home

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! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

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 >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    McCain's Dilemma: The Media | 195 comments (195 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.

     

    Parent

    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

    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 days. There's lots more of that. And a nice dramatic narrative will begin to be fleshed out - the anti-american candidate. You all know the cast of characters. We've had a quick glipse of the sypnosis.The hopey changey knight of new politics character will get really boring...it already is. Time for something new to get the audience engaged.

    depends (none / 0) (#88)
    by DandyTIger on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:42:08 AM EST
    if the media is really on his side, then as more Wright and related stories come out, they'll ignore them and say "old news". And instead they'll attack McCain for his age, anger, x-wife, etc. etc. There will be skeletons in both closets, some more relevant than others, but the media can handle them wildly differently. Remember Bush/Gore in 2000 and how things were handled.

    It seems like how the race will go depends on two things: 1) if Obama gets passed the Obama bubble and actually tries to win over dems, and 2) how McCain defines Obama as elite and ties him to the elite media, and successfully bashes both.

    Parent

    This is something I saw coming... (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by stefystef on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:53:03 AM EST
    When the media was bashing Hillary and giving McCain a pass, I think John thought that he would be able to get back the support of the Media who has been keeping him in the news all these years.

    Now that Obama is the new "shiny penny", McCain gets to feel what Hillary and John Edwards has been feeling all this time- media abandonment.  

    But this may be used for McCain's benefit.  Since the "media" is this so-called "left-wing cabal", the Republicans can say (and quite confidently) that the media is manipulating the election to promote THEIR choice for president, not the American People.

    If the Republicans continue to show the MSM, especially the Obama News Network, as bias towards Obama, this may give McCain the boost he needs with more conservative Republicans.

    Only because he isn't the media darling... (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by Maria Garcia on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 11:05:17 AM EST
    ..smirks are okay if your are beloved...don't you remember Bush during the debates with Gore?

    how can one take (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by Salo on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 11:07:41 AM EST
    Obama's support seriously if they wish to run on such issues.

    The problem with McCain is that he supports the bloody war. He supports the oligarchy who empty your pockets and he's not interested in economic issues that effect you in your daily life.

    Navy pilots prang their aircraft all the time. Especially before fly by wire electronics.

    For some reason, the Obama campaign (5.00 / 0) (#132)
    by MarkL on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 11:08:39 AM EST
    wants this election to be about anything but the issues, IMO.
    Probably so Obama can have the greatest freedom of action if elected.


    Parent
    Not really (none / 0) (#147)
    by Kevin on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 11:13:22 AM EST
    Every speech, Obama has attacked McCain on issues.  The economy, health care, the war.  He's even praised his service and gone out of his way to express his respect.

    Parent
    Who said anything... (none / 0) (#142)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 11:11:50 AM EST
    ...about Obama?  This line of thought was out there long, long before Obama started running.  

    Parent
    Re: economic issues. (none / 0) (#144)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 11:12:37 AM EST
    You are right there. The problem is that Obama isn't really any better. It's sad that the middle class really has no advocate in this election.

    Parent
    How the media will help McCain (5.00 / 2) (#171)
    by joanneleon on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 11:36:28 AM EST
    is by ignoring or minimizing his negatives, his corruption and scandals, and by propagating the "maverick" persona.  They'll also carry the attack ads and perhaps they'll analyze them on the air, causing further damage while disingenuously doing their analysis.

    I don't think they'll turn sharply on Obama, but they'll carry the ads by the 527s that will savage him while McCain goes after him strongly (but in a more clean way) in speeches.

    I really don't think the upper management of the major media networks are going to go against McCain.  In fact, this media darling status was, IMO, an effort to make sure Obama got the nomination.  

    Obama is much more likely to rock their corporate media boat.  McCain will not.  They'll go fairly easy until the convention and then they'll proceed to tear down what they built up.  It's their game.  And in the end, they follow what the network execs want them to do.  Remember how Tim Russert was ordered to call Florida on the air on election night?

    Nonetheless, McCain and the Republicans will continue to complain about unfair treatment by the liberal media, as they always do.  Their base still believes it.

    Who would dare vote against an (5.00 / 1) (#197)
    by oculus on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 12:21:00 PM EST
    African American AND a Kennedy?

    Don't come here... (1.00 / 1) (#134)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 11:09:13 AM EST
    ...stumping for McSame and cry when someone calls you out for it.  You got proof that anything I said isn't true?  

    One reason Bush won twice... (5.00 / 2) (#146)
    by Salo on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 11:13:19 AM EST
    ...Reagan won twice  and the other Bush won is that good liberals such as yourself didn't take them seriously or even attempt to construct winning arguments against their Presidency.

    Obama's doing quite well by pointing out that McCain is Bush's third term.   that's a reasonable strategy.

    We can't go from calling Bush an AWOL draft dodger to attacking a Navy Pilot who pranged aircraft in comabt conditions.  You'll look foolish and ignorant.

    Parent

    Once again... (none / 0) (#153)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 11:17:39 AM EST
    ...I never said anything about Obama using this line.  I, however, am free to say whatever I please about J. Sydney McCain III.  It is still a free counrty and when I have people telling what wonderful charactor he has, I'm going to express my opinion.

    Parent
    you certainly are entitled. (none / 0) (#165)
    by Salo on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 11:27:05 AM EST
    But your arguments are a sign of intellectual inconsistency.

    Stories about pranging a Phantom are not going to be of any use.

    Parent

    Yes... (none / 0) (#176)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 11:38:47 AM EST
    ...crashing the planes is central to my point.  Not.  

    Talk about intellectual inconsistency.


    Parent

    PS, I am TRYING to get the discussion (3.00 / 2) (#141)
    by MarkL on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 11:11:25 AM EST
    focused on the issues, instead of a contest between personalities and characters in which Obama has less chance than a one-armed 110 lb. wrestler fighting a bout with Karelin.

    Parent
    Really, focusing on the issues... (none / 0) (#148)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 11:14:17 AM EST
    ...with stuff like this?

    "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."

    I don't think so.  


    Parent

    P.S. I don't actually like McCain---only (none / 0) (#152)
    by MarkL on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 11:17:10 AM EST
    in comparison with Obama. I know many people feel the same way.


    Parent
    One variant (none / 0) (#2)
    by Salo on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 09:52:42 AM EST
    He tricks the media into attacking Obama.

    As soon as I saw (none / 0) (#4)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 09:55:40 AM EST
    the "cottage cheese on lime jello" line pass into the Times, I knew that Obama would keep his media darling status.

    Wow, this is not going to feel like any race I can remember. And I don't think McCain can get away with running against the media: his personality is just repellant, and it's not like he really has anything to offer otherwise.

    Really? I like McCain 100 times better than (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by MarkL on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:33:37 AM EST
    Obama, in terms of personality.
    Obama is quite similar to Bush in demeanor and character, IMO.

    Parent
    You like bullies and sociopaths? (3.66 / 3) (#89)
    by Dadler on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:43:02 AM EST
    That's what McCain is.  McCain is your classic PTSD case, hiding it behind a veneer of senatorial b.s..  But he's a thug at heart.  I ain't no Obama partisan, but, for heaven's sake, to suggest he's more like Bush is just daft.  Bush tries to bully, McCain IS a bully.  Obama is a skinny little guy who can't bully a fly.  He talks a good game like any decent politician does.

    Parent
    Well, that is your opinion. (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by MarkL on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:45:30 AM EST
    I'm just saying---McCain has a reputation as one of the nicest, most charismatic politicians around.
    Very few people actually think he's a bully.
    With Obama, it's quite obvious, IMO.
    Anyway, my larger point is that I will not support Obama if the campaign is about character. He has enough of a personality cult already.

    Parent
    there are differences (5.00 / 0) (#102)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:49:55 AM EST
    but one part of it has to do with walking and talking like you've been given a mandate when you only won by the slimmest of margins.

    Parent
    That's a good point. (none / 0) (#116)
    by Salo on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:58:36 AM EST
    Bush walks into office predending he beat Gore and pretending to be bipartisan.  Acts like he won 60-40 and proceeds to tear the political fabric of the nation apart for 8 years.

    Bill Clinton wins in 1992 as a populist firebrand knowing he only won a plurality and seeks to govern as a bipartisan head of state passing bipartisan bill after bipartisan bill into law.  nation prospers.

    McCain probably knows his party is going to go down to defeat.  Nevertheless he fights a rearguard action he knows he's going to lose. he's got a demotrable bipartisan record.

    If Obama wins he'll win by a similar margin to Bush.  he claims he'll be a bipartisan.  chirp chirp...

    Parent

    oh (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 11:10:35 AM EST
    I think obama is going to follow through on BP.

    That doesn't mean the nation will prosper.

    Parent

    By the way, defending Obama by saying that (none / 0) (#113)
    by MarkL on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:56:48 AM EST
    he is weak is a terrible idea. No one wants a wimp as President.

    Parent
    0_o (none / 0) (#204)
    by Faust on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 08:08:02 PM EST


    Parent
    Although I recall the cottage cheese IN (none / 0) (#11)
    by oculus on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:04:44 AM EST
    the lime jello.  Yuck.  

    From there, he segued to food. His childhood dinner table with his Kansas-raised grandparents, he said, "would have been very familiar to anybody here in Indiana. A lot of pot roast, potatoes and Jell-O molds."

    [NYT:  The Caucus]

    Parent
    Thank you Media (none / 0) (#14)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:06:12 AM EST
    for allowing a Dem to be president this time.

    You are forgetting (none / 0) (#32)
    by frankly0 on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:15:01 AM EST
    that running against the press is the Republican stock in trade -- and an impressively successful one.

    And Obama and his lovers in the media will serve up a case of bias so convincing that it will be very, very easy for McCain to play that theme.

    Parent

    I'm well aware of (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:27:21 AM EST
    how it can backfire.  I'm a living example.  The chances of me voting for Obama are diminished by every second of media I happen to come across.

    If I pull the lever for him one can assume my insulation efforts were successful.

    Parent

    That's a more subtle (none / 0) (#85)
    by Salo on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:39:51 AM EST
    version of what BTD is talking about.  BTD made the point crudely.

    Parent
    Well, at least (none / 0) (#17)
    by lilburro on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:06:19 AM EST
    it's likely he won't be characterized as "whining" for doing it.

    At this point I see no opening for him though.  Maybe after a debate, or another hit piece a la the NY Times lobbyist article.

    Brian Williams interview with McCain (none / 0) (#21)
    by Josey on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:08:56 AM EST
    When Williams interviews Obama the lovefest is very obvious. But last night Williams appeared to be tolerating his interview with McCain.
    McCain is courting the women's (none / 0) (#24)
    by zfran on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:10:52 AM EST
    vote, McCain is courting the blue-collar workers. Is Obama?

    Parent
    And they just might see through (none / 0) (#39)
    by zfran on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:18:18 AM EST
    Obama's pandering. At least McCain's motives are very clear.

    Parent
    Yes, but they've seen Obama (none / 0) (#71)
    by zfran on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:32:32 AM EST
    be uninterested in their vote in the primary. Blue collar voters usually vote Dems., perhaps they are mad, too, and will not vote that way. McCain is going after them, a new voting bloc for repubs.

    Parent
    This is not... (none / 0) (#95)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:45:32 AM EST
    ...a new voting block for Republicans.  Bush went after them hard in '04.  Remember the NASCAR Dads?

    "A full 49 percent of them (blue collar males) and 38 percent percent of blue-collar women told a January 2003 Roper poll they would vote for Bush in 2004."

    Parent

    No (none / 0) (#67)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:30:23 AM EST
    that's not going to work. Obama's problems are largely cultural and can't be corrected by throwing money at voters.

    Parent
    Has he introduced any bills? (none / 0) (#170)
    by ineedalife on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 11:36:26 AM EST
    He is a senator. He said the 50 billion would have to be done now, not wait until the next president is in office. If it is so urgent, why isn't he in DC drafting legislation?  And how is it paid for? Hillary's gas tax holiday was also a stimulus and he ridiculed it.

    So it is just words and pandering. Which is ok now, I guess.


    Parent

    Things will change (none / 0) (#23)
    by zebedee on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:10:52 AM EST
    The media may tire of Obama, the fresh face advantage has a tendency to wear off eventually. He may have peaked with clinching the nomination and having celebrated him as the first AA nominee they will feel they've done enough to satisfy their feel-good instincts. If he stumbles again Mccain may look like a more solid choice and we may a see a lot of the "Is Obama ready?" theme.

    21 weeks... (none / 0) (#38)
    by mike in dc on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:17:33 AM EST
    ...until the election.  Any attacks on Obama prior to the Democratic convention can conceivably be nullified by a great convention and by rapid response and counterattack.  There are only 8 weeks before the election, after the GOP convention concludes.  So, if Obama can extend his lead into double digits going into the "home stretch", he can win this thing despite whatever mud gets flung his way.  The fact that he will have a financial advantage (1st time since maybe 1996) over McCain will mitigate some of this as well.  I think some of the media don't want to be blamed for throwing up a road block to history.  Plus, reporters are human beings, not impervious to personal charm and charisma.

    Turnout, particularly with first time or infrequent voters, is crucial.  Minimizing our "defection" rate among Dems is also key. If we get high turnout, a 90% loyalty rate for registered Dems, win by 10-20 points among unaffiliateds, and get 10-15% Republican support, Obama and the whole Dem congressional slate wins in a landslide in November.  Democratic president, Democratic House, Filibuster-proof Democratic Senate.  Total victory is possible.  We just have to work our butts off for it.  

    Hmm, now how would we get (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:19:51 AM EST
    the whole party on board. . .?

    Parent
    I wonder how (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by frankly0 on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:40:41 AM EST
    many Democrats who have been labeled as racists by the Obama side, or who have been disgusted by the sexism against Hillary with the malign silence of the Obama camp and the Democratic Party are going to "work their butts off" for Obama.

    My guess is that that number is not going to be great.

    Obama may indeed be able to ride a tide of public disgust toward the Republicans to victory in November -- though that probably depends on how much more the Republicans can dredge up about Obama's past, and how well they can package it.

    But what is certain is that if Obama wins, it will be despite who he is, not because of it. He represents the worst of the Democratic Party in terms of public acceptability -- the elitism, the sneering arrogance, the associations with an America hating left.

    Sooner or later that image of Obama will catch up with him. Perhaps it will be before November. Perhaps it will be after he is in office and the tide of anger towards the Republicans recedes, and frustration with the reigning -- and easy to portray as smug -- Democrats sets in.

    But it will catch up to him. And that's when Obama will become a liability to the Democrats on the order of Jimmy Carter, if not worse.

    Parent

    All "butts" aside, you have this (none / 0) (#45)
    by zfran on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:22:16 AM EST
    all figured out....is there any room for error. Perhaps misjudging the number of dem "defectors" may well surprise you...some who defect, will not accept the continued name-calling..give me a reason, a real reason to vote for Sen. Obama?

    Parent
    Well, let's see... (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by mike in dc on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:57:51 AM EST
    ...Reason number 1, by default: He's not John McCain, and won't represent a continuation of everything we hate about the Bush administration; Reason number 2: His policies are at least 80% similar to Clinton's, so voting for him gets you way more than "half a loaf", with respect to important public policy issues; Reason number 3: dovetailing on number 2, getting us out of Iraq, finally, with no permanent bases there; Reason number 4: Democratic control of the White House and both houses of Congress, equals policy success--the alternative equals gridlock and badly written compromise policies; Reason number 5: Sen. Clinton endorsed him whole-heartedly, and asked her pledged delegates and her voters to support him; Reason number 6: the 50 state strategy is being implemented, and will pay dividends in this election and in future elections--and Obama has played a major role in boosting that approach; Reason number 7: We're all in this together, actions have consequences, and there's no alternative universe voters dwell in where they can ignore the practical consequences of elections (not an insult, just pointing out that a Dem defeat in November would have adverse effects on millions of Americans and millions more people around the world).

    Parent
    Obama won't get us out of Iraq. (5.00 / 2) (#118)
    by MarkL on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:59:44 AM EST
    That's quite clear.
    In fact, he proposes to broaden the war on terror now, while weakening his earlier promises on removing troops from Iraq.


    Parent
    If you're going to pull this... (2.00 / 0) (#128)
    by mike in dc on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 11:05:53 AM EST
    ...then you have to acknowledge that Clinton's position on residual forces was also clear as mud.

    Parent
    newsflash: Obama is the nominee. (5.00 / 0) (#129)
    by MarkL on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 11:06:38 AM EST
    Deal with it.
    Are you having trouble "transitioning" to GE mode?

    Parent
    Ah, well, in that case... (none / 0) (#137)
    by mike in dc on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 11:10:13 AM EST
    ...you might want to compare Obama's position on Iraq(begin a drawdown in 60 days, most combat brigades out within 2 years, no permanent bases) with John McCain's (permanent bases in Iraq, minimal drawdown(and then probably only minimum number to alleviate logistical stresses, done as late as possible), possible staging area for ops against Iran).

    I think that one's a no-brainer.  

    Parent

    Which position of Obama's? (5.00 / 0) (#143)
    by MarkL on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 11:12:26 AM EST
    He's not consistent. Why should I trust him?


    Parent
    I don't see... (none / 0) (#155)
    by mike in dc on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 11:18:26 AM EST
    ...any inconsistency.  He's consistently called for no permanent bases in Iraq, and even Samantha Power's off-policy comments didn't contradict that, and he's consistently called for a beginning of a force drawdown within the first few months of taking office.  Now, there may be contingency plans for leaving a more substantial residual force in country than optimally projected, but I'd be shocked if any presidential nominee didn't have backup plans for various, less optimistic scenarios.  
    On the other hand:
    You can trust McCain to do exactly what you don't want the next President to do with respect to Iraq policy.

    Parent
    Contrary reason (none / 0) (#174)
    by frankly0 on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 11:37:32 AM EST
    number 1:

    As an out-of-touch, elitist, divisive, and moralizing scold, he will become another Jimmy Carter, damaging the Democratic brand for decades.

    Whatever short term good he might do in terms of policy will be overwhelmed by the long term destruction he will wreak on the image of Democrats.

    Would it have been better for Democrats to have lost the Presidency in 1976, given the damage Jimmy Carter did to the Democratic Party in the eyes of the public? I think the answer must be yes.

    Need there be a reason number 2?

    Parent

    A real reason? (none / 0) (#110)
    by Dadler on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:55:26 AM EST
    McCain is happy to keep us in Iraq for 100 years, he is a tried and true imperialist.  Do you not understand that McCain supports, with this thinking, the complete economic destruction of the country.  And he is either too stupid to realize it or simply doesn't care.  Go read history.  The recipe for destroying your own nation and economy is to engage in a war of unprecendented cost AND unprecedented unpopularity.  You waste actual money and, at the same time, decrease its value immensely by doing so in the face of your people's absolute disagreement and lack of confidence in it.  When confidence is the only thing that holds up the value of any money, McCain has announced, loudly and clearly and without a doubt, that he believes to destroy our nation completely is worth it to stay in Iraq for no reasons other than regional hegemony -- the American people, meanwhile, can suck it.  That's his position.  Go vote for him.  Obama is naive to me, I fear he might be a capitulator, but McCain makes him look like spun gold in comparison.

    Parent
    All McCain has to do (none / 0) (#47)
    by shoulin4 on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:22:21 AM EST
    is to make the media bias apparent enough (if he really wants to be effective, he should do it at every chance he gets), enough people will believe (and still already do anyway) that the media is unfairly biased for Obama and they'll vote against the media and Obama at the same time. McCain wins, and Obama disappears shamefully into obscurity. Problem solved.

    Taking it to McCain (none / 0) (#55)
    by 1jane on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:25:26 AM EST
    Campaigning in McCain territory along with direct hits on McCains inconsistent facts is a great strategy. The Democratic candidate is stronger and faster on pushbacks. The Republicans are using their same ol' playbook. With every state opening offices for the Dem and nearly 4000 volunteer staffers setting up shop to register more voters this June McCain is going to be out worked at the grassroots level. The machine being unleashed by the Dem nominee has always been underestimated.

    lol (none / 0) (#66)
    by Salo on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:30:15 AM EST
    Th emedia are more willing to push baclk on behalf of our candiate this year--that's all.

    Cynically speaking, it's only because they are expecting him to win.  

    Parent

    Oh, it's easy to rekindle the pangs of ... (none / 0) (#79)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:37:06 AM EST
    lost love.

    A late night.  A few glasses of wine.

    McCain just needs to bat his eyes at the right time, and the media will go weak in the knees.

    The media was on the rebound (from Bush) when they fell for Obama, but they have a history with McCain.

    They may talk a good game about being "soooo over him," but they doth protest too much, methinks.

    just don't see it happening (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by DandyTIger on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:44:41 AM EST
    I think the media is in love with Obama and will stay that way. That along with being a dem gives him an incredible advantage. Of course the fact that he isn't 20 points ahead of McCain right now is really the story if you ask me.

    Parent
    he isn't 20 points ahead (none / 0) (#108)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:52:55 AM EST
    exactly right.  if the election was held today he would lose.  if the numbers stay where they are, he will lose.


    Parent
    You not a romantic ... (none / 0) (#112)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:56:35 AM EST
    I take it?

    ;)

    Parent

    Working the Refs (none / 0) (#83)
    by HenryFTP on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:38:35 AM EST
    is all the McCain campaign is doing right now -- their definition of "negative coverage" is anything short of fawning adulation, anyway.

    Obama is still enjoying his Media honeymoon, but we're a long way from Denver still, much less November.

    McCain's biggest mistake on last Tuesday was making a speech at all -- I can't figure out why a guy who has been running nonstop for President for about a decade by honing his fairly avuncular image on sabbath gasbag-type shows like MTP has decided that he can boost his campaign out on the stump -- he needs to get back into the TV studio and similar contrived settings with smaller groups. His appeal has always been fighter jock cool, not football captain hot.

    The Obama team should insist on a debate forum with several media personality questioners to increase the odds of McCain showing the nastier and less avuncular side of his character. Obama will also need to spend more time mastering his briefs -- he's a good orator but pretty average (so far) in extemporaneous speech -- and he'll need some coaching if he's to avoid falling into the Al Gore trap of having trouble concealing his contempt for a contemptible opponent, which makes for bad television.

    he needs an attack dog VP and quick. (none / 0) (#150)
    by Salo on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 11:16:06 AM EST
    Because he doesn't look good attacking Obama.

    Parent
    He doesn't look good, but his statements (none / 0) (#194)
    by oculus on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 12:16:29 PM EST
    make a strong impression.

    Parent
    They love him because (none / 0) (#84)
    by jb64 on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:38:57 AM EST
    He felled the dragon-lady, now that he's done that they'll only love him if he gets her on the ticket. They want some sort of reality TV version of the Democratic ticket interspersed with an American idol  opportunity to be a bunch of Simon's hatin' on Hillary.

    And if they don't get that they'll turn on him, big time.

    McCain's Problem (none / 0) (#90)
    by Kevin on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:44:28 AM EST
    Is that he is being attacked on facts, not on made up BS.  When he changes his position 5 times in a few months (or weeks, or often, in the same speech), this will get attention.  I'm sure another BBQ will smooth things over though.  

    actually (5.00 / 2) (#96)
    by DandyTIger on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:45:48 AM EST
    I think Obama takes the cake on flip-flopping this cycle. But since the media is in his corner, he wins on that front.

    Parent
    Not even close. (none / 0) (#140)
    by Kevin on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 11:11:01 AM EST
    McCain blast the medias treatment of Hillary on a Tuesday, and 2 days later he is saying he never said that.  There is his position on:Tax cuts, presidential powers, torture, the economy.  Every position of his has been changed.  His so called opposition to the way the war was being waged is fiction (go look up what he was saying about Rumsfeld when he was actually in charge.)

    McCain is a myth.

    Parent

    who are you trying to convince here? (none / 0) (#161)
    by Salo on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 11:22:59 AM EST
    I don't want the GO pto have the Wh for the next four years.

    Yet I do see the possibility that he could win. he's got a serious case.  

     If you take Obama at his word that he doesn't believe the war is right; Obama should shut the war down.  If Obama as he has suggested, keeps troops in Iraq; he's going to be fighting a war he does not believe is right.  IMHO Obama will have troops in Iraq in 2012. He will therefore be fighting a war he has no faith in winning or faith in the cause of that war.

    That's a synopsis of what's wrong with an Obama Presidency from one intellectual perspective. There's no way the US leaves Iraq in the next 10 years--unless Nixon's retreat from Vietnam is replicated.

    Parent

    not even close, but the other way (none / 0) (#163)
    by DandyTIger on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 11:24:24 AM EST
    Obama is a multipanderer as we've seen, so he flip-flops with every thing he says, every day. But that's not the issue. The issue is how it is covered, and what the voters think. I think Obama will win in that regard because the media is no his side.

    I contend Obama is the ultimate myth and you nor anyone has any idea what he believes about anything. But that doesn't mean he wouldn't be kept in line and stay on a dem path. But that's just my opinion of course.

    Parent

    ROFLMAO. Sen. Flip-Flop from IL (5.00 / 2) (#97)
    by MarkL on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:46:33 AM EST
    cannot beat McCain for consistency.

    Parent
    On the (none / 0) (#103)
    by Salo on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:49:57 AM EST
    main nation security stuff he's been consistent and pragmatic.  His position is logalically consistent if you assume the war and occupation are a good thing, or a neccessary evil.

    Parent
    I don't know if he's like Bush. (none / 0) (#119)
    by Salo on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 11:00:26 AM EST
    Noone really knew what Bush was truly like until 2002. The position of head of state brings out what lurks inside the man.

    Hillary did not release her delegates! (none / 0) (#123)
    by Josey on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 11:03:21 AM EST
    according to NoQuarter.
    and according to Clinton (5.00 / 2) (#158)
    by DandyTIger on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 11:20:58 AM EST
    I don't know where that story came from, but no, she has not released her delegates.

    Parent
    And, haven't we seen this on this (none / 0) (#145)
    by zfran on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 11:13:04 AM EST
    site:

    Obama and the internet  

    Parent

    yes, and I won't bow to Obama's thuggery (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by Josey on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 11:21:04 AM EST


    Parent
    OMG (none / 0) (#160)
    by KittyS on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 11:21:42 AM EST
    McCain want to bring back prohibition!  He'll "veto every single beer."

    just to sum up (none / 0) (#168)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 11:29:08 AM EST
    over the last week we have seen two dilemmas discussed with respect to both candidates.  One dilemma concerns obamas ability to bring in a certain group of voters.  The other concerns mccains now second tier status with the media.

    I find its time to point out that obama has only one path to victory.  Media support.  No one thinks the media will turn against him but if they do it is conceded that he could not weather the storm.

    It is being considered that mccain could and turn his dilemma to his advantage.

    The ideas about who (1.00 / 1) (#178)
    by jondee on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 11:41:03 AM EST
    "the media supports" are just as subject to indivual mythologizing as this meme about the Obama/Clinton run-off "ripping open holes" vis a vis sexism.

    Maybe Im the only one who noticed, but the hole-ripping in reference to Mrs. Clinton has been going on on the omnipresent wingnut talk radio circuit since Bill was elected.

    To make it sound as if this were some sort of new phenomenon is historically myopic to say the least.

    Parent

    true (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 11:49:55 AM EST
    sexist attacks on Clinton aren't news.  Those attacks being woven into the legacy of the Dem party, how it was accepted and encouraged took us by surprise.

    Parent
    The fact (none / 0) (#189)
    by jondee on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 12:06:34 PM EST
    that we're living in a devolving idiocracy is not news to me, Im sorry to say.

    Though there is hope: an entire faction comprised of millions completely exempt from the malaise -- the supporters of one Hillary Rodham Clinton (Goddess bless them).

    Parent

    Btw, "woven" (none / 0) (#199)
    by jondee on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 12:28:16 PM EST
    by who? Of course that narrative had nothing whatsoever to do with an attempt to steer female voters en masse into the HRC camp. Nothing at all to do with that.

    Parent
    Ah, Hooey. (none / 0) (#185)
    by creeper on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 11:56:22 AM EST
    The trad media dissed McCain because they had to write something about both parties and the Dem story was writing itself.  

    The media will turn on Obama soon enough.  When those skeletons start rolling out of the closet they'll be falling all over themselves to be first with the stories.

    Eventually the media turns on everyone.  See Clinton, Bill.

    I have read McCain's facial expressions (none / 0) (#187)
    by oculus on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 12:05:55 PM EST
    are limited, either due to surgery for malignant melanoma, or due to his injuries during his imprisonment in Hanoi.  

    I dunno. (none / 0) (#188)
    by illissius on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 12:06:27 PM EST
    After Wright and that ABC debate, I am rather sceptical about Obama's status as a "media darling", and their unwillingness to tar him. But maybe at least McCain has ceased to be one, which is good enough for me. And Obama seems much more adept than Kerry at responding.

    Seems to me it is important to distinguish (none / 0) (#198)
    by oculus on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 12:22:36 PM EST
    between newspaper reporters v. editorial boards and between newspaper reporters and TV pundits.  To me, newspaper reporters always favor the Dem.

    I don't like these media darlings. (none / 0) (#203)
    by AX10 on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 02:06:20 PM EST
    Bush, The Iraq War, and now Obama.
    I do not trust the media at all.
    I do not like that they are aggressivly selling us Obama.

    Grooming the Stooge,. (none / 0) (#205)
    by Silhouette on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 03:53:45 PM EST
    There is no "problem" for McCain when examined under the light of strategy:

    It's simple.  They wanted Obama the candidate so they propped him up in favor of the candidate they feared they'd lose to, and with good reason: she's tenacious.

    The very instant.  And I mean the INSTANT Obama offically secures the nomination in August (providing delegates have not come to their senses by then), they will systematically remove his "darling" status and restore McCain's in a millisecond.  

    The media (owned for decades by the right wing) is simply a propaganda dispensing machine for the GOP.  Right now it makes sense to trick democrats into believing Obama will get fair press.

    In October,yawn predictably the GOP/media will announce a new and horrible threat of war overseas...oh...say..Iran...and the non-military non-veteran, non-foreign experience candidate they so carefully and artificially propped up all this year will topple like a house of cards.

    It's so obvious as to fool people.

    The best disguise of all.

    McCain's Dilemma: The Media | 195 comments (195 topical)