry, and was infatuated with Bush, and that this will favor Obama.
Me, I think you're basically suffering from a version of Stockholm Syndrome if you think the media's gonna take our side. Watch. Scurrilous and baseless Obama rumors. Spread.
The beginning of the end of the theory of Obama-Exceptionalism is nigh. Kerry 2.0 will need to run a hell of a campaign to win this thing, and it won't happen if we all assume the media's gonna be a shiny, happy medium for us.

[ Parent ]

McCain need not have been (5.00 / 1) (#5)
by zfran on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 09:55:40 AM EST

"gracious" the night Obama became the presumptive nominee. Did Obama praise McCain when he became the presumptive for historically being the "oldest" person to ever be the nominee of the repub. party? I, at least, do not remember Obama doing it. So why should John McCain?

Heh (5.00 / 2) (#9)
by Steve M on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:03:01 AM EST

"should have" is irrelevant in politics unless you're a pundit looking for something to talk about. The only thing that matters is whether it played well politically, not whether it violated some unwritten rule.

Judged by that standard, I think McCain's primary-night speech was completely pathetic. Not because it was ungracious, but because he simply didn't pull it off well. All the negative comments about his delivery, the audience, etc. have been right on point. If he had delivered a thundering, attention-getting evisceration of Obama's "radical agenda," it would have been ungracious, but I would have to concede it was better political strategy than leaving the night uncontested. But if McCain wasn't capable of rising to the occasion, better to just leave it alone.

[ Parent ]

Perhaps, but each will play to (none / 0) (#13)
by zfran on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:06:08 AM EST

their strengths, thus, asking for town-hall debates with Obama (one of Obama's weaknesses). I also do not believe Obama has the "gift of gab" whether written on teleprompter or off the cuff, so there, to me, isn't much difference.

[ Parent ]

Regarding The Town Hall Meetings (5.00 / 1) (#26)
by MO Blue on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:11:35 AM EST

Poll out yesterday indicated that 3/4ths (77% IIRC) of those polled favored the Town Hall debate format.

[ Parent ]

: I don't understand why McCain (none / 0) (#53)
by oculus on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:25:22 AM EST

rejected Bloomberg's proposal.

[ Parent ]

Probably for the same reason (4.00 / 0) (#6)
by oculus on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 09:57:11 AM EST

Clinton "should" have conceded Tuesday night after she won South Dakota.

[ Parent ]

She had just one SD, why should (5.00 / 0) (#7)
by zfran on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 09:59:13 AM EST

she have conceded? Did Ted Kennedy concede, did others before this race concede within 4 days, more like 4 months.

[ Parent ]

: I'm with you. (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by oculus on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:00:24 AM EST

[ Parent ]
: No, exactly (5.00 / 1) (#49)
by Y Knot on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:22:40 AM EST

There was no should or shouldn't at that point. It's what the morons in front of the camera thought should happen. But, as I stated in my previous sentence, they're morons, so I just ignored them. Personally, I think Clinton's instincts that night were just right.
The only one making sense that night was James Carville, and that's probably because they told him what she was going to do.

[ Parent ]

Because the new media rule is.... (none / 0) (#120)
by Maria Garcia on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 11:02:00 AM EST

...that in order to run against Obama you must first profusely praise Obama.

[ Parent ]

The public is already predicting (5.00 / 2) (#10)
by frankly0 on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:04:33 AM EST

that the media will favor Obama over McCain, according to this poll:

Looking ahead to the fall campaign, 44% believe most reporters will try to help Obama while only 13% believe that most will try to help McCain. Twenty-four percent (24%) are optimistic enough to believe that most reporters will try to offer unbiased coverage.
Even Democrats tend to believe their candidate will receive better treatment--27% of those in Obama's party believe most reporters will try to help him win while only 16% believe they will help McCain. A plurality of Democrats--34%--believe most reporters will be unbiased.
Among unaffiliated voters, 44% believe reporters will try to help Obama and 14% believe they will try to help McCain. Seventy percent (70%) of Republicans expect Obama to receive preferential treatment while only 8% believe reporters will try to help McCain.
African-Americans are fairly evenly divided as to who reporters will try to help this fall. Sixty percent (60%) of African-Americans say either that the coverage will be unbiased or they are not sure.
Those who plan to vote for Obama are evenly divided as well. McCain voters--by a 75% to 5% margin--say that most reporters will try to help Obama win this November. Among those who are undecided or planning to vote for a third party candidate, 47% expect Obama to be the media favorite while just 6% say that McCain will be the preferred candidate.
A survey conducted earlier this year found that 30% of voters believe having a friendly reporter is more valuable than raising a lot of campaign contributions. Twenty-nine percent (29%) believe contributions are more important and 40% are not sure.

And since the public obviously is predisposed to believe that the media will be biased in favor of Obama, and thinks that this is a major -- and presumably unfair -- advantage, I think the McCain camp will be very wise indeed to tap into the public's resentment of unfair treatment to further its cause.

But will McCain and his (5.00 / 1) (#19)
by zfran on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:07:17 AM EST

minnions be called racists if they question the one-sided media coverage?

[ Parent ]

I think it (5.00 / 2) (#27)
by frankly0 on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:12:29 AM EST

is preordained that McCain and his camp will be accused of being racists.

We are just waiting for the details.

[ Parent ]

Nah (5.00 / 2) (#31)
by MO Blue on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:14:55 AM EST

It has been firmly established that the Democratic Party, not the Republican Party, is the party of racists.

[ Parent ]

There are racists... (5.00 / 1) (#70)
by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:32:27 AM EST

...on both sides, just like there are anti-feminists on either side of the political divide.

Judging from what's coming out of the rightwing blogs of late, they're not going to let a little thing like being called racists stop them from getting their hate on.

[ Parent ]

I think what we have established is that.... (5.00 / 1) (#114)
by Maria Garcia on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:57:20 AM EST

...only the Democratic party cares about being branded a racist. It remains to be seen if the Republicans mind. Something tells me that they won't care as long as it keeps Obama's race front and center. That's what playing the race card for real is all about.

[ Parent ]

By nominating a black man (none / 0) (#52)
by Y Knot on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:24:45 AM EST

Yup. We Democrats are terribly racist.

I don't think that line of reasoning is going to work very well this year.

[ Parent ]

Y Knot...I voted for Hillary, (5.00 / 3) (#57)
by zfran on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:26:31 AM EST

and I have been called a racist because of that.
So, that line does work, will work, and they'll use it whenever it is convenient, imo.

[ Parent ]

: I voted for Obama (none / 0) (#172)
by Y Knot on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 11:36:48 AM EST

and have been called a sexist for it. I've also been told I look like Val Kilmer.
Saying a thing doesn't make it true.
If you voted for Clinton because you think she's the better candidate, you're not a racist. If you voted for her because you couldn't stand the idea of a black man running the country, you are. Only you can answer that one. Frankly, I choose to give people the benefit of the doubt.

[ Parent ]
: By whom? (none / 0) (#180)
by phatpay on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 11:41:40 AM EST

If you are referencing internet name calling, then you should take a long look at participating in online discussions.
Due to the anonymity of most bloggers, etc, you never really know who your detractors are and what's their real intentions.
Those lines "work" only if users become angered. I know it's hard to keep a cool head when it looks like your under attack, but that's my advice. If "they" can get you angry, then they've really done their job.
I sincerely believe that most Dems are not racist or sexist.
One needs to only ask themselves, "Who gains the most from a divided Democratic electorate?", to illuminate the real culprits of a vast majority of internet shenanigans.
A site like TL is very carefully monitored, so trolling here is incredibly subtle. But, I assure you, there are users with accounts here that post with the expressed intent of causing fractious harm amongst the Dems. They know this site is quite firmly in the Clinton camp.
Further, and I don't mean this to be in any way condescending, but think before you post.
Are you racist? Then do not ever respond to posts attacking you for racism. And that goes to whatever the accusation might be. If you respond to the attack, then you have taken the bait. The topic is now much more personal than topical and discourse is lost.
Perhaps you fine folks here know most of these points. If so, then please disregard. But as I read so much anger and hurt, I cannot help but think that many have fallen to the oldest trick in the forum troll's handbook, the sucker punch. Again, ask yourself who gains from division on the left? And then, consider the future.
I am praying for cooler heads in November.

[ Parent ]

Wasn't My Line Of Reasoning (5.00 / 1) (#91)
by MO Blue on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:44:39 AM EST

It was the reason put forth why every non-Africian American did not vote for Obama during the primary. Antipathy to people not like them is the reason Obama cited for small town and rural folks not voting for him. It was an accusation thrown against Democrats in every blog thread during the primary and one that still appears in some threads. It is one of the reasons being put forth now why Appalachian (in all 50 states) Clinton supporters won't vote for Obama in the GE.

Who said (2.00 / 0) (#121)
by Jgarza on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 11:02:15 AM EST

that, just because you say it doesn't make it true.

[ Parent ]

: its the "we're the victims" line... (none / 0) (#181)
by tben on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 11:42:59 AM EST

it seems these days that lots of people find it hard to deal with one of the simple facts of life in a democracy - sometimes your candidate loses. And sometimes it is because s/he ran a bad campaign, or the winner happened to be a very good candidate.
Seems that lots of people really need there to be some other explanation - something dark and sinister, somthing conspiratorial - something that makes the loser and his/her supporters into victims. Thats the key. Being the victim of something is downright enobling. Racism, or race-baiting - thats a good one. Being a victim of that gives you dibs on a place on a monument some day. Just being on the losing side sucks. Its so empty.

[ Parent ]

The Appalachians (none / 0) (#183)
by Y Knot on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 11:50:40 AM EST

Extend over all 50 states? What?

If you're saying that a certain section of the population will not vote for him simply because of his skin color... yes, you're right. Was that section bigger in states that are, let's say, more KKK friendly? Of course. That's prima facia obvious.

Was it the only reason, or the biggest reason? I can't honestly say. No one can, all we know is what the polls tell us.

[ Parent ]

Nominating a black man says nothing (5.00 / 1) (#105)
by angie on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:52:00 AM EST

about whether the party is racist or not -- it is just like the other day when I heard some moron say that now that the Dems. have nominated Obama the rest of the world can't accuse America of racism anymore! HA! Talk about stupid -- there have always been what Zora Neale Hurston called the "pet negro" -- the one who was "different" and "special" and "not like the others" and therefore acceptable to whites. The nomination of one black man does NOT erase racism in this country -- and IF (and I'm not saying it is) the reason the DNC is nominating Obama is because he is "special" and "not like the others" in an effort to show how "NOT RACIST" they are, then they are.

[ Parent ]

apparently (none / 0) (#68)
by Edgar08 on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:31:10 AM EST

you didn't see al jazeeras report on the primary in Kentucky.

It wasn't a report about republicans.

[ Parent ]

The problem with... (none / 0) (#162)
by kredwyn on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 11:23:48 AM EST

the Media making blanket declarations about HRC supporters being racist is now that about 3/4 of the voting public (Republicans + HRC supporters) are now officially--per the Media--racist.

As far as GOP voters, they expect to be labeled as such by the Media. HRC supporters were outraged cause they'd never been labeled as such before...cause most of them aren't.

[ Parent ]

Funny (1.00 / 1) (#184)
by jondee on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 11:51:53 AM EST

I dont remember "the Media" (whoever that may be, specifically), calling all? HRC supporters racists.

Chronically "outraged" and suffering from a sense of outraged entitlement, maybe, but not racist.

[ Parent ]

implicit vs explicit arguments (none / 0) (#186)
by kredwyn on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 12:01:07 PM EST

Implicit arguments are those arguments for which you are not required to make an explicit statement/claim (e.g. HRC supporters are racists).

They do, however, require that the inferences be made by the audience.

Republicans are also not explicitly labeled as racists by the Media either. There is simply the assumption that you'll "get" the implications.

Implied arguments can be made with complete deniability: "What?" ::insert innocent eye batting here:: "I didn't say that. Where in my claim did I say that?!?"

[ Parent ]

"Implied arguments" (none / 0) (#196)
by jondee on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 12:19:40 PM EST

i.e., I'll tell you what you REALLY mean, is as propagandistic and manipulative as the tack you're attributing to the Obama camp.

[ Parent ]

: Nope... (none / 0) (#200)
by kredwyn on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 12:31:12 PM EST

sorry. Re-read my post. I was applying it specifically to the Media.
Are you now suggesting that the Media works for the Obama campaign?

[ Parent ]

Something (none / 0) (#28)
by Salo on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:12:59 AM EST

about that makes sense.

disaffected Clinton supporters will see media support as suspect. Conservatives will also see it as suspect.

Expecting a particular candidate to get good press could mean you resent that candidate this year.

Everyone knows that eh press gave Bush a free pass for at least 5 years so expectations of good press could have counterintuitive outcomes in November.

[ Parent ]

: I wonder if the Conservative (none / 0) (#36)
by zfran on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:16:03 AM EST

El Rushbo branch of the repubs. would be more likely to vote for a Bob Barr instead of McCain, who they don't seem to like, which might elect Obama?

[ Parent ]

now don't you worry your (5.00 / 1) (#16)
by cpinva on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:06:16 AM EST

pretty little head one bit about it BTD. i guarantee, once mccain gets that "st. john "the maverick" "straight shooter" mccain" bus a goin', all the good old boys and girls of the MSM will just be a tingly for the ride!

why, they'll spend hours and hours just talkin' about any old thing that comes to mind, munching on free snacks, and sipping good american whiskey. hey, whiskey ryhmes with frisky! bet old john'll get a little frisky with some o' them there girl type reporters. hehe

meanwhile, back at the ranch, the MSM will be bearing down on that fake barack obama. they'll suddenly "discover" all of his questionable relationships, with people he hardly knew, for 20 years!

so don't you be worrying yourself one bit about ol' john, the media will just eat up that whole "maverick" bit, just like it did in 2000. the good boys and girls know exactly what to say.

I now think that won't happen (none / 0) (#20)
by andgarden on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:07:26 AM EST

They love Obama too much.

[ Parent ]

I'm wondering (none / 0) (#34)
by Salo on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:15:40 AM EST

if Mccain might dare to turn things around here.

"Well, Tim Russert and Chris Matthews got you all 8 years of Bush. Here they go again over at MSNBO."

half the Clintonites will cheer inwardly and some might even be brought over.

[ Parent ]

: LOL, I'd bust a gut if he did that.... (none / 0) (#125)
by Maria Garcia on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 11:03:41 AM EST

...particularly since no one embraced Bush more than McCain did.

[ Parent ]

No, they love(d) the Obama Movement (none / 0) (#202)
by Ellie on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 01:00:44 PM EST

Obama alone is boring, and as a BFF of the media, more of a cudgel to use on Sen Clinton AKA Those "Get a Load of Them" Clintons (What'd they do now? What a freakin' hoot!)

Now all those same dismissals TeamObie used to wave away charges of Imagined Sex!sm by hypersensitive overly excitable old Hormonals will be exploited by the Rethuggernaut.

The cold civil war is their bread and butter. It's what has sustained them and what many of them live for.

what a

[ Parent ]

So far (none / 0) (#22)
by Dalton Hoffine on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:10:30 AM EST

No relenting. I know MSNObama ain't gonna turn, and neither will Roland Martin and the gang over at CNN. Lou Dobbs is the only one who might really start giving McCain some serious love, since he has a personal vendetta against Obama for Obama's comment comparing him to Rush Limbaugh. FOX has always favored McCain and will continue to.

Print media is heavily for Obama. No way Newsweek, Time, NYT, etc. turn. I think Obama safely keeps his media darling status.

[ Parent ]

: I think you're right. (none / 0) (#37)
by kempis on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:16:21 AM EST

[ Parent ]
: Yep (none / 0) (#62)
by Ga6thDem on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:28:40 AM EST

but it seems to have also created massive problems for Obama. I think this actually hurts him with blue collar workers and women.

[ Parent ]

I sort of disagree with the whole frame (5.00 / 1) (#25)
by Capt Howdy on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:11:34 AM EST

I think the media has far less power than they like to think.
and having them "on you side" may or may not help.
it never hurt Bubba to have them as enemies and I suspect it wont hurt McCain either.
as you say, I think a lot of the problems he has had in the past has come from having them on his side, think the 2000 primary.
they can favor O or M but the voters pick the president.

I sure can hurt to have them against you (5.00 / 1) (#29)
by andgarden on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:13:25 AM EST

Just look at what they did to Al Gore.

[ Parent ]

i'm going to break Orthodoxy. (5.00 / 1) (#48)
by Salo on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:22:28 AM EST

And it relates to today's race.

Gore came in as a prospective third term of Clinton. The press had a pretty good idea that he'd lose, 8 year rotations and cycles etc. So they buttered up the guy they expected to win. it looked like absolutely unfair attacks on Gore. But what was happening was Bush avoided insanely bad coverage.

And that's what is happening with McCain today. he's got a serious case to make about the war, taxes, energy but the media are expecting him to lose heavily no matter what he does. So he gets a few nasty put downs and marginalization. Obama escapes serious attacks because he's likely to win and maybe win a second term. So the press know they are dealing with the Obama team for 8 years. pucker-up they are saying to themseleves.

[ Parent ]

Perhaps so (none / 0) (#56)
by andgarden on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:25:59 AM EST

but they did a disservice to the nation.

[ Parent ]

: That's my postmodern take on it. (none / 0) (#72)
by Salo on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:32:49 AM EST

These press peeps are only in it for access and career.

[ Parent ]

Betting on the Winner... (none / 0) (#130)
by santarita on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 11:07:10 AM EST

that's what the Washington media does. As you point out, it's access to the power elite that is important to their livelihoods.

At this point in the election year, the Dems look to win in a landslide. By all accounts the Republicans are nervous. But I'm still thinking that the media is fickle and lazy. McCain can get back in the game with a good VP pick - someone like Huckabee. And McCain will receive some help from his friends in the WH - a little gas price relief in August and then the usual October surprise. It will take one good national security scare at the right time for the media to trot out pictures of McCain in his Navy Whites and Obama in his bicycle helmet. And Dems are just learning the Republican Media Control tricks. The Republicans have mastered the techniques and are not about to go down without a fight. Should be a fun summer and fall.

[ Parent ]

betting on a winner (5.00 / 0) (#156)
by Capt Howdy on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 11:19:29 AM EST

so when cracks (real and serious cracks) start showing up in the media gloss Obama has, they will swarm over him like locusts.

[ Parent ]

I know that this an Obama site now, (none / 0) (#166)
by samanthasmom on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 11:27:48 AM EST

but a little reality check. This election is not looking like a landslide for Obama just yet. Although you might like to run against McCain/Huckabee, McCain has many other choices that would give him a much greater chance of beating Obama. McCain does not have to announce his choice of VP until after Obama selects his. The other thing is that the media may not all split the same way. Although it appears monolithic right now, there is a real possibility that some outlets will favor Obama and some McCain. We could have the battling TV stations. Like the gas stations who stage the "gas wars". Both stations actually end up winning. The "October Surprise" may be that there is none, and McCain can claim that because the Republicans have reacted properly to outside security threats, we are safer than ever.

[ Parent ]

: I don't consider this to be (none / 0) (#190)
by oculus on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 12:07:49 PM EST

an "Obama site now."

[ Parent ]
: Recent History Does Not Favor the Dems. (none / 0) (#195)
by santarita on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 12:16:49 PM EST

I agree with what you've said. It's sad but this year should end with a landslide for the Dems. And in 2004 the Dems should have won. The Republicans play the media well. And they know how to turn what seems to be the strong points of the opposition into weaknesses. The media is fickle. Give them a good storyline and they'll fall in love. It should be an interesting summer and fall.

[ Parent ]

I think you give them too much credit (none / 0) (#179)
by Valhalla on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 11:41:10 AM EST

For this to be true, they would have to 1) do some analysis; and 2) know a marginal bit about history.

I haven't seen much to make me think either one is true.

[ Parent ]

Gore was a democrat (none / 0) (#50)
by Capt Howdy on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:22:44 AM EST

and he was a terrible candidate.
they tried to do the same thing to Bubba and it never worked. I doubt a.) they will really try it with McCain and b.) it would work even if they did.

[ Parent ]

What does it tell you (5.00 / 1) (#54)
by andgarden on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:25:26 AM EST

that the only person media hate has failed to take down was Bill Clinton?

Oh, it's effective, and McCain, having always been loved by the media, has no immunity.

[ Parent ]

Gore had (none / 0) (#93)
by Capt Howdy on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:44:47 AM EST

the entire dem party and establishment behind him solidly and he still lost.
what does that tell you?

[ Parent ]

lol (none / 0) (#122)
by Salo on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 11:02:26 AM EST

Except the Bradley wing.

Daschle, Kerry etc. All those Senators have their own ambitions and time tables.

[ Parent ]

I don't understand... (none / 0) (#173)
by kredwyn on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 11:37:25 AM EST

why Daschel's been brought back out and dusted off.

[ Parent ]

: Dust too thick on Daschle (none / 0) (#192)
by stefystef on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 12:14:20 PM EST

to help Obama in South Dakota.

[ Parent ]

how did bill manage it (none / 0) (#151)
by Edgar08 on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 11:16:06 AM EST

one might be inclined to ask?

[ Parent ]

Gore, yes, and I don't think Bill thought (none / 0) (#61)
by brodie on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:27:59 AM EST

it an advantage to have the MCM obsess about his womanizing problems and his draft avoidance situation so much in 92, while the media gave Poppy a free pass on Gennifer Fitzgerald (a one-day story from one outlet, CNN). And Bill ended up winning with all of 43% of the PV, probably with some assistance from the presence in the campaign of anti-Bush Perot.

But Junior benefitted mightily, both elections, from the friendly press covering for him and running interference against the Dem.

Jimmy C got skewered by the MCM from the first year of his only term, and in 1980 they went after him for both substance (Iran, stagflation, long lines at gas stations) and silliness (changing the part in his hair, adding a too severe-looking necktie clip for his one debate with Reagan)

The evidence of recent times suggests the media does play a significant role in shaping people's perceptions, for good or ill, of a candidate.

[ Parent ]

: third party voting does happen (none / 0) (#75)
by Salo on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:34:37 AM EST

it is very common in most Democracies and it was a factor in Bush's economic failure. It wasn't a chance occurence.

[ Parent ]
: true but its a running narrative (none / 0) (#82)
by Capt Howdy on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:38:16 AM EST

and the narrative for as long as I can remember has favored McCain. can they turn on a dime and make it work?
we will see.

[ Parent ]

interesting (5.00 / 2) (#33)
by kempis on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:15:02 AM EST

So the press remains in love with Obama and they're breaking up with McCain.

If McCain says anything critical of Obama, he's been petty, ill-tempered.

If Obama says anything critical of McCain, he's standing his ground, pushing back, showing he can play with the pros.

I see where this narrative is heading--and it sounds familiar.

The problem is that the press can push narratives and influence public perception--but if there is little truth to the narratives, the public ends up enthusiastically supporting a disaster. See Iraq War.

You'd think the media would be less concerned with pet narratives after they helped to lead us into a tragedy not so long ago. But memories are short these days....

It's possible that the electorate (none / 0) (#51)
by Salo on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:24:24 AM EST

may be suspicious of the media this year.

The Clinton ites certainly will be. swing voters will feel abused by the way they covered up for Bush too.

It's possible that the electorate will not respond to the Public Relations and Marketing mission of the media this year.

...possible but improbable

[ Parent ]

: I think it is probable, given how (none / 0) (#64)
by oculus on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:29:25 AM EST

many people voted for Hillary Clinton.

[ Parent ]

the fickle media (5.00 / 1) (#43)
by DandyTIger on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:21:38 AM EST

Is hard to predict. Because in the end it's about ratings and power and money, and since that changes with the wind, so does the media. My instinct tells me they will continue to have Obama as their darling throughout the campaign. Which means McCain has no choice but to bash them and Obama together. And funny enough, if you all remember, Bush was the media darling, and he still bashed them relentlessly. So media bashing always seems to work for Republicans.

McCain won't do the bashing... (none / 0) (#117)
by stefystef on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:59:05 AM EST

I believe the McCain camp will do what the Obama camp is doing... get the surrogates to do the bashing (as they did to Hillary) and keep the candidate on a more positive message trail.

This election is not just about keeping a Republican in the White House. It is about keeping the Republican counter-revolution going.

McCain is going after Hillary voters the same way Obama has been going after "Reagan Democrats". And McCain has a better chance than Obama in this regard. Many Democrats liked McCain back in 2000 and if he can re-capture that "magic" before the massacre in South Carolina, he has a good foot to stand on.

It's all fair game out there.

[ Parent ]

So if he (none / 0) (#127)
by Jgarza on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 11:05:37 AM EST

can make them not notice his voting record? Aside from that McCain has had his own problems in the rust belt, his 2000 race wasn't a show of strength in that area. He did well with Independents, not rust belt dems.

[ Parent ]

: Obama's (none / 0) (#133)
by Ga6thDem on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 11:08:46 AM EST

record in the IL senate isn't exactly something to crow about.
It's why I continually predict that the winner will be the one that seems to be less toxic to the center in Nov.

[ Parent ]

Well (5.00 / 1) (#44)
by Ga6thDem on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:21:50 AM EST

if any party knows how to manage the media it's the GOP. They have been doing it for decades. Now, that the Obama campaign has legitimized people like Drudge it makes the GOP's job even that much easier. They have a whole pipeline in which to push stuff into mainstream discussion. They'll run 527 ads and force the MSM to discuss Obama's "problems". It happens every time.

This is going to be a very interesting election. There are large chunks of each base who don't want to vote for the nominee.

You were right about Obama's trashing of the clinton economic legacy. It has given a McCain a HUGE opening to talk about how Obama is Jimmy Carter's second term. It seems Jimmy Carter is looming large over this election: Bush is the GOP's Jimmy Carter and Obama is Jimmy Carter the return.

If the rumors about what the GOP has on Obama are true (and that's a big IF) then McCain can probably squeak into the white house by making Obama so toxic to the center that they not only won't vote for him, they'll vote against him.

: Bush is their 1968 LBJ (none / 0) (#63)
by Salo on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:29:04 AM EST

broken and useless.

[ Parent ]

CNN Had A Dukakis/Kerry Moment On Last Night... (5.00 / 0) (#46)
by santarita on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:22:17 AM EST

There was a photo of Obama on a bicycle wearing a bike helmet that didn't fit well (or maybe he was wearing it wrong.) And the caption was "Dork Award". So who knows - maybe the media is searching for their lever to influence the election.

Obama can expect about a week of hands off or favorable press. Then the media will start looking for stories of interest. And the Republican Wurlitzer will get the blast faxes ready.

saw that and was surprised too (none / 0) (#58)
by DandyTIger on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:26:57 AM EST

so who knows how things could go. Obama is a bit dorky kind of like Kerry in that skinny tall sort of way, so you never know how things could move. But in the end, I think the love fest will continue.

[ Parent ]

: Who knows indeed. (none / 0) (#78)
by brodie on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:36:56 AM EST

It's only June.
The MCM hasn't swooned about a Dem since the days of 2000 and Bradley and Lieberman. And they haven't come close in years to going in the tank for one in the GE, certainly not the way they led the cheerleading for Bush in 2000 and 2004, and for the two Reagan campaigns.
Might have to go back to 76 when they seemed to like Jimmy Carter. But that year they also didn't dislike Jerry Ford, so it largely came out as a wash in the coverage.
One thing which could decide things is if, unlikely though it is, O selects HRC for his Veep. That could cause O to lose his darling status in a heartbeat.

[ Parent ]
: But is "cute" on Obama.... (none / 0) (#139)
by Maria Garcia on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 11:10:40 AM EST

...at least that's the sense I get. I actually thought that was an attempt on their part to make him endearing and less "elitist."

[ Parent ]

A good scenario (5.00 / 1) (#60)
by blogtopus on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:27:41 AM EST

for McCain:

Use ads decrying Obama's record, and then point to the media "which would rather cover Britney, etc". Our nation is in trouble on many fronts... who do you want on your side?

: minor footnote (5.00 / 2) (#65)
by blogtopus on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:29:48 AM EST

before I get slammed / trolled:
I am not endorsing McCain, I will never vote for him.
However, I'd like to see how Obama does in a fair fight. He hasn't had one yet, so we're curious to see how he reacts to opponents who don't have one hand tied behind their back.

[ Parent ]

McCain will beat Obama easily if (5.00 / 0) (#69)
by MarkL on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:31:50 AM EST

the campaign is on character. Unfortunately, I feel that is the direction the Obama camp is taking.

Character???? (none / 0) (#81)
by 1jane on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:38:07 AM EST

Bomb Iran. More domestic spying. Endless war in Iraq. Long history of tepid support for women's issues. Doesn't "get" the economy. Stes firmly he'll continue Bushe's policies.

The faith-based Repubs are questioning McCain's character for gawwwd sakes.

[ Parent ]

Do you understand the difference between (5.00 / 1) (#87)
by MarkL on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:40:41 AM EST

character and issues? I do.
BTW, Obama has threatened to bomb Iran as well---he was by far the most hawkish Dem in the primaries.
McCain has a personal story that can't be beaten, and in terms of character, nothing Obama has done can remotely compare with McCain's refusal to be released from POW camp until all American's were.
That took tremendous gumption.
Obama is a complete lightweight compared to McCain, when it comes to character and personal achievements.
Now, if the race is about issues and politics,
Obama will do much better.

[ Parent ]

McCain... (1.00 / 2) (#101)
by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:49:47 AM EST

...was a terrible pilot (lost 3 multimillion dollar jets) that got shot down. He also gave aid and comfort to the enemy that got him special treatment (even recording propaganda broadcast for the North). Some say that he is a traitor for what he did over there.

[ Parent ]

: If Obama (none / 0) (#107)
by Ga6thDem on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:52:37 AM EST

goes with that story he'll definitely be toast in the general election. It'll play right into the negative perception many voters have of him already.

[ Parent ]

Stuff will come out (none / 0) (#104)
by brodie on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:51:31 AM EST

about McC's womanizing when he came back and saw the deteriorated condition of his first wife, then the divorce and quick marriage to a very wealthy trophy wife. Largely going along with Bush, in essence, on torture matters and the horribly destructive Iraq matter.

This one is shaping up where McC could become this year's Bob Dole. On attacking his opponent's character -- Where's the Outrage? said Bob to an indifferent or bored audience -- and in overestimating how much credit people will give for conduct during a war which occurred decades ago.

Especially when people's attention is now focused not on war but on basic economic personal security matters.

[ Parent ]

The (5.00 / 2) (#111)
by Ga6thDem on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:55:40 AM EST

divorce stuff really isn't going to work. It comes off as more smarmy moralizing from Obama. Leave the sanctimonious lectures to the GOP. Attacking his service to the country isn't going to work either. Obama is going to have to try it on issues. It's the only thing he's got. Too bad he didn't spend the primaries honing his issues message.

[ Parent ]

No one here suggested O (none / 0) (#149)
by brodie on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 11:15:58 AM EST

go after McC's service record. But what should be offered is how McC has largely backed Junior's pro-torture position -- and how sad it is that a man who heroically endured torture all those yrs in Hanoi has been at least condoning the very same practices by Bush.

As for his womanizing, that should preferably never be done by the campaign or by O himself but it will come out through various other ways, either if the MCM has decided not to back him this time and they want to highlight this rather unknown part of his past, or if McC's campaign has decided to hit O hard on character issues and a Dem-friendly 527, say, decides it's time to compare and contrast.

As for issues, McC is stuck with Bush and the emerging Republican Recession. You don't need to have a finely honed economic message to win on that issue.

And it will be the definitive issue this cycle, not NS.

[ Parent ]

Womanizing vs. 20 years in a (5.00 / 1) (#154)
by zfran on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 11:17:58 AM EST

hate-bating church hmmmmm...tough choice

[ Parent ]

: Um, I'll take the womanizing thanks! (none / 0) (#157)
by MarkL on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 11:19:43 AM EST

It's more fun, and it doesn't hurt people.

[ Parent ]

You do (none / 0) (#164)
by Ga6thDem on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 11:24:42 AM EST

need a finely honed economic message. This is problem I see repeated time and again by Obama and his supporters: Vote against McCain. It's all anti and nothing pro. Obama comes off as out of touch on economic issues as McCain does. His entire economic team is pretty much graduates of the Milton Friedman Univ of Chicago economic policies.

The democratic party is really clueless if they aren't taking McCain seriously. They seem to think that there's no way they can lose this election. It's the same mistake Kerry made 4 years ago. Obama seems to just want to coast until Nov.

While I think that the GOP is going to get slaughtered in the house and senate races, I certainly don't think that Obama is a shoe in for the Presidency. The public seems to be resistant to voting for him. He should have much more of a lead than he does over McCain if he's a shoe in to win. And don't forget that the congressional dems are even LESS POPULAR than Bush. It's going to be a close election imo and a lot of ticket splitting.

[ Parent ]

: the cautionary tale is Labour in 1992 (none / 0) (#167)
by Salo on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 11:28:33 AM EST

after the fall of Thatcher and the Grey Eminence of John Major the Labour party lost a gimme.
Gore should have been a gimme too.

[ Parent ]

why he's not Dole. (5.00 / 1) (#135)
by Salo on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 11:09:35 AM EST

Bush is the one in Office.

The most apt comparison I can see is that McCain is their Gore.

That's why Obama has been saying he's Clinton's third....ooops Bush's third term.

if anything obama is our version of Bush.

[ Parent ]

I agree. Just that one true story (none / 0) (#193)
by oculus on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 12:14:30 PM EST

about McCain refusing an offer to leave Hanoi unless all of his compatriots were also allowed to leave. McCain can mix up Sunnis and Shias forever. Will not make any difference.

[ Parent ]

let's take his argument seriously for a moment. (5.00 / 1) (#98)
by Salo on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:47:06 AM EST

McCain has stuck with the war through thick and thin and he's been vocally critical about characters like Rumsfeld and Bremer. he's not asking our soldiers to do anything he has not personally done himself. He's anti-abortion but not militantly so, he's pragmatic about taxation--lowers it when possible raises it when needed.

This alone could win him Ohio, Michigan, Missouri and other midwestern battleground states. it might even lock the rocky West down on the face of it.

[ Parent ]

biggest danger to Obama, the Obama bubble (5.00 / 1) (#73)
by DandyTIger on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:33:16 AM EST

OK, can I get a TM on that (the Obama bubble (TOB)). :-) I think that is the biggest danger the Obama campaign has. Sometimes labeled as them having their heads in the sand. They and their supporters keep saying there is no problem with blue collar whites, just with Appalachia. They think they have no problem with women, just some "so called" democrats. You know the type, wink wink. They think they will get the latino vote without having to work on it.

They are going to spend all of their time it seems, assuming dems are in lock step, working on red states and evangelicals. Who knows, maybe the strategy will work. But I think they're in a bubble and have absolutely no idea about what people are really thinking and how they feel.

I think if the McCain campaign can get their heads around that and see the weakness in it, he could use that as leverage to peel away more moderate dems (women, blue collar workers, etc.). Basically use the elite, taking you for granted, selected by the party elite not the voters, out of touch memes.

: oh, and link Obama with the media (none / 0) (#77)
by DandyTIger on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:36:24 AM EST

since the media is clearly elite and out of touch, and picking sides and being biased for reasons that are not in the interest to Americans.
Which means, Obama even with the media on his side, has serious work to do. He has to actually win the votes of Democrats. And that's the danger he's in, I don't think he sees that he has to do that.

[ Parent ]
: quite a lot of voters (none / 0) (#80)
by Salo on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:37:27 AM EST

blame (Russert and Tweety and Wolf and) the media for the war in Iraq.
So media influence might backfire in certain places and in certain demographics.

[ Parent ]
: I for one (none / 0) (#99)
by shoulin4 on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:48:18 AM EST

don't think that the problem he has with blue collar whites, women, and latinos are imaginary.
But if he openly tries to court these groups, he'll be seen as disingenious (as both he and McCain did during their spot appearances on Army Wives), but if he does nothing at all, he'll be seen as "an elite snob" who doesn't care these groups (as if he weren't already seen that way by these groups). I mean seriously, how many of Clinton's most ardent supporters have said that no amount of begging could get them to vote for him? So why waste time and energy trying to please people that hate his guts anyway and have no intention what-so-ever of supporting him?
I don't think the problems are imaginary, it's just that some of them are unsolvable. So what's he supposed to do? Put these groups in with the same league that he's been actively campaigning for, and really turn up the campaign heat, and at the same time make sure that he doesn't appear to be favoring one group over the other, and "hope" that tensions at least loosen over time and that the differences between him and McCain get through the newly formed holes. . .
Eh, what am I talking about? I'm not his campaign strategist. Sorry, nevermind.

[ Parent ]

Obama Drama (5.00 / 4) (#76)
by sarahfdavis on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:35:47 AM EST

The big juicy stories are gonna be on the Obama side, not the McCain side. Now that the fantasmagoric witch burning and launching of her ashes into outer space is complete, the mob needs another sacrifice. The disgracing of a candidate will be much easier to do with Obama. Just look at some of the wild crazy sh*t about him that blipped onto the screens for a few

McCain's Dilemma: The Media

The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

Menu

Premium Ads

Blog Ads

Search

Login

Creator and Principal Author

Contributors

TL Alumni

Contribute To TalkLeft

Sections

Site Credits

Legal

Stats