home

Hillary Clinton, Media Darling?

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Media
Posted on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 03:00:11 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

That's what AmericaBlog says. Bill Cinton was too I guess.

As readers of this blog know, I thought Obama the better choice to be the nominee BECAUSE he was a Media Darling and because the Media hated Bill and Hillary Clinton.

I believe events have borne out my 2007 assessment, certainly as to who would be the Media's darling and demon. I respectfully disagree with AmericaBlog's assessment.

Comments closed

< Thursday Open Thread | Civilian Oversight and Police Accountability >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Hillary Clinton, Media Darling? | 227 comments (227 topical)
    Media Darling (5.00 / 6) (#1)
    by janarchy on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 03:01:57 PM EST
    Only if you want to assume that there was some sort of BDSM relationship between HRC and the media with the MSM as Dominant. However, in order for that to be valid, the situation would have had to be consenual. I'm 100% certain that was not the case.

    What planet do these people live on again?

    Hillary is the People's Darling, as was Bill. (5.00 / 5) (#10)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 03:07:23 PM EST
    The more the media hate on the Clintons, the more people love them.

    That's a helluva lot better than being Media Darling for a Day.

    [ Parent ]

    Agreed (5.00 / 5) (#22)
    by Prabhata on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 03:13:36 PM EST
    Hillary's amazing wins showed me that the voters did not pay attention to the media.  Those who hated Hillary got validation, but those who were open to her campaign and found her policies great, voted for her.  One sees the opposite with Obama.  Despite the love affair the media had with Obama, the goodwill did not translate into votes where it mattered, the white working class and the Hispanics.

    [ Parent ]
    Why (none / 0) (#63)
    by Y Knot on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 03:23:48 PM EST
    Do black and/or educated votes count less than white working class/Hispanic ones?

    [ Parent ]
    Who does the Democrat always win? (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by andgarden on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 03:24:40 PM EST
    And who does he have to struggle for?

    [ Parent ]
    And they always will be (5.00 / 5) (#32)
    by janarchy on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 03:16:05 PM EST
    Bill left the White House in 'disgrace' with a 65% approval rating. I don't know what Hillary's actual approval rating is but the 18 M voters who supported her (and who continue to support her) and the groundswell of appreciation for her coupled with the ignoring of the insanity of the Blogger Boyz and the MSM is pretty impressive in my book.

    I'd say it was Media Darling for a Primary Season (if only it had been for ONE DAY!). We'll see how long before the kid gloves come off and the WORM turns for the One Some Deluded People Have Been Waiting For.

    [ Parent ]

    I was thinking about this today (5.00 / 2) (#208)
    by Grace on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 04:22:54 PM EST
    I believe, since the 2000 election, the USA has been trying to show Banana Republics everywhere how to become Top Banana.  

    Our election process is for the birds!!  It doesn't seem very Democratic and it doesn't seem very fair at times.  I don't know where this country went wrong.  

    [ Parent ]

    We went wrong (5.00 / 2) (#214)
    by janarchy on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 04:27:14 PM EST
    by not impeaching Richard Nixon. And then voting in Ronald Reagan who was another candidate that was not vetted or challenged. And then the Dems in Congress not bothering to push re: Iran Contra. And then enabling Bush I. And allowing Reagan to bust unions, and the media to not have to deal with pesky things like anti-trust laws so they were bought out by mega-umbrella corporations. And allowing companies to outsource. And continuing the dependence on foreign oil instead of alternate energies. And backing the trucking industry vs. rail for cargo.

    And many many other reasons.

    [ Parent ]

    If they think he's (none / 0) (#146)
    by Salo on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 03:53:29 PM EST
    raising more cash and their support could cement his win, they will stay with him for a long time.  mCacin could disrupt it with Liberman as VP though.    Joe would be a media problem for Obama.

    [ Parent ]
    I don't see (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by janarchy on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 03:56:10 PM EST
    Lieberman being anyone's VP ever again. Sorry but he's a joke to both people on the Right and the Left, even if he's McCain's closest friend and ally.

    [ Parent ]
    Evidence: the Draft Hillary movement (5.00 / 3) (#51)
    by Cream City on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 03:20:58 PM EST
    and here are the numbers -- in a matter of minutes -- in the poll on Lou Dobbs' site:

    Do you believe Senator Hillary Clinton should run as an Independent candidate for President?

    Yes     58%     7714
    No     42%     5511

    Total Votes: 13225


    How is that unity thang going?  Is Obama ready to do it on Day One?

    [ Parent ]
    An internet poll? (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by andgarden on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 03:23:09 PM EST
    Meh.

    [ Parent ]
    Sure. It says it's not scientific (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Cream City on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 03:26:12 PM EST
    but then, a lot of the polls this year don't seem to be doing that well.

    We'll see in November who says "meh."

    [ Parent ]

    Obama has clear signs of weakness (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by andgarden on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 03:26:59 PM EST
    but an internet poll is not one of them.

    [ Parent ]
    well (none / 0) (#201)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 04:20:14 PM EST
    Keep in mind the people this is tracking aren't big internetters.  It might be wrong but not in the direction one would hope.

    On the other hand it's too soon and is tracking initial resentment.     Be interesting to see it done next week.

    Either that or its the 10 of us on TL all day voting and clearing our cache as often as we can.

    [ Parent ]

    Gee, my 19 year old son says meh, (none / 0) (#198)
    by zfran on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 04:18:45 PM EST
    so, fortunately, I know what it means.

    [ Parent ]
    I guess (none / 0) (#55)
    by janarchy on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 03:22:20 PM EST
    more people are channeling the PUMA than CampObama would like to admit.

    [ Parent ]
    Evidence: the Chaos movement is still in force (none / 0) (#182)
    by Newt on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 04:10:12 PM EST
    I got emails from my Republican lists to go to the Lou Dobbs site and vote for Hillary to run as an Independent.  I'm still convinced that a big portion of those who voted for Hillary in the past few months will not vote for ANY Democrat in November, and had no intention of voting for Hillary had she become our nominee.  (Based on my informal tracking of right wing associates and mailing lists I monitor.)

    [ Parent ]
    Your Point??? (5.00 / 1) (#217)
    by michitucky on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 04:29:15 PM EST
    I received the same email from a friend who is a Taylor Marsh poster......

    Why do you continue to disrespect the millions of Dems who voted for Senator Clinton???

    [ Parent ]

    That may be, but perception is (none / 0) (#202)
    by zfran on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 04:20:48 PM EST
    everything to the millions who watch Dobbs. Of course, an independent run will split the dem vote and probably elect McCain, like Nadarites in 2000.

    [ Parent ]
    Medea Dahling. (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by Salo on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 03:31:48 PM EST
    That's what she was, that Clinton person, Medea Dahling.

    [ Parent ]
    Hey (5.00 / 3) (#105)
    by janarchy on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 03:36:21 PM EST
    I've always been a fan of Medea's. She got a bum rap considering everything that was done to her.

    [ Parent ]
    Fratricidal apostate. (none / 0) (#154)
    by Salo on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 03:56:12 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Salo, so what's not to love? (none / 0) (#179)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 04:08:14 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I think in the aftermath (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by samanthasmom on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 03:43:10 PM EST
    of all of this we're going to have our own "Princess Di". I think when Obama loses in November, instead of its being Hillary's fault that he lost, it's going to be his fault that we were deprived of an "historic Presidency".

    [ Parent ]
    Wholeheartedly agree (none / 0) (#211)
    by RalphB on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 04:24:44 PM EST
    and those who supported the media darling will be seen as shallow oracles.

    [ Parent ]
    When the media turns towards McCain... (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by kredwyn on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 03:04:07 PM EST
    It will be easier for them to point out that the media never loved Obama in the first place...they were always fans of Billary.

    Course they will neglect to remember all of the Sunday morning genuflecting orgies that almost coulda happened...if only they'd been able to rent a  hotel room...

    Something Ive been wondering... (none / 0) (#39)
    by Thanin on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 03:18:28 PM EST
    because I cant remember why it turned out the way it did, but if Mcsame is a media darling, how did he lose the 2000 primary?  Dont get me wrong, I know the media likes him, but an absolute worship of him seems odd considering he lost.  Or is his media status only within the last 7 years?

    [ Parent ]
    He wasn't enough of a good old boy for the (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Rhouse on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 03:22:33 PM EST
    MEDIA.  He wasn't someone to go out and have a beer with, why do you think McCain is having reporters over for Bar-b-qs?

    [ Parent ]
    Ok... (none / 0) (#73)
    by Thanin on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 03:26:31 PM EST
    so hes only attained this status within the last 7 years?  I honestly cant remember what the republican primary was like in 2000 or how mcsame was perceived.  

    And sorry if this is way OT.

    [ Parent ]

    For various reasons, (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by Shawn on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 03:33:48 PM EST
    the media has far less influence with the GOP base than it does with the Democratic base. In fact, McCain's media love probably made conservatives even more skeptical of him. Plus, the conservative media, which is all a lot of Republicans listen to, was pretty anti-McCain/pro-Bush, with a few exceptions.

    [ Parent ]
    The public dislikes Clinton bashing. (5.00 / 2) (#115)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 03:40:32 PM EST
    Maybe the public dislikes Clinton-bashing because the bashing is so blatantly unfounded and unfair; with Hillary as with Bill. The harder the bashing the stronger the public back-lash.

    Media Matters: Clinton's Gallup approval ratings actually hit the high for his presidency during the Lewinsky matter, reaching 73 percent at the time of his December 19, 1998, impeachment by the House of Representatives (in a poll taken December 19-20, 1998) and reaching another relative peak of 70 percent in a February 9, 1999, poll, taken during Clinton's trial in the Senate.

    Don't expect the same public recoil when the media goes ape-s*it on Obama. There will only be a backlash against the coverage if it is self-evidentlyy unfair and unfounded.

    [ Parent ]

    I think much of McCain's darling status (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by Practically Lactating on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 04:05:34 PM EST
    is because of 2000. The media wants to repent and is ready to give McCain his due.

    [ Parent ]
    One-word answer: Rove. (4.75 / 4) (#69)
    by Cream City on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 03:24:45 PM EST
    Not to be confused with Obama's version: Axelrove.

    [ Parent ]
    And it all goes back to South Carolina (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by BarnBabe on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 03:30:12 PM EST
    He was Swiftboated with a smear campaign by Bush. It was pretty ugly really. After that, no contest. I actually felt sorry for what Rove did to him.

    [ Parent ]
    Did you ever see the GWB / McCain debate? (none / 0) (#188)
    by Ellie on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 04:12:32 PM EST
    McCain called out GWB on on using indefensible and disgusting Rove dirty tricks and I can't remember now whether it was that war hero McCain was a traitor for being a POW, or that the whisper campaign that McCain was the father of an "illegitimate" black baby because the McCains' adopted child was from Bangladesh.

    GWB said in an sheepish aw-shucks half whine that it was just politics. I'll never forget how genuinely hurt McCain was.

    Random thought: how Repugnant is it that Rove's dirty trick repertoire is so vast and soooooo dirty that I can't remmeber precisely wich rotten one McCain was reacting to? Rove's compilation would skeeve the most disgusting politicians of any era and I'm including Renaissance era Venice.

    (BTD if you're reading, this was what I meant about McCain's Wabi Sabi and how the flaws from his bad speaking style working in his favor but Obama's slickness play against him. Note that I remember a moment from a Repug primary debate: that's an innate quality McCain has.)

    [ Parent ]

    It will be interesting (5.00 / 2) (#121)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 03:42:28 PM EST
    to see -- not if -- but HOW Obama and Axelrove accuse McCain of racism, given that McCain has an adopted Bangladeshi child.

    I'm sure they'll find a creative way.

    [ Parent ]

    Race card (5.00 / 2) (#156)
    by mmc9431 on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 03:56:37 PM EST
    I don't think they'll attempt the race card in the GE They used that to pry the AA away from the Clinton's. McCain hasn't got any of their support to worry about.

    [ Parent ]
    Actually they used the race card for white votes (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by ineedalife on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 04:04:53 PM EST
    The AA's were solid but whenever they had to keep the white, guilt-trip, crowd in line they would accuse the Clinton's of using racist dog whistles. They may use it in the general to get out their vote, not to hurt McCain's vote.

    [ Parent ]
    Obamas camp may not -- but they (5.00 / 6) (#184)
    by Cream City on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 04:10:44 PM EST
    sanctioned others to do so, and I've seen this before.  It's a genie that doesn't just go back in the bottle.  But those attacked can make it redound on Obama, just the same.  And the important thing to remember, over and over, is that Republicans aren't consumed by liberal guilt.  They don't care about that, and they are very savvy to being gamed by it.

    [ Parent ]
    Right (5.00 / 2) (#190)
    by Nadai on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 04:13:36 PM EST
    The Left has been painting the Republicans as racists for decades - not always without cause, of course.  Most Republicans don't give a flip.

    [ Parent ]
    Their savvy... (5.00 / 2) (#194)
    by Thanin on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 04:15:44 PM EST
    hasnt saved them in most any election this year.  Their liberal-evil shtick isnt working because bush has killed their namebrand.  If Obama wins it will be because the republicans got fired, not because people like Obama.

    [ Parent ]
    That's for sure, since even a Dem (none / 0) (#197)
    by Cream City on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 04:17:43 PM EST
    running for Congress had to run away from Obama but fast, taking out ads to say he never had met the Dem front-runner.  The Republicans don't have to run from McCain, and that's who's running now. . . .

    [ Parent ]
    No, but... (none / 0) (#204)
    by Thanin on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 04:21:40 PM EST
    mcsame will have to run from bush while still be his cheerleader.  A seemingly impossible task, and since hes already sold his soul to the devil by being republican he doesnt have any where else to turn for a miracle.

    [ Parent ]
    BO's standing in unexploded cluster bomblets (5.00 / 3) (#215)
    by Ellie on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 04:27:19 PM EST
    ... that he threw himself by accusing Clinton and her supporters of racism at every turn; whether overtly or through an underling to appear above the fray, in the style of the Rethuggernaut.

    How I hated that wall to wall smirk on Bush when he vowed to personally hunt down the miscreant who leaked that Plame info, er, right under his very nose. The media didn't even question the paradox that in a time of nat'l security so feckin' delicate that Prez Gladys Kravitz himself had to spy on citizens without warrant, the White House could be this porous (and clueless)

    Gaaagh ... must stop ... head ... exploding.

    [ Parent ]

    They may not have the AAs (none / 0) (#158)
    by Thanin on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 03:59:16 PM EST
    to support mcsame, but racism generally doesnt go over to well with moderates.  So they may not hammer it a lot, if they see an opportunity, theyll take it.

    [ Parent ]
    I am an Idenpendent and moderate. If the Obama (5.00 / 2) (#174)
    by FLVoter on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 04:06:06 PM EST
    Camp tries using the "race card" again it will have no effect on me.  Remember the story of the boy who cried wolf?

    [ Parent ]
    You may be both of those things... (3.00 / 1) (#180)
    by Thanin on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 04:08:21 PM EST
    but you dont speak for all who fall into that category.

    [ Parent ]
    Guess what my vote does count and my opinion (none / 0) (#189)
    by FLVoter on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 04:12:33 PM EST
    counts just as much as yours.  Crying wolf too often as Camp Obama has diminishes its effect.

    [ Parent ]
    Of course your vote counts... (none / 0) (#199)
    by Thanin on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 04:18:52 PM EST
    My point is that anecdotal evidence is questionable at best.

    [ Parent ]
    As is yours. (none / 0) (#200)
    by FLVoter on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 04:20:04 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Its not anecdotal... (none / 0) (#210)
    by Thanin on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 04:23:19 PM EST
    to say moderates generally dont like racism.

    [ Parent ]
    Saying that they will be swayed by it is just your (none / 0) (#212)
    by FLVoter on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 04:25:05 PM EST
    Opinion and nothing more. I say over playing it is detrimental and will backfire.

    [ Parent ]
    So youre saying... (none / 0) (#216)
    by Thanin on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 04:27:31 PM EST
    moderates are ok with voting for someone they perceive as a racist?  Id say mcsame is banking they wont since his surrogates -- bad speller :P -- will be washing the news with Rev wright 24/7.

    [ Parent ]
    You really do not get it. Continually accusing (5.00 / 1) (#225)
    by FLVoter on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 04:35:40 PM EST
    people of racism will not work, especially if you want to get their vote.  Just look how well that worked for him in the primary.  By your way of thinking, he should have won the primary by a landslide since the "racist" accusations were used so often, but that was not the case.  Racism should not be used as a tool to get votes and should only be called attention to when it actually occurs, otherwise it diminishes the importance of recognizing it and working towards correcting it.

    [ Parent ]
    Probably... (none / 0) (#142)
    by Thanin on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 03:51:41 PM EST
    what theyll do is accuse his serogates of racism since there are a fair amount of racist conservatives.

    And before you say that serogates arent mcsame himself and wont stick as well, remember how well it worked with Ferraro.

    [ Parent ]

    And the Republican (5.00 / 3) (#160)
    by janarchy on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 03:59:25 PM EST
    surrogates will brush it off, have a good laugh and continue to get their base to listen. The Republicans have never worries about being politically correct, don't need the African American vote to win and don't give a toss for the sensitivities of a bunch of whiny white liberals steeped in their own self-loathing and guilt.

    I wouldn't discount Geri Ferraro that easily. She's still standing. She now works for FOX, she still has political capitol and she still has a voice. Not to mention the fact that there was nothing she said that was even remotely wrong. (see above for who it offended and how little they matter in the long term)

    [ Parent ]

    Ferraro already is having her fun (5.00 / 6) (#178)
    by Cream City on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 04:08:10 PM EST
    on Fox, and it will keep getting better.  It's like crossing swords with Carmela Soprano.  Ferraro comes from her own political machine -- and is so much smarter.

    I think that Obama's people had the mistaken impressions that Ferraro was just another of us useless old white women -- and they also didn't realize that she is a hero in women's history, a name known even to those who know little more.  

    So make it like crossing swords with a cross between Carmela Soprano and Susan B. Anthony -- but with a national forum already to reach millions.  Pop the popcorn!

    [ Parent ]

    I never said... (none / 0) (#183)
    by Thanin on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 04:10:24 PM EST
    Ferraro was destroyed by Obamas tactics.  My point is that what they did helped paint HRC as a racist.

    [ Parent ]
    Im not talking about... (none / 0) (#171)
    by Thanin on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 04:05:20 PM EST
    the republican base.  Im talking about moderates who do care about racism.

    [ Parent ]
    You lose the moderates (5.00 / 3) (#195)
    by janarchy on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 04:16:55 PM EST
    when you continue to paint THEM as racists when they are not. That sort of manipulation only goes so far. As I said, the portion of whiny white liberals who wallow in their own guilt and self-loathing will fall for it every time. In fact, they'll jump on that bandwagon first just to PROVE how not-racist they are. However, moderates get pretty tired of having mud flung at them for venturing an opinion. They tend to shut it out and ignore it because that kind of tactic only works once.

    You apparently have no idea how angry most moderates are about being branded 'racist' just because they don't like Obama for other reasons (most of them practical). If anything, it makes them a lot more stubborn and adverse to Unity.

    [ Parent ]

    Yikes, who are you and how did you (none / 0) (#219)
    by Cream City on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 04:30:18 PM EST
    just look into my moderate heart and mind?  Well put.  And I can be as stubborn as a mule -- but they won't know it 'til backs are turned and I kick. :-)

    [ Parent ]
    Im speaking... (none / 0) (#220)
    by Thanin on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 04:30:38 PM EST
    to the large % of undecides who are moderates.  And both camps are going to play the race card.  Obama the black and mcsame rev. wright.

    [ Parent ]
    I distinctly recall David Brooks slipping the shiv (none / 0) (#166)
    by jawbone on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 04:03:11 PM EST
    into McCain's ribs one evening on NPR's wrapup analysis, during the primaries. He said in that wondrously sincere tone he uses to do his best bashing that McCain was a mile wide and an inch deep, that he new lots of things about lots, but had not indepth knowledge of issues. That was why Bobo favored Bush. (Ya gotta laugh!) I've looked for this statement but haven't found it; maybe someone with access to Lexis-Nexis could do so.

    But I realized then how deftly he filets his political opponents.

    At the time, I must confess, I still took his opinions with some degree of belief. Then I noted how he could turn on a dime; this year McCain is a fine thinker, etc., iirc.

    [ Parent ]

    I must proofread: New is knew; McCain's knowledge (none / 0) (#169)
    by jawbone on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 04:04:53 PM EST
    was a mile wide and an inch deep. Eeeeek!

    [ Parent ]
    Indeed (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by andgarden on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 03:04:38 PM EST
    At Americcablog, it's opposite world.

    he won't be their darling (5.00 / 5) (#6)
    by Turkana on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 03:04:51 PM EST
    for much longer...

    Frankly, I really hope that's wrong (none / 0) (#7)
    by andgarden on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 03:05:39 PM EST
    but I strongly suspect it's right.

    [ Parent ]
    there have already been hints (5.00 / 5) (#13)
    by Turkana on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 03:07:52 PM EST
    but, as noted at tlc, i'm particularly curious to see what happens at nbc/msnbc. obama may be a darling, but mccain's a saint!

    [ Parent ]
    Turkana, can you tell me where the media (none / 0) (#228)
    by hairspray on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 04:44:41 PM EST
    animus comes from?  I read "The Hunting of the President" by Lyons and Conasen who explain its origin as coming from the Washington elite (Quinn, Bradley, et al), but that version seemed so petty.  Surely there was more to it than that.  Or was that all that it was?

    [ Parent ]
    You are both wrong (none / 0) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 03:08:43 PM EST
    Here is the real question, has the Media OVERDONE it? Have they been too obvious?

    Can McCain, the former Media Darling, stoke up Media resentment on the right again?

    [ Parent ]

    Frankly (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 03:15:49 PM EST
    I think the media "darling" status has actually hurt Obama. They love him because he's a "first" not because of his accomplishments or anything else. This is also why he does poorly with working class voters and is unlikely to improve his numbers or even get Kerry's numbers in the fall imo. It has created massive resentment against him from all quarters which people are going to take out at the voting booth.

    The right will always buy into the media resentment thing. We should start using it just like the GOP does.

    [ Parent ]

    Ga6th, precisely... (5.00 / 3) (#167)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 04:03:29 PM EST
    *
    People react against blatant media unfairness, whether it comes in the form of undeserved deification (Obama), or undeserved vilification (Hillary.

    [ Parent ]
    conspiratorially (5.00 / 5) (#29)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 03:15:50 PM EST
    you could imagine that they hyped him so much in the primary, other than the goal of defeating the Clintons, so they could tear him apart in the general in the name of "balance".
    it will be interesting to see how long the l'affaire de Obama lasts.

    [ Parent ]
    You'd have thought that (5.00 / 5) (#42)
    by janarchy on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 03:18:51 PM EST
    given the MSM gave us GW Bush and then The War On Whatever, maybe, just maybe, people might've been a bit wary when those same invaluable and infalliable (erm, right) fonts of wisdom foisted BO upon them too. But no...

    Fool me once, shame on me
    Fool me twice, er, uh, won't get fooled again.

    Except of course, there was some serious fleecing going on.

    [ Parent ]

    the good (and ironic) news (5.00 / 4) (#70)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 03:25:02 PM EST
    is that those low information voters they so love to make fun of are still just as wary of the media as they once said they were.


    [ Parent ]
    True enough (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by janarchy on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 03:29:46 PM EST
    Sadly, it's only the low-information voters. Even the supposedly intelligent friends of mine who normally pay attention have been sipping Kool-Aid lately and bought into the whole RFK memo. I can't even talk to them because I'm that angry about it.

    [ Parent ]
    I have some of those friends too (5.00 / 2) (#100)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 03:34:14 PM EST
    but elections are not won or lost in those demographics.  they are won and lost in the middle of the country and those people are angry as hell.
    at the DNC and at the media for foisting this on us.


    [ Parent ]
    presidential elections (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 03:34:35 PM EST
    I should say

    [ Parent ]
    I know what you meant (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by janarchy on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 03:39:05 PM EST
    See, that's the thing. I know some of those low-information voters in Upstate NY and Western MA and they see through the smoke and mirrors.

    Sadly, it's the so-called liberals who are treating me like a social pariah now for not worshipping the Precious and drinking the Kool-Aid. You know I'm pretty sure I heard that "get over it" song before...maybe around December 2000?

    [ Parent ]

    quicker than a gnat's chuff. (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by Salo on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 03:34:37 PM EST
    If Lieberman is Mccain's VP the Broderatti will turn on Obama so hard.  So hard.

    [ Parent ]
    And then they'll cry, (none / 0) (#136)
    by zfran on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 03:47:59 PM EST
    we should have vetted him!

    [ Parent ]
    BTD... (none / 0) (#16)
    by madamab on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 03:10:37 PM EST
    what do you mean?

    Do you mean that when they switch to McCain the game will be up, because they were so obviously in favor of Obama before?

    [ Parent ]

    They ain't switching (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 03:15:28 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Well watching the local (CBS 3- Philly) just (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by Rhouse on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 03:19:39 PM EST
    ran a piece on Obamas' problems with voters in the area and how nice and stately McCain is.

    [ Parent ]
    I really am mystified (5.00 / 6) (#58)
    by madamab on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 03:22:41 PM EST
    by BTD's opinion on this matter.

    Never has a Democrat been a media darling. Obama will turn out no differently.

    I'm out. Peace everyone!

    [ Parent ]

    Who's reading the news there now (none / 0) (#53)
    by andgarden on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 03:21:45 PM EST
    after the recent unpleasantness?

    [ Parent ]
    Sorry to take so long to answer, (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by Rhouse on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 03:46:36 PM EST
    it's Susan Barnett (jessica Savitch type) with rotating Co-anchors.  And to keep on topic - While we are focusing on the MSM,  local news media will also help frame the darling issue in who they interview in the local markets.

    [ Parent ]
    Agree with BTD (1.00 / 1) (#226)
    by 1jane on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 04:38:39 PM EST
    MSM ate a load of crap served to them by Bush and his gang on a fancy platter for nearly 8 years. There is deep resentment among the press and self loathing because they bought the spin. Throw in the ability to fact check nearly every syllable ever uttered by McCain over the years and you'll see McCain playing defense along with his continual gaffes. Obama's been vetted about as hard as any campaign could vet by the crack snoops working for the Hillary campaign. The most McCain can hope for are missteps by the Obama campaign. Hardcore Hillary supporters in my county are rejoining the fight to defeat John McCain. The long goodbye continues for the dwindling pool of hardcore Hillary supporters. The rest  of the Dems are concerned about our country and fixing all the broken pieces Bush left behind.


    [ Parent ]
    LOL! (none / 0) (#35)
    by madamab on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 03:16:45 PM EST
    We'll see.

    [ Parent ]
    MSNBC aint (none / 0) (#36)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 03:17:05 PM EST
    not so sure about the rest.  I think they have learned some valuable lessons watching MSNBC become a punchline.

    [ Parent ]
    Good point (none / 0) (#17)
    by andgarden on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 03:10:48 PM EST
    That resentment almost put Hillary over the top. . .

    If they tone down just a little bit, it will be good.

    [ Parent ]

    Yep, BTD, you're right again.... (none / 0) (#37)
    by Maria Garcia on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 03:17:58 PM EST
    ...McCain won't be the media darling, and that's going to work out very well for him among Republicans.

    [ Parent ]
    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by dk on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 03:26:00 PM EST
    he's "new," his campaign is all about marketing that dovetails well with media marketing, he's Broderistic, and he assuages the liberal white guilt of the 1960s generation who now control the media.  He's their dream...until the next new thing comes along, of course.

    [ Parent ]
    again (none / 0) (#96)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 03:32:24 PM EST
    the good news is the only segment of the population the voting public distrusts more than politicians is the media.
    in the end I dont think it matters what they say.
    the media did not defeat Hillary.  sloppy preparation did.

    [ Parent ]
    Doesn't have to stoke resentment (none / 0) (#222)
    by RalphB on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 04:33:15 PM EST
    of media on the right, duh!  that's not gone away.  Resentment is more important for capturing moderates.

    [ Parent ]
    I must have been checking the wrong (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 03:06:16 PM EST
    media...I have been bamboozled...uh huh, yeah right.

    Americablog hates Hillary more than the media (5.00 / 8) (#9)
    by Prabhata on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 03:06:19 PM EST
    That's why Aravosis believe the media liked Hillary.

    site rules prevent me (5.00 / 3) (#52)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 03:21:40 PM EST
    from saying what I think about Aravosis (sounds like mouthwash doesnt it?) and his site.  but I will say this,

    Briar patch sexism  

    conjures some ugly racial undertones that I wont go into.

    [ Parent ]

    Lord, (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by madamab on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 03:07:50 PM EST
    and to think I thought I was part of the "reality-based community" when I used to read Aravosis!

    New goal post: (5.00 / 8) (#18)
    by oculus on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 03:10:54 PM EST
    There may have been some sexism during this campaign, but it wasn't significant and it didn't impact the race (name a state in which sexism may have hurt Hillary's vote).


    Better new goalpost (5.00 / 11) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 03:14:30 PM EST
    Aravosis in the comments:

    Except some of the most vicious criticism is coming from fellow women. So are they sexist too?

    So when Fox trots out African Americans to criticize Obama for supposedly playing the race card, that is the final word on the subject?

    What a man, what a man.

    [ Parent ]

    He doth protest too much (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by andgarden on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 03:15:40 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    If I were at a different blog (5.00 / 6) (#41)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 03:18:38 PM EST
    I would be citing Donnie McClurkin's pronouncements on being gay to him. McClurkin is/was gay, does that mean he is not capable of making homophobic remarks?

    [ Parent ]
    Indeed, and he knows this (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by andgarden on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 03:20:24 PM EST
    You know, if you check his archives, he was loud and right about that issue. Then something happened.

    [ Parent ]
    ALL the liberal blogs were! (5.00 / 3) (#81)
    by pie on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 03:27:29 PM EST
    One, in particular, was highly critical of his Social Security rhetoric.

    Yes, then something happened.  Was it that John Edwards dropped out, leaving two candidates?

    Hmmmm.

    [ Parent ]

    What a mighty fine man.... (5.00 / 5) (#46)
    by Maria Garcia on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 03:19:53 PM EST
    ...I just had to finish that off for you.

    [ Parent ]
    well that's the problem with sexism (5.00 / 2) (#107)
    by Salo on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 03:37:21 PM EST
    and feminism in general. Quite  alot of women get jealous around high achievers or resent supersuccesful women generally.

    [ Parent ]
    Yeah, it's like claiming (none / 0) (#176)
    by frankly0 on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 04:06:54 PM EST
    that Republicans never encourage or exploit racism because Clarence Thomas supports them.

    [ Parent ]
    You miss the point (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Prabhata on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 03:15:55 PM EST
    It's not that sexism hurt her.  I just made a comment that the voters who mattered, those who were willing to listen to her, voted for her.  But that's not to say that all the sexist remarks didn't happen.

    [ Parent ]
    Sexism (5.00 / 5) (#65)
    by lentinel on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 03:24:09 PM EST
    One of the ways that sexism reared its' disgusting head in this campaign was the endless focus on trivia with respect to Hillary Clinton.

    The media spent seemingly endless days discussing her laugh, her clothing, and her cleavage.

    They spent relatively little (and I'm being generous) time in talking about the relative merits of her health plan, for example.

    Saint Obama, who posed for GQ, never had to answer any questions about his haberdashery.

    [ Parent ]

    Well, it's probably true (none / 0) (#34)
    by lilburro on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 03:16:25 PM EST
    that his sexism didn't impact the race...

    [ Parent ]
    Many thought she was inevitable.. (5.00 / 7) (#20)
    by dianem on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 03:12:06 PM EST
    ..that doesn't mean that they were happy about it. They attacked whenever possible, and there were plenty of opportunities.

    I read the first comment, as well. It amazes me how many so-called "feminists" (although this one calls "feminism" an outdated term, after claiming to be one for the 70's - because she didn't wear a bra and supported the Children's Defense Fund). are offended because some women are opposed to the sexism in this campaign and claim that they are different from those bitter old feminists who supported Clinton simply because she was a woman. I would think that a true feminist would recognize that women come in different sizes and shapes and with different ideas, and that it is perfectly acceptable to support a woman for President, not because she is a woman, but because she is truly the best qualified candidate.

    The idea seems to be: It's okay to trash Clinton using sexist rhetoric because she is Clinton, and true feminists would recognize that she is Clinton and doesn't deserve our support.

    NPR ran opinion piece by woman from Independent (5.00 / 1) (#187)
    by jawbone on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 04:11:50 PM EST
    Women's Forum (id'd as conservative afterwards, which is not always done by NPR, iirc) who attacked and belittled Hillary for not knowing when to leave the primary, mentioned all those Dems who want her gone, even her own supporters (what happened to Charlie Rangel between 10:00am on Wednesday when he had only good things to say about Hillary and later in the day? Anyone know?), mentioning Rangel by name and quote. It was nothing but a battering hit piece.

    According the IWF woman, there was no sexism and if there was it was all beneficial for Hillary. Honest. (Where's the vomitorium?)

    Oh, well. Soon to be over...unless Dems wise up by the convention....

    [ Parent ]

    IWF...... (5.00 / 1) (#213)
    by michitucky on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 04:26:21 PM EST
    Michelle Bernard is President of Independent Women's Forum.  Same Michelle Bernard who appeared almost daily on MSNBC to trash Hillary Clinton.

    [ Parent ]
    If by "media darling" you mean (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by Rhouse on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 03:15:31 PM EST
    "next media punching bag', then yes I agree with you.  The media only wants targets to set their sights on, not deal with issues.  After all how many people read scandal mags for the issues?

    I love how people when making this claim... (5.00 / 7) (#33)
    by Maria Garcia on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 03:16:12 PM EST
    ...always conveniently overlook the fact that when the media was "trumpeting" Hillary as the inevitable Democratic nominee, they didn't mean it as a compliment. It was their way of bashing the Democratic Party because back in those days their darling was Rudy Guiliani. They were taunting the Democrats whom they perceived as losers and saying "Is this the best you got?"

    But when they finally figured out that the country was not inclined to agree

    Difficult to fathom... (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by lentinel on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 03:18:33 PM EST
    that you would support Obama BECAUSE he was a media darling.
    I just don't get it.
    They also got a kick out of Bush. They still do.

    The media's taste has never been mine.

    I have never considered Elvis to be the King of anything.

    Not everybody is logical. (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Prabhata on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 03:22:11 PM EST
    Apparently BTD goes along with what the media chooses.  BTD is great, but I guess he figures the people cannot fight the media.  I disagree.  Hillary did a great job.  What doomed her was the DNC and a flawed political system in selecting the candidate with most support from the people.

    [ Parent ]
    Not everyone (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 03:24:04 PM EST
    has a clue or has read me on the subject and prefers to write stupid comments.

    [ Parent ]
    I'm not sure how its inaccurate (5.00 / 2) (#120)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 03:41:45 PM EST
    if you are basing a candidate choice on how the media treats that candidate then it follows that the media is choosing your candidate for you.

    What would I be missing here to make a different conclusion?

    [ Parent ]

    Excuse me? (5.00 / 2) (#108)
    by standingup on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 03:37:32 PM EST
    I don't think I could count on the fingers of one hand where BTD has written posts where he agrees with the media.  He has been one the best and one of the few bloggers who have continued to be critical of the media.  People can and have been fighting the media on blogs for years.  The lack of media criticism on the part of other liberal blogs, mostly pro-Obama blogs, during this primary has been devastating to the efforts of many who worked to hold the media accountable for biased reporting.    

    [ Parent ]
    Really simple (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by rilkefan on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 03:30:18 PM EST
    BTD noted that Obama and HRC are nearly indistinguishable on policy, so he picked candidate who is more electable/more likely to have coattails/more likely to govern without constant smearing by the press. The Media Darling analysis clearly pointed to Obama given those criteria.

    [ Parent ]