Fessing Up
- 05.06.2008 - 12:40 PMNow the confessions come in from multiple sources: the media has been in the tank for Barack Obama. (Chris Matthews lets on that it may not be “official” MSNBC policy to back Obama, but we should know they have their hearts in the “right” place.) Oh, and they hate Hillary Clinton too. Salon’s reporter tells us:
They were swooning. I was at a speech, I remember it, I will write about it some day, in Manchester, and every, the biggest names in our business were there, and they were, they could repeat some of his speech lines to one another. It was like a Bruce Springsteen concert where the fans sing along. And, you know, I respected it to some extent. He’s a towering political figure. Of our generation, he’s probably the best politician, he’s inspiring. And, reporters, white reporters, black reporters, reporters of every race, we want to get beyond racism in America. So, he was, he was inspiring, I understood it, they’re humans, they responded. The downside though is that they hate, hate Hillary Clinton, most of them. Hate is not too strong a word.
I know it’s shocking to learn there is bias in the media. But what is surprising is that any felt obligation to go along with the pretense–the canard that they have not been in Obama’s corner–is gone. Now, it would be unfair to say every member of the mainstream media and every outlet has been equally at fault here. ABC certainly did its part to re-establish journalistic integrity by running a tough, informative, and ultimately impactful debate. And in the Bizarro World of politics we now inhabit, Hillary Clinton will attest to her fair treatment by Fox.
Still, one wonders how much longer both the media mavens and the public at large will take this kind of “analysis” seriously. It’s one thing to get almost everything wrong (e.g. McCain was dead, Hillary was inevitable in 2007, Obama was golden in February 2008). It’s quite another for people “in the club” to admit openly that they weren’t much interested in being objective.
Why the confessions? Aside from guilty consciences, it may be an effort to get back in the good graces of the candidate most affected by their favorite-playing (and one who might just survive to enact revenge): Hillary Clinton. Good luck with that!
| »Back to Contentions | »Back to Commentary |
May 6th, 2008 at 12:53 PM
I’ve been thinking of an alternative scenario for Hillary that would fit under the department of revenge-seeking behavior. If she loses the final delegate count by 49% to 51%, and comes in about even on the popular vote, including FL but not MI, she could run in the General election as an independent candidate. She might very well bring about a 3-way split in the popular vote and could conceivably win. Her electoral appeal, at this point, is probably greater than Obama’s, and there are more voters loyal to her than to him.
Just a slightly vindictive thought for Hillary, if she doesn’t mind burning all her bridges with the Democratic Party.
May 6th, 2008 at 1:13 PM
It would be fun to watch Hillary run as a latter-day Bull Moose, but I doubt it will happen. What will also be fun, though, will be seeing how enthusiastically she’ll be willing to campaign for Obama. She would obviously rather run in 2012 than in 2016, but she also needs to keep up appearances if she wants a shot at the nomination later. I’m looking forward to watching this unfold.
May 6th, 2008 at 1:24 PM
Hillary Clinton will unlikely start a Third Party. That’s an option only for sure losers. She will stay within the Democratic Party and “purify” its ranks. Great effort will be made to push the Obamaniacs out of the door after he loses to John McCain.
May 6th, 2008 at 1:30 PM
Why the confessions?
So they can claim that they told us.
May 6th, 2008 at 3:10 PM
“Still, one wonders how much longer both the media mavens and the public at large will take this kind of ‘analysis’ seriously.”
While I can’t speak to the media mavens, I fear the “public at large” will continue to be influenced by it for decades to come.
This media still has significant power - regardless of the help it had (which was significant), the negative image of W. & of Republicans in general is largely the handiwork of relentless axe grinding by the pressies.
The rise of alternative media, etc. notwithstanding, theirs is still the biggest megaphone in the argument.
May 6th, 2008 at 4:18 PM
Ellen….I agree with #2 and #3 that it’s unlikely but….What if Ron Paul jumps back in and takes a chunk from McCain? Obama continues to have goofs (Wright, Ayres, Powers, Carter, Snob-gate, etc) dog him. Nader appears, as usual, and gets a few points. Could the 2 party system be dead? A president with 40% of the popular vote? Why not? What were Hubby’s percentages with Perot in the fray? All we need is for CNN to decide that it’s a BIG story and the sheep will come looking for the wolves.
Steven from Indiana
May 6th, 2008 at 4:22 PM
Paul,
I actually think that Ron Paul would take as least as many votes away from Obama as he would from McCain. Despite his Republican pedigree, Paul based his candidacy this cycle on strong opposition to Iraq, foreign policy isolationism, and a weird distrust of modern banking. It doesn’t seem like those who voted for Bush in 2004 would be likely to go for this.
May 6th, 2008 at 8:46 PM
This confession is like Rosie O’Donnel admitting she’s a lesbian, or poop admitting it stinks. The media knew they weren’t fooling anybody any longer.
May 8th, 2008 at 4:34 AM
But why Obama? That’s what I don’t get.
He’s nothing. He not inspiring at all. He’s canned, fake, empty, vacuous, a lightweight with dumb ideas and the total inability to think on his feet. When he goes off script, he stutters like Porky Pig, and he has a phony accent that sounds like something out of a 1970’s blacksploitation movie.
Why Obama? Journalists pride themselves on being hard boiled and worldly. They’re professional skeptics, they say.
So why Obama? All he’s said is that he’s going to raise our taxes dramatically, nationalize health care, surrender in Iraq, and go crawling to our most savage enemies. His platform is identical to Hillary’s, Edwards’s, and that of every other ambitious überliberal who opens his or her yapper on TV.
This is enough to cause mass orgasms among journalists?
And the guy doesn’t even try to hide his corruption. He’s admitted he’s going to cancel federal oversight of the teamsters in exchange for their endorsement. Doesn’t this slightly tarnish his image as the second coming of Christ?
Obamania is a form of mass dementia, like the outbreaks of dancing that swept through Europe in the Middle Ages.
May 14th, 2008 at 8:28 AM
[…] the media stampede to end the primary (whether you attribute it to Obama-infatuation or sheer boredom) only makes Barack Obama’s thumping yesterday seem worse. If the race is […]