The Advantages Of Being A Media Darling

As most of you know by now, the difference maker for me in supporting Barack Obama in the primaries was the fact the he is the Media Darling of the election. Today, in the NYTimes, you see what I mean in Maureen Dowd's column:

[I]ts hard to believe that John McCain is now in danger of exceeding his credit limit on the equivalent of an American Express black card. His campaign is cheapening his greatest strength and making a mockery of his already dubious claim that hes reticent to talk about his P.O.W. experience by flashing the P.O.W. card to rebut any criticism, no matter how unrelated. The captivity is already amply displayed in posters and TV advertisements.

If anyone but Obama were the Democratic nominee, Dowd and the Media would never have written anything like that. That is what being the Media Darling means. It is a powerful asset for a political candidate.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< Sunday Morning in Denver | M-D Polls: CO, Obama By 3, NM, McCain By 4 >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    yes but is it right? (5.00 / 4) (#1)
    by Saul on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 11:18:33 AM EST
    The same media darling  people hated Hilary and she was probably the better candidate.  Why would supporting your candidate be conditional on who was the media darling?

    It was not conditional (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 11:21:22 AM EST
    I said it was the "difference maker." You say Hillary was the superior candidate. I saw not a dime's worth of difference between them on policy.

    The difference maker was electability. I believed Obama was the more electable candidate. the main reason was that the Media loves Obama and hates Clinton.


    Hillary was the better candidate (5.00 / 4) (#20)
    by robrecht on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 11:34:27 AM EST
    for two reasons IMHO:

    1. She is much more articulate on the issues (on which she and Obama mostly agree).

    2. She became a much stronger campaigner, developing a populist persona that Obama so desperately needs now.

    However, she was not a better campaigner in terms of overall strategy for the primaries.  I'm still surprised she did not win.

    I never believed that Obama would remain the media darling into the GE, but I may well have been wrong about that.  Time will tell.


    She simply couldn't do (1.50 / 2) (#50)
    by Radix on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 12:01:44 PM EST
    better in those early Red caucus states. The large majority of Dems there are African American, she wasn't going to win that vote, period.

    disagree (5.00 / 0) (#124)
    by jedimom on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 01:10:33 PM EST
    she waws doing just fine with that demographic until Clyburne, period.

    Clybourne's attack (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by Prabhata on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 01:15:52 PM EST
    Obama was in trouble before SC, and he needed to win that state, and big.  He had to win the AA vote almost 100 percent.  There was only one way: play the race card and take the AA vote.  That's why the Obama camp also fought hard to make sure the media did not bring the AA vote to light and called Bill racist for saying that Jackson had won with those numbers too.  If the media had played it, the win would not have had the impact it did and we'd have Hillary now.

    Obama Was in Trouble Before SC (none / 0) (#210)
    by daring grace on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 04:16:37 PM EST

    What kind of trouble was he in?

    He won more pledged delegates in Iowa and Nevada (even though she won a bigger percentage of the popular vote in Nevada) and won as many or nearly as many in NH (even though she won NH).

    That early in the race after winning a surprisingly strong victory in Iowa over (especially) Edwards and Clinton, where did you get the idea that going into SC, Obama was 'in trouble'?


    exactly, the dog whistles started (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by hellothere on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 01:27:52 PM EST
    then but i don't think the dog whistles used during the primaries will have any impact in the general.

    Doing fine? I would disagree. (none / 0) (#148)
    by Radix on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 01:33:15 PM EST
    She was doing better, that's for sure. However, against Obama she never, as I recall, polled better than 20-25%, amongst the AA community. So yes, she would have pick up more delegates, I don't believe, it would have been enough for her to take the lead, it would have made it closer for sure though.

    If Hillary had taken 10 pct AA vote (5.00 / 0) (#174)
    by Prabhata on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 01:53:17 PM EST
    in SC, that would have been the end of Obama.  He would have barely won IA, lost NH and lost NV.  Obama needed a win in SC and for that he needed almost 100 percent of the AA vote.

    I was refering to the (none / 0) (#66)
    by Radix on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 12:12:23 PM EST
    Primaries and why Clinton didn't do better earlier on.

    Because caucuses are undemocratic (5.00 / 3) (#73)
    by Cream City on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 12:17:27 PM EST
    and do not reflect the will of the people.

    Thus, we have the result of the so-misnamed Democratic Party fixing it for the candidate that got fewer popular votes.

    And thus, the Democratic Party is in a fix now.  And deservedly.


    Politics is dirty (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by Natal on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 12:39:45 PM EST
    and brutal. Just wait until after the conventions. It'll be seen in it's full glory. There is no fair-play in this system. Practically anything goes. Complaining about how undemocratic it was will get one nowhere. Until political consciousness changes dirt and manipulation is the name of the game. It's the reality Obama has cognized fully and why he'll likely defeat McCain who no is rank amateur at it either. Fairness is only for losers.

    Thats a very lousy thing to say and... (5.00 / 0) (#123)
    by Maria Garcia on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 01:09:24 PM EST
    ...proves Nadar's point. If the only difference between Republicans and Democrats is winning and losing, count me out.

    Didn't Obama say: (none / 0) (#194)
    by Natal on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 02:26:22 PM EST
    "John McCain doesn't know who he is dealing with" and just yesterday said something to the effect that he'll begin to dish it out. How are we suppose to interpret these comments? All I'm saying is that the political consciousness has not changed. There is no evidence that it has. People saying it has or will doesn't make it so. It's lousy to say this about our political system but it's what it is.



    So why the heck is Obama the nominee? (5.00 / 0) (#199)
    by Maria Garcia on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 02:46:46 PM EST
    Makes no difference. Just a game. Whoever plays it dirtiest wins. It was all just a winner take all game. Change Schmange.

    True, however, the demographics (none / 0) (#75)
    by Radix on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 12:22:14 PM EST
    of those early caucus did not favor Clinton, they simply didn't. Those Democratic caucuses had a large percentage of young voters as well as AA voters.

    We're saying the same thing (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by Cream City on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 12:51:06 PM EST
    The caucuses were disproportionate in those demographics, who can get to caucuses, and thus were unrepresentative.  And deeply deceptive.

    But since you bring up AAs again, I have to say what Michelle Obama herself said: "Ain't no black people in Iowa."  So that there was reported to be a significant number of AAs at many caucuses is about another issue.  

    Not necessarily fraud; see the Iowa requirements on voter registration.  You and I could vote in Iowa tomorrow.  A bit more difficult to do in a primary, when there is sufficient and better trained staff to do even cursory checks.  But easy to do with the requirements there and the overwhelming of the caucuses in key areas there.


    No AA's in Iowa? (5.00 / 0) (#119)
    by Radix on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 01:06:03 PM EST
    That will surprise the 2.5% of the population that is. Iowa is just one caucus state. Many of the caucus states are in southern states, high AA populations, meaning a good percentage of the registered Democrats, a majority in all likelihood, were AA's. Toss in the youth vote from the college towns, Clinton wasn't going to win those states. She would have done better as far as delegate count though, do to the apportionment nature of the system. It's a tough loss, the better candidate came in second.

    Well, to Michelle and to me (none / 0) (#152)
    by Cream City on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 01:37:29 PM EST
    and to anyone who lives where most of America lives, 2.5% is just ridiculous -- and almost entirely on campuses in states like Iowa.  Or didn't you know that and the actual AA proportion of the population?

    And you were the one focused on early red-state caucuses, not me.  So I addressed those.  I'm really done with dealing with the rest of it with those who don't get into the interesting demographics and details.


    Haven't a clue were the (none / 0) (#168)
    by Radix on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 01:48:51 PM EST
    Censuses Bureau pulled that 2.5% number. Don't really care what Michelle Obama thinks either. The statement that no black people live in Iowa is simply untrue. And yes, I did point out early southern states. How does Iowa's having a low AA population negate the other states with higher AA population centers and my assertion that Obama would win those regardless?

    Clearly, you do care what Michelle Obama (none / 0) (#186)
    by Cream City on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 02:03:31 PM EST
    said, because your argument is with her quote.

    that is simply not true. sorry to (none / 0) (#146)
    by hellothere on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 01:29:51 PM EST
    say it sounds like you are simply stating talking points. where is the research that supports your contention?

    Feel free to look it up yourself. (none / 0) (#157)
    by Radix on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 01:39:39 PM EST
    Take a look at polling numbers, before Clyburn, amongst the AA community and the under thirty folks. It's all still out there on the web.

    As an aside, these our my thoughts and not some talking points. If I'm wrong I will admit it.


    please supply the support. thanks (none / 0) (#164)
    by hellothere on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 01:44:27 PM EST
    Ok (none / 0) (#178)
    by Radix on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 01:57:34 PM EST
    this isn't personal to you, but (none / 0) (#185)
    by hellothere on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 02:02:25 PM EST
    figures don't lie but liars figure so a number of pols and pundits spin them. the clintons were extremely popular in the aa community. the poll numbers turned after the dog whistles. you can't deny it. the race for hillary wasn't lost before the primaries. that doesn't even compute to her wins in the latter part of the primaries. and include the actions of the dnc in that mix leaves a very troubled primary and a lot of angry people.

    I never claimed the DNc's nonsense (none / 0) (#204)
    by Radix on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 03:43:32 PM EST
    or the Obama champagnes reprehensible charge of racism didn't hurt. Just that states that had a large portion of the Democratic base being AA wasn't in the cards for Hilary. Truth be told, the Clinton's understood this as well, look at their spending patterns in such states. From my perspective, I don't believe she would have won those states even if racism hadn't been charged, just that the wins would have been much closer. Given that part of the Obama narrative, a large part, was the huge wins, which occurred in these states, losing by less than 8 points in these states, would have been huge for HRC. But the bottom line, she was unlikely to win these states regardless, that's why she didn't spend heavily there, I don't think she thought, or should have, lost by the margins she did there either.

    we agree we don't agree. have a nice (none / 0) (#206)
    by hellothere on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 04:06:46 PM EST

    Let's do a hypothetical for a minute... (5.00 / 5) (#21)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 11:35:11 AM EST
    If the media starts to treat Obama as badly as they treated Hillary, will Obama still be more "electable" than Hillary?

    I've said it before: when it comes to Hillary and Bill, the media-bashing has always been so patently unfair that the public comes to the defense of the Clintons. Ergo, the more the media hates on the Clintons, the more the public pushes back.

    Will that happen with Obama? Or will the prospective media criticism of Obama be sufficiently justified for the public to agree?


    Yeh. The downside of this Dowd column (4.00 / 4) (#57)
    by Cream City on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 12:07:16 PM EST
    is that when I read it last night, because it was Dowd attacking McCain, I immediately felt more sympathetic to McCain.

    Same reaction occurs when I hear that Olbermann, Mathews, et al., are sputtering and spewing again.

    Beware the Anti-Media Vote.  That would mean an Anti-Media Darling Vote. :-)


    Oh please (2.33 / 3) (#85)
    by Warren Terrer on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 12:34:26 PM EST
    You are anti-Obama anyway, just looking for another excuse to vote for McCain.

    I started out an Edwards supporter, moved to Clinton after Edwards dropped out, was never much of a fan of Obama. But BTD is being proven right. In spite of Obama's lacklustre campaign, the media still loves him, and if he wins this thing in November, that's what's going to make all the difference.

    Dowd's column is a smack-down of McCain. She's caught on to Atrios's 'has John McCain stopped crying yet?' theme. He's over-playing the POW card, and even Dowd, who never met a Democrat she couldn't bash, is calling him on it.

    I thought the whole houses snowball fight was nonsense. It was trivial in light of the real issues that need facing. But the media did turn it to Obama's advantage. I've had a few low-information voting friends of mine already say to me 'did you hear that McCain can't remember how many houses he owns? Ha ha, what a maroon'. The media is working for Obama this time.


    John McCain hasn't played the POW Card (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by Josey on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 12:51:37 PM EST
    as often as Obama has played the Race Card.
    Obama is the corporate media darling for his cash cow status - not his qualifications for president.
    But - the corporate media "elects" our presidents, so...

    I was at a modern dance concert (none / 0) (#88)
    by oculus on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 12:37:59 PM EST
    Friday night and heard the well-dressed middle age Caucasian man behind me justifying McCain's comment.  Amazing.  Who cares?  

    That he felt the need (1.00 / 0) (#91)
    by Warren Terrer on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 12:42:31 PM EST
    to justify it shows that this stupid incident has been having some traction.

    Who cares? Well it does seem to be hurting the John McCain narrative.


    I think I'm too "high information." (3.50 / 2) (#95)
    by oculus on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 12:45:33 PM EST
    NYT's controversial article on McCain's background make it quite clear he would never have gotten into politics w/o financial backing from Keating and Cindy McCain.  

    Yep, follow the money (none / 0) (#184)
    by Cream City on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 02:01:51 PM EST
    and I have even more problems with both presumptive nominees.  And so far, with one VP hopeful, too.

    I hate credit-card companies, because I have seen up close and personal how they target and manipulate college students.  Those worries have hurt many students' grades and more.  So Biden and Obama's coziness and votes with the great gougers of the working class as well also do not work for me.


    Then by all means (2.25 / 4) (#138)
    by Warren Terrer on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 01:21:21 PM EST
    vote for your hero.

    She's not in the running, (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by tree on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 01:24:25 PM EST
    so Palomino can't vote for her.

    What happened to the phrase (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by oculus on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 11:53:47 AM EST
    "on issues important to me"?  That seemed like an important qualifier.  

    Not necessary (none / 0) (#64)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 12:11:34 PM EST
    As your comment proves.

    Beg to differ. Without the (none / 0) (#82)
    by oculus on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 12:29:59 PM EST
    qualifier, your phrase doesn't ring true.  I'm thinking health care and Iraq war authorization.

    You expressed many times (5.00 / 5) (#74)
    by waldenpond on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 12:19:08 PM EST
    you thought Obama was the more electable but then you wrote you were wrong   :)  and then you wrote you were wrong...  :) and I still remember when you wrote you were wrong...   :)

    The ability of the media to get someone elected ???  Who knows.

    My opinion is people got tired of the media celebrating one candidate and bashing the other and it was reflected in how the primary shifted at the beginning of March.  I think it is a significant factor reflected in the polls.  It's just a turnoff for some people and they don't vote against a candidate... they vote against a nauseating media.


    i read recently that people were (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by hellothere on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 01:37:38 PM EST
    very tired already of hearing about obama.

    I wouldn't be too surprised, but... (none / 0) (#195)
    by EL seattle on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 02:31:32 PM EST
    ... I'd like to read that item/story.  Do you remember where it was?

    Not sure (5.00 / 0) (#201)
    by eleanora on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 02:56:18 PM EST
    if this is what hellothere means, but here's a Pew Research Poll from Aug 6th:

    Nearly half hearing too much about Obama


    yup, that's the one. (none / 0) (#207)
    by hellothere on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 04:09:50 PM EST
    Ha. (none / 0) (#205)
    by Faust on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 03:58:14 PM EST
    Nice flashbacks.

    BTD, I can't tell you how shortsighted you are (5.00 / 2) (#97)
    by Upstart Crow on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 12:47:32 PM EST
    I am a journalist by profession.

    The media has shredded its credibility in this election. Many no longer read, watch or believe the MSM. Me included. I now read sites like this one to find out what's really happening. I even read rightwing papers now because the information that the MSM suppresses is more likely to surface there.

    The misogyny and sexism in this election really were something. The media participated.

    In a time when there are layoffs in newsrooms all over the country, this was their year to show their stuff. This was their year to show that an unbiased, disciplied press will vet the candidates and support democracy.

    Instead, they preferred joining the screaming mob in the bleachers, chanting slogans and writing election advice to their candidate in the guise of "news coverage," and propaganda. Dowd is a prime example.

    They have become no better than bloggers -- and in many, many cases, a good deal worse.  The blogs have shown, in best cases (Anglachel is a prime one), better analyses and more scrupulous vetting.

    And hey, they're free!

    The MSM's corporate masters -- most of whom are Republicans, anyway -- will remember this come Nov.5. Expect the layoffs to accelerate.

    This one's going to come back and bite you in the butt. And possibly before, if the MSM mob follows the wind in another direction. Unfortunately, we don't have an alternative system to the Fourth Estate yet. God help us.


    They've been doing that. (5.00 / 0) (#114)
    by Upstart Crow on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 01:01:22 PM EST
    It doesn't work.

    The internet and corporate ownership have changed the playing field forever.


    Speaking of the Fourth Estate (5.00 / 2) (#154)
    by MichaelGale on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 01:38:18 PM EST
    I used to feel good hearing about how it was the watchdog over government and how ethical reporters were when it came to sources and research and little use of "anonymity and how reporters kept themselves out of it.

    I would support and cheer their jail time when they refused to name sources which was infrequent,

    WE are screwed.  No one's watching. Almost everyone has become enmeshed and lost all credibility.


    I don't know, MD seems to have no (5.00 / 0) (#104)
    by Valhalla on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 12:50:46 PM EST
    limits at all, so I can see her writing her trashy column the same no matter who McCain's opponent was.

    the thing to remember about dowd (none / 0) (#156)
    by hellothere on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 01:39:08 PM EST
    is that she is simply an equal opportunity insulter.

    Not quite (5.00 / 0) (#181)
    by Valhalla on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 01:59:41 PM EST
    She doesn't limit herself to trashing only one party or the other.

    But she has favorites and non that are based on some twisted bit of brain matter inside her head.

    I agree that Obama is the media darling, but not because of Dowd.


    true! i just happen to be in the (5.00 / 0) (#192)
    by hellothere on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 02:13:07 PM EST
    camp who believes that the obama media darling status will last only until the repubs begin some serious attacks. it has been low key up till now, but i don't look for that to last.

    Policy (5.00 / 4) (#140)
    by Prabhata on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 01:22:35 PM EST
    Policy is worthless without a good candidate.  I don't believe anything Obama says because he's never done anything. Americans don't elect on policies alone.  The candidate in the end is the most important aspect.  Unless Democrats get it, it will continue being a losing party.

    Media Darling, my a***! (5.00 / 3) (#150)
    by alexei on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 01:36:18 PM EST
    There is a dime's worth of difference - it is called having core Democratic values and not just spouting off "issues" that the audience you are facing wants to hear.  Clinton fights for issues that matter such as health care, the middle class and civil rights.  Obama cares for Obama.

    The Media Darling is the another reason why I don't want Obama - he is the tool of those in power.  Nader is correct now (not in 2000); there is no difference between the Parties and the Democrats are now showing that with their pander to the evangelicals", the total retreat from reproductive rights and the total disregard for civil liberties and civil rights (gays and lesbians and women).  This is "not the Democratic Party I knew".

    I'm pretty sure that my comment will be excised and I will get a warning (if not total banishment), but I could not stand this line of reasoning.  Obama and Biden are not going to change the direction of the Country in any meaningful way, in fact, I believe that this will be another Carter like Presidency with the concomitant repercussions - real Democrats wandering in the wilderness for 20 - 30 years.

    BTW, Dowd is nothing but a tool and of the worst kind.


    Amen! (5.00 / 0) (#200)
    by derridog on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 02:47:59 PM EST
    Give it time... (5.00 / 0) (#2)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 11:21:18 AM EST
    McCain knew what he was talking about when he proclaimed that the media is his "base".

    MoDo and the rest will come back to daddy, well before the GE.

    They are in love. They will NOT come back to (3.00 / 0) (#18)
    by rooge04 on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 11:33:25 AM EST
    McCain.  Except it serves McCain well because now he can rail against the bias of the "liberal" media and while it was BS during the Clinton years and through 2007, the Republican has a point. And the American people know it.  That's the bad part.   The liberal bias in the media is there for sure now.  Except it only backs Obama.

    LOL, I think this explains why so many.... (5.00 / 5) (#24)
    by Maria Garcia on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 11:40:52 AM EST
    ...Democratic losers like Richardson, Kerry, Daschle, Brazille, Pelosi, and Dean have affixed themselves so firmly to Obama's star. They've always wanted to be loved. So what if they are on the caboose of the love train.

    Beats being on the tracks like the rest of us. n/t (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Lysis on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 11:48:30 AM EST
    Boy you nailed it (5.00 / 0) (#28)
    by Jjc2008 on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 11:48:33 AM EST
    Their insecurity has shown their true nature.

    Love? Or power? (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by oldpro on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 12:46:48 PM EST
    Y'know, Maria...everyone wants to be loved, so I give you that but in these cases it is much more.

    They want power and could not win it for themselves.  Their trains never reached the station, so THAT is why they are on this train, dressed Obama up in the conductor's costume and placed him up front in the train, and gave themselves another ride.

    Obama is there for the photo ops and the fans who love stories and cheer for the 'leading man' in this play.

    Make no mistake.  Obama is not driving this train.


    But it's not a "liberal" bias (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by Demi Moaned on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 12:41:20 PM EST
    It's a personality bias that has almost nothing to do with liberal policies.

    The media bias against substantive policy change is not a bit altered by their favorable treatment of Obama.


    Trusting the media (5.00 / 3) (#103)
    by myiq2xu on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 12:50:45 PM EST
    is like Charlie Brown trusting Lucy to hold the football.

    obama doesn't wear well and (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by hellothere on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 01:40:50 PM EST
    the media won't i repeat WON'T ignore what the repubs will be coming out with once the nominating process is over.

    No they won't (none / 0) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 11:21:41 AM EST
    You have always been 100% correct about this... (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by Maria Garcia on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 11:21:40 AM EST
    ...I don't know why some Obama supporters (like my husband, for example) refuse to see this. They are NOT going to turn against Obama, no way no how. It is 100% crystal clear after the way he kept them hanging on over the VP announcement and they ate it up like it was candy.

    The question is, how much influence will they have and will the American public turn against McCain as the media has? Will this be like the Clinton impeachment or will it be like the run up to Iraq?

    being the Media Darling (5.00 / 8) (#10)
    by ccpup on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 11:23:33 AM EST
    didn't get Obama votes in the Primaries after his run in mid-February.  In fact, it worked against him.  The more the Media loved him -- and denigrated his opponent --, the more people voted for Hillary.

    If Obama IS the Media Darling, people will more than likely support and vote for the Underdog which would, in this case, surprisingly be John McCain!

    Why do you think that ad "The One" was so successful and effective?  Obama's Media Darling status has become a joke and further alienates him from those blue collar, rural voters he needs.

    Too much of a good thing? (5.00 / 5) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 11:24:19 AM EST

    Re. Obama, the media gave way too much praise for (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 11:45:07 AM EST
    too little merit. The public dislikes unwarranted media praise for Obama as much as they dislike unwarranted media criticism of the Clintons.

    In both instances, it comes down to the media being overtly biased and the public doesn't like it.


    as I just opined (5.00 / 5) (#39)
    by ccpup on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 11:56:43 AM EST
    downthread, the more a salesperson tries to sell you something, the more suspicious you become and the less likely you are to buy it.

    A good, solid, stable product that will do what it's intended to do -- and do it damn well -- really doesn't need an over-the-top chorus of bobbleheaded, overpaid cheerleaders to sell it.  

    The more desperate and strident the "chorus", the stronger the likelihood that they know they have a faulty product sure to break down a day after you get it out of the package.

    But by then they've cashed your check and are off to the next town to spin their spiel again.


    Caveat emptor. (none / 0) (#121)
    by oldpro on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 01:07:42 PM EST
    Or rather (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by blogtopus on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 01:20:47 PM EST
    Caveat Empty?

    It is not a good thing. (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by alexei on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 01:45:04 PM EST
    The Media in the tank means that the PTB are pushing the buttons for that candidate.  This is not good for most of Americans.  The Media controllers are antithetical to middle class values, you know like: good paying jobs, health care, environmental protections, civil liberties and good, affordable education.

    I know - I am not following the Party line here - and expect that this comment and the one above will be deleted and I will be banned.

    Yes, it is Jeralyn's blog - so she can and will do what she wants.  BTW - didn't Jeralyn state that if Biden was picked it was a deal breaker for her?  I agree with her assessment of Biden - Mr MBNA and Corporate tool with the horrendous bankruptcy bill and Anita Hill hearings.  Plus his support of removing Saddam  and connecting him with Al Queda (yeah, experience you can believe in).


    This is why it is so obvious (5.00 / 5) (#15)
    by CaptainAmerica08 on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 11:30:07 AM EST
    the media machine is more like a media bubble. They are so clearly in the tank for Barack, but so self delusional that they think they aren't alienating people. I mean even half of Obama's SUPPORTERS thought the media was one sided in that poll a few weeks back.

    Partially, I think it had more to (none / 0) (#71)
    by Radix on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 12:15:51 PM EST
    do with the demographics of the earlier states versus the later states, hence the Biden choice.

    The media wins either way (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by cawaltz on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 11:33:31 AM EST
    since both candidates are in the tank for corporate America. Color me shocked that mainstream media is lazy and will continue to play the same storyline they used for the Clinton Obama primary. Not.

    We'll see, I don't think the media cares one way or another who crosses the finish line.

    Doesn't make it right (5.00 / 5) (#37)
    by nell on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 11:55:56 AM EST
    Did it give him an electoral advantage? Absolutely, I believe the media is the ONLY reason he beat Clinton, despite having more resources. While on the one hand I think the ridiculously unfair media coverage against Clinton gave her a strong base of staunch supporters who may not have otherwise been so Clinton obsessed, it REALLY hurt her with the superdelegates. Superdelegates are politicians and it takes a lot of courage for a politician to do something that is going to get them nothing but criticism and grief from the media, which is exactly what happened to Clinton backing superdelegates. The other way it really hurt her is that the media started the whole you can't take this away from a black man narrative, which was ridiculous and wrong, and that also made it challenging for superdelegates to grow a spine...THAT is how the media bias hurt Clinton.

    But I don't care whether Obama is a Dem or Repub, media bias hurts this country. The media sold us GWB, and look what happened. The media is selling us Obama now, and I don't think it will end well for the country. He is unqualified and the media refuses to cover him objectively so the American people do not know what they are getting. Yes, they should cover his policies, but they should also cover his past experiences (or lack thereof) and talk seriously about what it means to be a part-time state senator, they should ask about why he never published a single article as a law professor...similarly, they should cover McCain on the issues, while also wondering what his years of experience bring to the table both good and bad. Honestly, I don't know which one would be better for democratic ideals in the long run (think Jimmy Carter, short term gain, long-term destruction)....

    It's wrong (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 12:09:18 PM EST
    But it is.

    He's only the media darling because (5.00 / 4) (#41)
    by Anne on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 11:57:25 AM EST
    the media seem to think they must pick a side, but it ought to say something that even with their breathless and sweaty-with-lust coverage, Obama still has not been able to pull away - like maybe the voters have seem this show before - twice, with Bush - saw it again with the Iraq war, where the media chose to withhold information and to act as a propaganda arm of the administration.  Through it all - and there has been a lot the media could have affected for the better had they been doing their jobs - the media have given the people no reason to think they are on their side.

    In my opinion, media darling status is becoming, for some people, a sure sign that we are being sold down the river.

    In A Perfect World (5.00 / 0) (#42)
    by JimWash08 on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 11:57:29 AM EST
    No one -- NO ONE -- would give a second of consideration to what people like Maureen Dowd, and her ilk, have to write, say, whine and blather about.

    The more readers and viewers they have, the more comments and posts that blogs are drawn in to analyze the ludicrous bullsh!t they spew, the more encouragement they get to continue doing it.

    It's positive reinforcement of the most simple kind.

    We should not reward MoDo with the attention. In no time, unless Obama himself hires her as his mouth-piece should he win, she'll be bussing tables at the Georgetown Starbucks, god-willing.

    She's probably circulating in Denver (2.00 / 1) (#49)
    by oculus on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 12:01:40 PM EST
    as we speak.

    I do not see Obama is more electable (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Saul on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 11:59:17 AM EST
    because he is the media darling.  With all that media advantage he should be like Bolt miles ahead of McCain in the polls yet look how close the polls are.  It almost a dead heat.

    Main steam American is more aware of this unfairness with the media than you might think and this awareness does not brain wash the voters in to voting for Obama

    If Hilary was the chosen nominee even though the media hate her the hating her would make a major onslaught of voters to vote for her just to spite the media.  The voters would view the media like a cop gone out of control with his billy stick.

    Obama should be Bolt (none / 0) (#52)
    by robrecht on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 12:03:28 PM EST
    miles ahead of McCain but he has not been campaigning well IMHO--they've been over confident, mostly just trying to avoid mistakes.  Of course, they should have chosen Hillary or Clark, tried to unify the party better.  They may never wake up and succeed at that, but I do think they're waking up to McCain being more of a challenge than they first thought.

    Yeah, the first black nominee (2.00 / 2) (#77)
    by brodie on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 12:24:24 PM EST
    is history, with the triply-funky name, should be light-years ahead at this stage.

    Riiiight ...


    So if those two facts (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by tree on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 12:33:22 PM EST
    are such a handicap in your mind, why do you think he is getting more favorable treatment than Kerry and Gore?

    Difference between (none / 0) (#92)
    by brodie on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 12:42:40 PM EST
    how the media perceives the candidate and how the public perceives him.  Re Obama, we're talking about some voters in certain quarters who have very deep-seated emotional reactions, often subconscious, to the personal profile of some untraditional candidates.

    Kennedy didn't get unfavorable media coverage (roughly comparable, considering all forms of mass media of that day, to Nixon) but he did meet with resistance, come Election Day, with normally Dem-voting (white) Protestants who couldn't bring themselves to vote for a Catholic.  

    Obama, as I say, is doubly handicapped -- maybe triply so as we throw in the religious angle and all the false rumors about same ...  


    And his inexperience (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by catfish on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 01:02:54 PM EST
    He is less experienced than JFK.

    So your point (5.00 / 2) (#126)
    by tree on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 01:12:42 PM EST
    is that too many voters are racist xenophobes for Obama to be much ahead of McCain even with his more favorable  media coverage, and the highly negative public ratings for Bush and the Republicans . And, in corollary, the media doesn't have a significant number of racist xenophobes, otherwise Obama's coverage wouldn't be so favorable. That sound like excuse making to me.

    Comparing 1960 to today makes no sense. Besides being nearly 50 years ago, conditions were totally different. Eisenhower was not Bush II. Vietnam was not then a large war or a significant campaign issue.


    So You Believe There is NO Sizable Group of Voters (none / 0) (#212)
    by daring grace on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 04:38:53 PM EST
    who will hesitate to vote for Obama based on his race, his exotic name or the lingering suspicion that he is Muslim?

    I think there is. How sizable, I have no idea. I hope it's small. I hope we've come farther than that.

    But realistically, I know they're out there, because I know some and some are my relatives.

    By the way, I wouldn't characterize most of these people as 'racist xenophobes'. I don't think what's in play here is racism, per se. Or let me put it this way: I see intolerance as a spectrum not an on/off switch. And many people aren't all the way at one end--they inhabit various stages of uneasiness and discomfort way before that.

    But I think it will inhibit some of his numbers.


    I just have to compliment you on this (5.00 / 3) (#139)
    by Teresa on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 01:22:26 PM EST
    Re Obama, we're talking about some voters in certain quarters who have very deep-seated emotional reactions, often subconscious, to the personal profile of some untraditional candidates.

    That's the most impressive way of saying some voters are racist that I've seen yet. Why don't you just say Appalachian voters won't vote for him?

    I'm not saying you are totally wrong, some won't, but that was just a gold medal winning way of putting it.


    Racial Intolerance Not Black/White (none / 0) (#213)
    by daring grace on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 04:47:56 PM EST
    Not on/off, either you're racist or you're not.

    For example, my 78 year old white brother in law, an engineer, supports Barack Obama's candidacy, but he would (and has said) he would not be comfortable if his daughter married an AA man. When he first said this to me in a conversation 15 years ago, my first thought was: Good grief, he's a racist. But I know he's not in that ultimate sense in that his life circumstances argue otherwise: For example, he has AA medical practitioners, and, as I said, was an early Obama booster.

    I think racism (and sexism for that matter) are much more complicated in practice than their assigned role as campaign buzz words bandied by all sides would have us believe.


    There was a time (5.00 / 5) (#101)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 12:49:48 PM EST
    the primaries specifically, when people were called racists for making that argument.

    BTD-- (none / 0) (#128)
    by Landulph on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 01:13:35 PM EST
    I'm hugging you through my computer screen right now.

    Yeah, his race (5.00 / 3) (#131)
    by LatinoVoter on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 01:18:16 PM EST
    and his name have been such hindrances to his political ambitions to date.

    Media darling backlash (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by catfish on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 12:04:15 PM EST
    is his only worry now.

    These morons (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by chel2551 on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 12:08:47 PM EST
    aren't reporting what's happening.  They're trying to create a story.

    Sure (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 12:11:06 PM EST
    The Media is filled with idiots. Dog bites man.

    isn't it sad (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by DandyTIger on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 12:12:50 PM EST
    that the media has this manipulative almost whimsically used power and to counter it the parties feel the need to chose someone who can deal with that power.

    and further (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by DandyTIger on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 12:14:06 PM EST
    they have to choose someone that can manage that over and above any policies or governing ability.

    And, yet, you watch (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 12:26:22 PM EST

    You're right, (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by cpa1 on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 12:37:15 PM EST
    I just got home and all I did was turn on the TV to CNN, while I was having lunch.  My alternatives were MSNBC and FOX and their suck ups like Barnacle, Alter, O'Donnell ... it doesn't end.

    I have this thing against Obama for South Carolina but as BTD says, and as we've all seen, he is the media darling.  It would have been better if this contest came 10 years ago when McCain was their darling.  Darling v. Darling would have been fair.  

    But what really pisses me off is that they don't stop attacking Hillary who has been wonderful and Bill who would have to be a vegetable on life support not to hate Obama.


    Hmmm (5.00 / 0) (#98)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 12:48:05 PM EST
    I only have basic cable, but it does have 78 channels and most of them are not pundit garbage (they're entertainment garbage) :)

    You wanted (5.00 / 4) (#86)
    by sas on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 12:36:03 PM EST
    a media darling BTD and that is what you got.

    However, He is not even progressive.  He is not for Universal Health Care, or for women.  He is an underhanded liar, and he hangs with radicals (who, btw, are not progressive).  His economic policies are out of the 30's and his foreign policy is out of the 50's.

    He's got Wall Street and the Hedge fund managers so far up his backside, when he blows his nose dollar bills come out.

    He is Republican lite- check out his vote on the FISA bill.  He picked Joe Biden, whose vote on the war was the same as Hillary's.

    You wanted him - you got him.


    Be careful what you wish for (5.00 / 3) (#100)
    by myiq2xu on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 12:49:22 PM EST
    Bush was a media darling, but they hated Bill Clinton and Al Gore too.

    Do we really want them picking our Presidents anymore?


    It is important to note that it is the GOP (5.00 / 3) (#110)
    by esmense on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 12:56:00 PM EST
    that is providing the media with these anti-Clinton talking points.

    They wouldn't be doing so if they didn't believe that it provides them with some advantage in their campaign against Obama.

    The media is unlikely to ever attack Obama in the way they consistently attack the Clintons, but, their willingness to attack the Clintons does Obama no favors. It detracts from and obscures the message his campaign hopes to put forward -- both positive messages in support of his campaign and negative messages aimed at the McCain campaign -- and diminishes the Democratic brand.

    The Obama campaign has done a good job of marketing Obama -- but their efforts have mostly been successful in terms of niche, rather than mass, marketing. The Obama campaign's marketing has been brilliant in terms of two important (especially in the Democratic primary) markets; affluent, hip social liberals, especially young people. And, of course, African Americans. In terms of brand identity, he's Billabong. And that's cool. But you need a much broader, not so cool, brand reach -- like that of Macy's, Nike or Target, if not WalMart, to win a national election.

    The support he is getting from that broader market -- who never heard of Billabong and wouldn't relate to it if they had -- those voters who don't show up at his mass rallies or wait for his text messages -- isn't based in the Obama brand, it is based on the Democratic brand. A brand that, whether Obama's most rabid supporters like it or not, relies heavily for any positive reputation it has, in terms of success, competenence and recent achievement, on the accomplishments of the Clinton administration.

    For those who embrace the Obama/Billabong brand as cool and something they can relate to (including much of the media), the Clinton/Macy's image is a turn off and something to be derided. Unfortunately, to win, Obama is going to have to attract a huge number of voters who just simply aren't that cool or hip -- and who feel derided every time the Clintons and their achievements are derided.

    A fact that the GOP understands very well.

    well it makes the hillary (5.00 / 0) (#151)
    by hellothere on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 01:36:24 PM EST
    supporters even angrier and that creates an even wider opening for mccain.

    And thus, the new McCain ad (5.00 / 0) (#162)
    by Cream City on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 01:43:28 PM EST
    that says he hears us, as Obama is not saying.

    All that was missing was Abba as background music.:-)  It's a silly pandering ad that won't move me a bit to McCain.  But it is an effective reminder, as you say, of the divisive tactics that got me where I am about Obama.

    I.e., thanks for your very perceptive comment.  Reminding me that this may well be Republicans' push almost could push me to Obama -- if there was a pull, too.  But there's not, so there 'tis.


    well you are a thinking person (none / 0) (#167)
    by hellothere on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 01:46:46 PM EST
    in my view who sits back to evaluate the whole picture. a number of folks, good folks, are angry and that is where their head is. this i think will appeal them.

    Well, thanks. Yeh, I am immune (5.00 / 2) (#176)
    by Cream City on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 01:56:46 PM EST
    since I worked in advertising.  I ought to have said that, of course, the ad will work on some.  The McCain camp's ads have been far better all along.  And that means more than production values.  They clearly also have been focus-grouped and tested well.  So this ad must work on some voters, you bet.

    The silent majority hates the media (5.00 / 0) (#115)
    by catfish on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 01:01:38 PM EST
    Rich Perlstein said this in Nixonland. They resent it when the media says "people want" x when they want y. This inflames the desire for y.

    nixon early on recognized the (5.00 / 1) (#173)
    by hellothere on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 01:51:57 PM EST
    importance of the angry silent majority and used it very well. i do believe we will see mccain do that also. the media have painted themselves right into what the right claims they are liberal and out of touch. good luck with that! history repeats itself and no one appears to have learned anything.

    The danger of being the media darling (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by Prabhata on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 01:05:39 PM EST
    is that those who are being "loved" don't see themselves clearly.  Being deluded is not an advantage, which is why McCain could use the "celebrity" tack and win.  Obama people could not see that many of us are not enchanted by Obama.  You cannot see Obama for what he is, a very unaccomplished state legislator who has the charisma to attract young people, but nothing else.  Biden will not help.  Switch the ticket around and then I will vote for Biden.  He would have never been my first choice, but he is better than McCain and Obama.

    Seriously (5.00 / 2) (#122)
    by nell on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 01:08:45 PM EST
    I was wondering myself about that last night. I didn't know what a McCain cheerleader Biden was until he was announced as VP. I didn't think Biden would be a good pick because I think he overshadows Obama and the contrast is just striking. When I see Biden up there with him, I think, wait, why isn't he at the top of the ticket? I also cannot fathom why the Obama campaign thinks Biden has got tremendous credentials among working class voters...he got 9,500 votes total. Total. And yet somehow he is supposed to be the big vote getter about this group? Just like how they thought trotting out the contrived John Edwards endorsement would give Obama new working class credentials. Ridiculous. And on top of the fact that I don't Biden does much for vote getting and only highlights Obama's inexperience, he has complemented McCain over and over again. When I heard him blasting McCain at the rally yesterday, I just thought "Stop lying!"...

    In that sense, Bayh would have been a better choice, vanilla, adds experience but his similarity in age means that it isn't the first thing you think of, and he might have actually brought a state...

    Darling - for how long? (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by Notyoursweetie 0 on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 01:19:43 PM EST
    I am still not sure if this infatuation will outlast the end of the "Clinton danger".(Bill Kristol tipped his hand when - after his "white women are a problem" started to care about the "dem glass ceiling", then proposed that Hillary's nomination in Denver be for the VP instead.
    There is no doubt in my mind that the Obama love sprang from CDS. RNC&DNC & media joined in a horrible Clinton hatefest.
    I believe a deal was made with NBC to become surrogates for Obama before he told Fox he won't go there. K0 used to be a Hillary supporter until his bosses gave him his new assignment.
    The media has always been the propaganda arm of the RNC. I'd be very surprised if - after the Dem convention is over they will not come home. Not unike the rented Republicans who helped tip the red states to Obama.
    We'll know if I am right soon enough.

    Kristol is Fox news (none / 0) (#144)
    by Prabhata on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 01:27:52 PM EST
    Fox news doesn't count, it's never been in the tank for Obama.  CBS and ABC are not playing it like NBC.  So it's just NBC, CNN and the NYT.

    McCain Is Still The Media Darling (3.00 / 0) (#143)
    by john horse on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 01:27:44 PM EST
    So the MSM is finally starting to tune into McCain's playing the POW card from explaining away his infidelities in his first marriage to skirting the rules at the Saddleback forum to even using it to explain his musical tastes.

    However, before we feel too sorry for John McCain lets still remember that he still gets more favorable coverage than Obama.

    Per Frank Rich

    George Mason University's Center for Media and Public Affairs documented in its study of six weeks of TV news reports this summer, Obama's coverage was 28 percent positive, 72 percent negative. (For McCain, the split was 43/57.)


    MoDo (1.00 / 1) (#31)
    by JThomas on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 11:51:14 AM EST
    has hammered Obama many times over the campaign season for everything from big ears to his femininity. She is into cutting down both candidates. Krugman has been very critical of Obama thruout the campaign.
    The NYTimes endorsed Hillary over Obama.
    The media collectively decided to give free airtime to McCain's celebrity ad ad nauseum.
    They only favor the current ratings and will push any story that props up ratings.

    You woke up today Rip Van Winkle? (3.50 / 2) (#32)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 11:52:34 AM EST
    Have you no idea how Dems have been treated in the past?

    As for Krugman, this is the perfect example of Obama supporter blindness - criticizing Obama from the Left is hardly the problem in the Media.


    What? (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by samtaylor2 on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 12:53:28 PM EST
    So Obama needs critism from the left now?  Why?  He needs people to ask questions about his policies.  

    Also, I know it is your thread, but if someone wrote that way to you, you would ban them from your thread.  Why "talk" to someone like that?  It is not civil, and doesn't garner debate and leads to knowledge- which I think is the point?


    Your comment makes no sense (5.00 / 2) (#120)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 01:06:41 PM EST
    What does "policies" mean to you?

    What does criticism?

    I must admit, I am fatigued of this Obama Cult.

    You may want to find another writer to read and other posts to comment in.

    I am weary of the Obama Cult.


    Cult? (4.00 / 3) (#149)
    by samtaylor2 on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 01:35:28 PM EST
    So just by supporting him I am in some sorta cult.  That just sounds ignorant.  In terms of "policies"- what I meant was going down his list of positions and asking questions- that as a lawyer you could provide an insight I could never arive at without a lawyers lead.  In terms of critism- I don't fully understand your question.  I was asking why left pundants need to critism him.

    I think your position is funny.  You keep on saying your no chearleader for Obama, which is fine.  But what exactly is your goal?  Look at your posts and who responds.  You are a cheerleader, like it or not, for people that hate Obama.  


    I'm one of the "people" (5.00 / 0) (#169)
    by MichaelGale on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 01:48:55 PM EST
    I don't hate Obama.  Will you accept that when you don't have an emotional attachment to a candidate, you want someone to win who is most electable?

    I did that for over 25 years...always a Democrat who was the best to get elected. Well, except once.

    I don't hate Obama but then I am emotionally involved in this race. I'm a female...see where I'm going with this?


    See exactly (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by samtaylor2 on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 02:00:31 PM EST
    "hate" was DEFINITTLY the wrong word.  The correction would be: 1) people that don't like obama and 2) people that think Clinton was the better candidate and don't except Obama for it.

    In terms of the cult thing: I am sort of the opposite of you.  I think Obama is the better candidate and I am black.  That doesn't make him part of a cult (I don't think).


    Sam, (5.00 / 3) (#191)
    by tree on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 02:12:58 PM EST
    I was asking why left pundants need to critism him.

    Think about it for a minute. That question sounds exactly like a cultist's kind of question. (It also missed the point that BTD as making.) Rationality would tell one that a left leaning pundit should criticize anyone worthy of criticism, regardless of party. Only a cultist would think that someone on the left should not criticize Obama, especially since Obama is certainly no true leftists dream.


    I think you are wrong (5.00 / 1) (#211)
    by lilburro on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 04:24:41 PM EST
    wrong wrong about BTD as a cheerleader for Obama haters.  I think BTD said something to the effect that if you make noise before the situation, then maybe it can be prevented (discussing all the madness of the Georgia-Russia conflict & the US reaction).  (Of course BTD can defend himself here)  That was the point of criticizing Obama on FISA.  And that is the point of looking closely at the polls as they tighten - ignoring them is far worse.  

    BTD, I know your aren't a patient man about (none / 0) (#189)
    by Teresa on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 02:09:11 PM EST
    some things, but sam is young. I've had some conversations with him here and he really is just trying to learn and understand. I think he is serious with his questions and he hasn't been too cultish on other threads.

    I hope this doesn't make you mad at me..I am your biggest fan. I just think sam wants to learn and I want him to stay here at TL even if not your threads.


    I heart Sam too. ;-) (5.00 / 1) (#202)
    by Maria Garcia on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 02:57:01 PM EST
    Thanks everyone :) (5.00 / 1) (#208)
    by samtaylor2 on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 04:11:26 PM EST
    People need to ask Obama (5.00 / 0) (#183)
    by Prabhata on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 02:00:46 PM EST
    How it is that he has never worked for any of the issues and policies he spouses now.  He has never worked for civil liberties and accomplished anything. He's never worked for women's issues, health care, housing, etc.

    I don't think that is correct (2.00 / 0) (#188)
    by samtaylor2 on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 02:08:10 PM EST
    He has worked on all those things.  Maybe not to the extent you want, but he definitly as worked on the things you mentioned, both as a successful organization (see the New Yorker magazine) and definitly in the state senate (see planned parenthood's endorsement).

    sam, please, in the state senate (5.00 / 0) (#193)
    by hellothere on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 02:24:29 PM EST
    obama had his name put on legislation that other legislators had been working on in some instances for years(many were african american by the way). that wasn't fair to them, period. they didn't appreciate it and as i recall words were exchanged.

    I still (1.00 / 1) (#196)
    by tek on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 02:33:53 PM EST
    say it's no basis for selecting a candidate.  It's just giving in to the bad system in this country and supporting it.  As we've seen, Obama is no liberal, no true Democrat. If he was, the media would trounce him as the have all Democrats in the past.  I can't understand why anyone would think it great to have the media darling if he isn't going to fight for a true democracy.  What needs to happen is that Americans should refuse to be dictated to by the media or by either party and insist on having real democratic leadership.  That is why I will not reward the tyrannical corruption of the DNC by giving them my vote only to watch another version of Bush/Cheney rise up to bite us all in the butt.

    MoDo isn't exactly my 1st choice (none / 0) (#6)
    by CaptainAmerica08 on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 11:22:26 AM EST
    for editorial journalism, as her work often seems more suited for Playboy than a respectable news outlet. But I'll cut her some slack on this one. She's dead on here. And I'm not so sure SHE wouldn't have said it if my cousin Barack America wasn't in the race. Her whole routine is based on saying "provacative" things.

    She's a clown (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 11:23:19 AM EST
    But that is hardly my point.

    BTW, why did Biden call Obama (none / 0) (#29)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 11:49:24 AM EST
    "Obama America"? Can anybody make sense of that? Was it a gaffe (from the gaffer who goes on giving) or was it intentional? If so, what the hell was the intent?

    Barack America (none / 0) (#33)
    by robrecht on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 11:53:15 AM EST
    I doubt it was intentional, but it should have been.  Sounds a populist note that Obama needs.

    Dude, if that's your idea of "populism" (5.00 / 5) (#56)
    by Landulph on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 12:06:31 PM EST
    the Democratic Party is well and truly doomed.

    I have indeed been getting nervous ... (none / 0) (#65)
    by robrecht on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 12:12:16 PM EST
    about the DP being well and truly doomed.  But I'm more optimistic today.  BTW, I only said it sounded a note, a single note, of populism.  Sometimes you have to start small.

    Hmm (none / 0) (#40)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 11:57:01 AM EST
    Sounds stupid to me.

    Who was it who said, (none / 0) (#44)
    by robrecht on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 11:58:36 AM EST
    "Politics is stupid"?

    Touche (none / 0) (#61)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 12:10:20 PM EST
    In the transcript, Biden (none / 0) (#43)
    by oculus on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 11:57:48 AM EST
    doesn't finish the word:

    A man I'm proud to call my friend. A man who will be the next president of the United States, Barack Amer -



    Either the mike cut out (none / 0) (#48)
    by robrecht on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 12:00:15 PM EST
    or he stopped himself, the latter impression being why I don't think it was intentional.

    I don't think Biden's mic cut out because (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 12:16:56 PM EST
    the audience applause was still quite audible, and there was no other perceptible shift in the overall sound quality.

    (I know there could have been a different mic on the crowd.)


    Here's my theory: both Obama and (none / 0) (#53)
    by oculus on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 12:03:46 PM EST
    Biden were in white shirts and ties.  No coats.  Where to put the flag pins?

    White shirts etc... (5.00 / 0) (#111)
    by oldpro on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 12:58:54 PM EST
    The Clinton/Gore campaign uniform.

    My favorite visual.  Guys who wear white shirts and ties to the office but loosen their ties and roll up their sleeves to get to work.  Iconic.

    Al rejected it for his own run.

    Big mistake.



    To me, those white shirts look (5.00 / 0) (#137)
    by oculus on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 01:21:05 PM EST
    old-fashioned.  Not many white shirts anymore, not to mention ties, at my office.

    I agree with oldpro. It's very JFK (5.00 / 0) (#175)
    by Cream City on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 01:53:34 PM EST
    just like Michelle Obama got the Jackie makeover.

    And the Obamas need to look very traditional.  And Joe Biden just is traditional.

    But the time machine better stop at 1960.  I'm getting worried about the popularity of MadMen.  I don't want to see Michelle in poodle skirts next.:-)


    Jill Biden looked the First Lady (5.00 / 1) (#179)
    by oculus on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 01:57:35 PM EST
    part yesterday though, compared to Michelle Obama.  Mess up.  

    True. But no one (none / 0) (#177)
    by oldpro on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 01:57:10 PM EST
    from your office is running for president.

    Image is more visual than anything else...no politican 'shows up for work' in sweats or jeans...no male, no female.

    It's still the uniform of certain professionals...worldwide...every public event or photo op at the White House, every summit of world leaders (well, not all the Chinese or North Koreans, perhaps!).


    The buzz I've heard is that.... (none / 0) (#197)
    by EL seattle on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 02:40:34 PM EST
    Mad Men will be pretty influential for fashion trends this year, especially for guys.

    Retro rules! (again)


    'Cause McCain campaign was (none / 0) (#93)
    by DFLer on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 12:42:41 PM EST
    accusing him [Obama] of being Un-American?

    LOL - (none / 0) (#7)
    by inclusiveheart on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 11:22:41 AM EST
    But CNN is doing everything they can to dig up reporters from outlets like the Christian Broadcasting Network who still would never write anything like that.

    I swear for months (5.00 / 0) (#36)
    by Jjc2008 on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 11:53:56 AM EST
    now, maybe longer, CNN and MSNBC have brought on every singly AA republican and female republican.
    It's like they are saying:  OK we need to go against the grain.  Since the majority of AAs and women are dems, we need to give airtime to the ones who are not.  

    And the same with the Gay/Lesbian community.  Number wise the majority of that community are/were pro Hillary democrats.  Yet who gets on the tube?
    Sullivan, the Log Cabin Republican with one of the worst cases of CDS
    Aravosis who also has a case of CDS.
    And Maddow, one of the few openly lesbian women with a voice in the media, and it happens to be a Clinton hating voice.

    The media has really distorted this election.


    But you know what? (5.00 / 0) (#46)
    by Maria Garcia on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 11:59:47 AM EST
    ...Most of those African American republicans love Obama too. It's like they have to pinch themselves to remember which side they are supposed to be on.

    Or maybe they think they (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by tree on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 12:29:58 PM EST
    know that Obama is really on their side.

    David Brody (none / 0) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 11:23:50 AM EST
    LOVES Obama. you got that one totally wrong.

    asdf (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by inclusiveheart on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 11:31:12 AM EST
    I was laughing because I read your post at the same time Brody came on - was responding more to CBN than him - it seems that every time I turn on CNN lately they've added yet another rightwing pundit or outlet to their roster.

    In the context of reading your post it made me laugh to think that the explanation for the parade of new rightwingers is that CNN could be scrambling to find Obama detractors.  


    He really does. (none / 0) (#14)
    by indy in sc on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 11:27:52 AM EST
    It's been interesting to see how Brody's been pushing the "evangelicals are giving Obama serious consideration" and "evangelicals are not that comfortable with McCain" memes.  All of his reporting has been through those lenses.

    Wow I didn't know that about Brody. (none / 0) (#17)
    by CaptainAmerica08 on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 11:32:42 AM EST
    Even though I'm a Christian, I ignore evangelicals out of hand.

    David Brody (none / 0) (#142)
    by tree on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 01:26:51 PM EST
    However, McCain's campaign can... (none / 0) (#12)
    by EL seattle on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 11:23:52 AM EST
    ... just dial back the setting on the POW references, and that line of criticism will go away.  The sort of venom that Dowd usually spits out, like a "Breck Girl" nickname for instance, linger on and on and on.

    after the Republican (none / 0) (#23)
    by ccpup on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 11:39:27 AM EST
    Convention when they've put more words, pictures and powerful images to "POW", I don't even think that twit MoDo would be thick-headed enough to bring up the fact that McCain over-references it to the extreme.

    If I were the Obama Campaign, I'd praise McCain's POW service to the SKY!  I'd almost overdo it and, thereby, basically nullify it and make it a non-issue.  

    If Obama can hit McCain on issues that matter to Americans, he can have a shot at this.  If he tries to go toe-to-toe with McCain on Who Has the Strongest Personal Story and insists on continuing to trot out trite personal attacks while enshrining himself in the sometimes over-the-top Media adulation, Obama loses.


    Obama does (none / 0) (#79)
    by waldenpond on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 12:27:04 PM EST
    or at least teebee shows him doing it.  Obama praises his service to the country and never doubts his patriotism and the media tries to help him out by playing it over and over.  It's just not sticking.

    How much will it stick after Giuliani's noun, verb, 9/11.... Biden already used that.


    I don't know (5.00 / 0) (#83)
    by ccpup on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 12:32:53 PM EST
    Perhaps the praise from Obama for McCain's service isn't sticking because people sense it's insincere?

    Just a thought.


    But it's not a negative for him either. (none / 0) (#102)
    by EL seattle on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 12:50:10 PM EST
    Obama should be always vigilant not to give any extra room for those who want to paint him with the "out-of-touch Ivory Tower elitist cad" brush.  

    I disagree with the more favorable coverage... (none / 0) (#22)
    by Check077 on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 11:35:13 AM EST
    ...necessarily leading to Obama getting less votes.

    What I do believe is that a combination of less unfavorable coverage of Hillary along with the public pushing back against the Obama phenomenon had a greater effect on Obama popularity losses in the latter part of the  primaries.

    Not until the Media decided to curtail the fuselage of assaults on Hillary's character did we see gains for Hillary.

    perhaps you have a point (5.00 / 0) (#30)
    by ccpup on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 11:49:34 AM EST
    although the Obama Phenomenon was -- and still is, in many ways -- wholly dependent on over-the-top and unspecific (eg. not based on issues) Media Coverage coupled with desperate, irrational cries for Hillary to drop out, she had no chance, X contest was do-or-die or ... okay, this NEXT contest is do-or-die and she should drop out.

    Now, much like then, the average voter tuning in is watching Obama -- and this will become more evident during the debates -- trying to square what one HEARS about him in the Media (best thing since sliced bread, basically) with what one SEES of him on-the-stump and in his ads (about as boring and flavorless as day old sliced bread).

    Eventually, people will figure out that the Obama the Media keeps selling is not and will not be the Obama one will actually be voting for and who will actually be sitting in the Oval Office.

    The more a salesperson tries to sell something to you, the more suspicious of the product you become and the less likely you are to buy it.  How Team Obama and his supporters don't see that is beyond me.


    NO...the same primary... (5.00 / 0) (#129)
    by Check077 on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 01:14:37 PM EST
    I guess I was really noting when the pundits were saying, "If she would have ran this way other than that way, she may have won"! Yeah, you're right strike that previous comment, as MeatLoaf once song, "It's All Coming Back To Me, Now."

    I'm still pissed at this very moment, come to think of it!


    Yep, iirc the MCM (none / 0) (#80)
    by brodie on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 12:27:33 PM EST
    didn't let up on Hillary until she'd actually officially withdrawn with that Saturday speech at that interesting old D.C. bldg.

    And I thought the CW was that she improved in some key primaries because a) her overall message was tougher and more focused, and b) because certain demographics in large states favored her.


    I Beg To Differ (5.00 / 1) (#203)
    by Jane in CA on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 03:23:54 PM EST
    The MSM has never "let up" on Hillary. Are you honestly saying that you haven't seen the poltical cartoons and editorials excoriating her for "not doing enough" for Obama? If so, I'd love to live in your world ...

    The sea was angry that day my friend (none / 0) (#25)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 11:43:31 AM EST
    Right now the sea is friendly.

    The argument still does not sit well with me for a number of different reasons that have already been discussed.  And I've really tried to tell myself to only take on the things that are most explicitly divisive within the context of the party itself, things directed at Clinton.

    This is directed at McCain.

    Eh. Have at it.

    But I can say while by some measures it continues to be an asset, it is not... using Dowd here, in the constant push and pull rollercoaster of a decision that remains very difficult for me, is not an asset for Obama for at least one voter.

    her comments, her ability to impact an election, at least as far as one voter is concerned, will always have a negative impact on me against the person she is pining for.

    Remember these words: (5.00 / 0) (#134)
    by Check077 on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 01:20:00 PM EST
    This is good year for Democrats, unless the Democrats does something to "snatch defeat from the jaws of victory."

    Yeah, the media is up to something, but I do not think it will be necessarily a rosy picture for Obama.


    I don't even buy that (none / 0) (#34)
    by brodie on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 11:53:33 AM EST
    Obama is a "media darling".  Favored overall, by not overwhelmingly, by, say, MSNBC, or at least in the prime-time hours?  Yes.

    Media darling in the rest of the media, including print?  Not at all.  Not in the regular broadcast networks' news programming.  Not at the major papers, where it's probably somewhat even right now.

    CNN is about 50-50, afaict, despite just hiring a couple of Repubs for political coverage, and despite Dem-denigrating Gloria Bolger.

    Media darling?  George W. Bush is the all time winner there, by far.

    Reagan comes in second.

    Obama, only in the context of his primary race, was a MD for a ltd time and for ltd purposes.  

    Now that we're in the GE, the coverage is probably actually slightly favoring McCain by about 60% favorable -- once we add in traditional network coverage and all the millions the old 3 networks still reach, plus all the highly negative things about McCain that either don't get reported by the MCM or are severely underreported.  

    Still, it's not nearly as bad as what Kerry received of course, about 75% negative.

    Gore got it the worst-- probably 95% negative for well over a year.  

    DIe hard Clonton supporter? (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 11:56:09 AM EST
    Put me in the "not believe" column.

    Believe or don't as you will, just as I (none / 0) (#76)
    by brodie on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 12:22:44 PM EST
    will in considering others' sincerity here.

    Obama right now, not the Obama of Hillary opponent primary media fame, is not really The Media Darling.

    Simply favored to a greater extent by the MCM than Kerry was -- and overwhelmingly so compared to Gore.  But when you crunch all the corp media coverage numbers, imo Obama comes out slightly behind McCain wrt positive coverage, especially considering all the groaningly stupid things the Repub or his campaign has said or done and the relatively moderate to muted response by the media, except for the latest about the many mansions.

    If the Dem nominee had had as many blunders by this stage as McCain has had, the coverage would have been so enormously hostile and snickering -- David Gergen et al tut-tutting about how the promising pol really was too young and inexperienced -- that the Dems would right now be seriously considering bringing Hillary in from the bullpen.

    Sorry, but I peg McCain at about 60% Media Darling.  Ahead of Obama still, though the campaign is just getting underway.  

    Had Hillary been the nominee, McCain's positive media numbers would be about 97% right now ...


    Truth be told (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 12:51:57 PM EST
    I am not particularly interested in your calculus of Media Darlingness.

    Keep your comments on topic (none / 0) (#59)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 12:08:49 PM EST
    Off topic comments are deleted.

    Of course Nixon was totally (none / 0) (#112)
    by tree on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 12:59:27 PM EST
    paranoid. The man famously said, "You won't have Nixon to kick around anymore," after losing the 1962 California race for Governor.

    McCain will still be treated... (none / 0) (#198)
    by Dadler on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 02:45:38 PM EST
    ...with much softer kid-gloves than Obama will.  The media, by and large, will give McCain a pass on everything.  Perhaps a female journalist feels less inclined to edit themselves because they don't fear a physical attack from McCain which, I really think, infects every man who comes in contact with McCain.  Sounds silly, since he's an old guy, but, to me, his bully rep (along with the POW thing) colors every word said about him, espcially those words and queries delivered when McCain is present.

    BTD (none / 0) (#209)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 04:15:32 PM EST
    this post really ticks me off because you are advocating for giving legitimacy to Maureen Dowd. This is the same mistake the Obama campaign made during the primaries by legitimizing Drudge. It also plays right into the what the GOP wants: Obama is an empty suit media fabrication.

    Daring grace (none / 0) (#214)
    by tree on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 05:09:34 PM EST
    I don't appreciate you falsely putting words in my mouth in post 212, especially at a point in the thread when it is impossible for me to rebut you. Very poor form on your part. And in case you didn't notice it yourself, your post 213 ran counter to your 212. If your older white brother-in-law who wouldn't want his daughter marrying an AA is planning on voting for Obama, then you've already shown anecdotally that the number that won't vote for Obama because of his race is not very sizeable.

    Media Bash Barack (none / 0) (#215)
    by MSS on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 03:59:52 AM EST

    You seem to have missed the Center for Media and the Public Affairs study of McCain vs Obama TV news coverage, showing that McCain gets far less negative media attention than Obama, now that Obama is more visible in the news:

    Study Finds Obama Faring Worse On TV News Than McCain

    Obama replaced McCain as the media's favorite candidate after New Hampshire.  But now the networks are voting no on both candidates.... Since the primaries ended, on-air evaluations of Barack Obama have been 72% negative (vs. 28% positive).  That's worse than John McCain's coverage, which has been 57% negative (vs. 43% positive) during the same time period. ...Obama ran even farther behind McCain on Fox News Channel's Special Report with 79% negative comments...