Before I read the 1 billion news items and blogs on the debate between Senator Obama and Senator Clinton, I want to put my thoughts down on my virtual paper. I have a fair idea what will be said from both sides of the aisle: Clinton supporters will saying she was presidential; Obama supporters will be saying Clinton is a monster, bitch and whore. But something happened last night that was a CHANGE indeed from the debates we have seen in the past.
The press asked Senator Obama, directly, some difficult questions. Admittedly, they were not as much about policy as I would have liked. I have always maintained that Clinton’s policies, if people read them, show she is a much stronger candidate than Obama. His policies are sometimes naive, sometimes incomplete, and frequently not very progressive. Focusing on policy would give her a chance to shine and make him say more than “hope, change and yes, we can.”
But I digress. The press has suddenly taken a different attitude toward Obama now that Clinton is “losing.” Her loss is something they clearly wanted all along. Remember, every single news agency, including MSNBC (ptooey) is owned by extremely conservative corporations. And the last thing they wanted when Hillary Clinton was peaking strongly in February was for her to run against McCain. And the Obama phenomenon began. Other than on Fox, Obama could say or do no wrong.
Now, the press is changing its tack. When all hope is gone that the two of them will share a ticket and make the most formidible team in recent history for the Democrats (because the men at the top of the Democratic Party have shown their stripes as well), the press is turning on Senator Obama.
They are doing this because they believe a Clinton comeback is now impossible. He is now fair game.
They will stretch it out. They need him to believe his own cult of personality is strong enough to charm the whole world, but it isn’t. Just as the media helped create him, they will help destroy him. And last night, I almost felt sorry.
Remember (whatever side you are on now) when the standard line was that Clinton and Obama were actually very close on policy? She’s a little more substantive and experienced, they’d say, but he’s more charismatic and positive. The differences between them, the press told us, are small. This is not their line anymore.
Now, subtly, the media is shifting gears. She’s shrill and playing politics old style. He’s friends with a corrupt Chicago businessman, a crazy reverend and an aging but still proud domestic terrorist. Which would you choose? Well, put that way, the answer is surely McCain.
I am not sure what Democrats are supposed to do. I think Clinton and Obama may have just been caught up short–both of them. She should know better, because she saw up close and personal the vicious and relentless attacks on her husband, a cheating husband but otherwise a fairly decent president who did act in a bipartisan way (and where did it get him?). Obama is new to it, and I think convinced by his own ego that he will win over the world.
But Obama isn’t Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. or Ghandi or the messiah. Listen carefully and he’s a man who often speaks in sentences that lack proper syntax. He speaks haltingly, although he has a pleasant voice. He has a message that appeals to many people. Relying on charisma is a mistake if you aren’t all that charismatic.
As Eugene Debs said about being a Moses figure to the common man: “If I can lead you into the promised land, someone else can lead you out.” And he refused to be Moses. Obama can’t rely on the “cult of personality” he’s built because he doesn’t have the psychological game to carry it through. He isn’t turning the majority of Americans to him in the same way that he has turned college students and college professors to him, even though he hasn’t lost them, yet. He should give up the role of Moses quickly and start saying something substantive.
I do firmly believe Hillary Clinton should stay in the race until the convention, as should Obama, but I saw a light after last night’s debate that I did not see before. Their breach is now too great for a double ticket, and yet a double ticket is the only thing that can save the Democratic Party against the media campaign to finish them both.
Or the party is done.
18 Comments
April 17, 2008 at 12:16 pm
[...] a good analysis of the debate and the Democrat’s position at this point. I agree with much of it. And [...]
April 17, 2008 at 12:18 pm
Great post. I wish I had the attention-span to write something like this. You are right about policy questions. They didn’t ask them. But then again these two are not much different on policy so what would be the point? Policy questions are better suited to the general election.
On the other hand, electability is the issue now and I think Hillary did herself some good there. Obama – not so much.
April 17, 2008 at 12:22 pm
Oh yes, I do disagree on one point. If Hillary should come out ahead on the nomination I could see her offering the VP to Obama. And I could see him taking it. Not the other way around though.
April 17, 2008 at 12:27 pm
TRO, actually I agree that Hillary, were she the nominee, could probably be persuaded to try to run with Obama. I just doubt he’d take it. Thanks for reading and commenting. Your own post on this topic was dead-on, even if shorter. I am long-winded.
April 17, 2008 at 12:59 pm
“He should give up the role of Moses quickly and start saying something substantive.”
Exactly. But, he may not have any substantive to say.
Next Tuesday night will be interesting…
April 17, 2008 at 1:33 pm
Call me crazy, but I still think we have a chance. if it comes down to the one-on-one debates, I have to believe McCain is more likely to have a bad moment, which could turn things around.
April 17, 2008 at 5:15 pm
Read this by Taylor Marsh, posted on the pro-Obama Huffingtonpost: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/taylor-marsh/just-how-soft-has-obamas_b_97146.html
The comments are revealing. When Marsh says, Obama has not been put through the test, the Obamaphiles object to the questions. Unfair! Like this will make a difference in August. She is dead on.
April 17, 2008 at 6:20 pm
More comments just in (though not to my blog directly):
Hillary dominates Philadelphia focus group. “NYDIA HAN: The real take away is this. We now know who won the debate according to our focus group. Take a look. Senator Clinton is the debate winner, at least according to our focus group. 23% believe Senator Obama won while 50% believed Senator Clinton won.” [WPVI Post-Debate Analysis, 4/16/08]
ABC News’ Rick Klein – ‘Clinton is back to the strong presence we saw early in the cycle.’ [ABC News Political Radar, 4/16/08]
NBC News’ Chuck Todd – Obama ‘did not have a good night.’ [MSNBC Post-Debate Analysis, 4/16/08]
NBC News’ Chuck Todd—Obama’s answer on Ayers and the flag ‘were simply weak.’ “His answer on Ayers and the flag question were simply weak; He seemed unprepared for them; Kinda surprising because he normally has a decent rant against “old politics” and yet “old politics” questions seemed to stump him.” [NBC First Read, 4/16/08]
The Atlantic’s Marc Ambinder – [T]here’s no way Obama could fared worse. [The Atlantic’s Marc Ambinder, 4/16/08]
Washington Post’ Chris Cillizza— Obama ‘struggled quite a bit’ when asked about Rev. Wright. “…He struggled quite a bit more when asked to answer for Wright, his former pastor.” [Washington Post, The Fix, 4/16/08]
New York Times’ Katharine Seeyle: Hillary’s ‘in her element as she goes into details.’ “She’s becoming expansive, seemingly in her element as she goes into details; Mr. Obama does not look as thrilled to be still standing there.” [New York Times, The Caucus, 4/16/08]
Talking Points Memo’s Josh Marshall – Hillary ‘certainly seems more self-assured.’ “She certainly seems more self-assured on the Iran question than Obama did. The question of extending an American security umbrella to Israel is very dicey. And he could clearly see he was on delicate territory.” [Talking Points Memo, 4/16/08]
Philadelphia Inquirer blog – ‘Obama is again less certain, and rambles a bit.’ “Obama is again less certain, and rambles a bit when asked about the Washington D.C. gun ban. Gibson asks him to deny that he has ever advocated a complete ban on hand guns in 1996. Obama says no. But whatever the truth, no other answer is possible.” [Philadelphia Inquirer Blog, 4/16/08]
NBC News’ Matthew Berger – Obama ‘tried to have it both ways’ with Israel. “Obama’s answer on an Iranian attack on Israel tried to seem to have it both ways: highlight his support for Israel but not lock him into treating an attack on Israel like an attack on the U.S. But it may have looked more like a no because it wasn’t a firm yes. Clinton’s answer seemed more direct.” [NBC First Read, 4/16/08]
April 18, 2008 at 2:41 am
I am so upset. Obama was caught giving Hillary the finger when he was at a rally in NC.
April 19, 2008 at 1:54 am
This post is terrific. I agree with you completely, and it’s very interesting about the conservative big media wanting McCain.
I’m going to ref you, hope you don’t mind—the Rezko/Ayers are heavy…just like Wright. I know that these things would cause me to go to McCain. Way to much “unknown” about Obama, and after Rezko…not trustworthy at all. I bet you are right, there will be more coming. This is the biggest most chaotic election I can recall yet. Nasty stuff, really. Terrible. And in the end a hate-fest. I don’t feel like a democrat anymore, even though I always have been since I started voting, anyway, fantastic observations in your post and thank you for the enlightening compliment. Know that it is enlightening here too.
April 19, 2008 at 9:45 am
Quoting Huntindgtondonpost: “Now, subtly, the media is shifting gears.”
You cannot really believe that the media is monobloc and the country is diverse? the media controlled and the country free? On my blog, which is small, the Obama joke received something like 2400 hits and the Hillary joke little more than 500.
For some reasons Americans love anything new. Look at the way a new word catches on. When finally I picked up “avatar” it would already have been included in US kindergarden schoolbooks. And when I learnt what “WMDs” meant, their existence had become dogma Nr 1.
April 19, 2008 at 1:23 pm
CNN reported today that 19,000 North Carolina Republicans have switched to the Democratic Party, presumably to vote in the primary. It takes no brains to figure out that they will vote for Obama. Indeed, the Democatic Party has been hijacked. After I tried to complain about Obama’s obscene gestures at the NC rally, I was hung up on twice. I tried calling senators who had endorsed Hillary (about the DNC hanging up on me) and they said they could do nothing about that. So the party will not hear complaints about Obama. The same people who answer the phones will delete the emails. Apparently the party would rather have its “I have been a Democrat for one month” constituency than the supporters it has had for 30 years, so I am moving out and into the Independent camp.
Cantueso, the media is a monolith. Within it, you will find pundits who take all kinds of positions, but the corporations who own the media outlets are a handful. Your hometown newspaper is owned by a corporate giant. The last privately owned daily newspaper in America was the New Haven Register which was bought out in 1987 or thereabouts. This is a fact. The TV news emanates from a few corporations. So yes, they have collectively decided to begin pinging Obama. And they won’t stop, especially now that they see he can’t take it. He acted like a child in NC by giving Hillary the finger and a Jay-Z brush off, and he won’t debate her anymore. He’s weak, they see it, and they will go for him. And the DNC has just assured itself of a McGovern candidate. Good luck to ‘em.
April 24, 2008 at 12:41 am
The last thing Republicans want is Clinton running against Obama??? Are you crazy? That’s why Rush Limbaugh is telling people to vote for her? That’s why people like Joe Scarborough admit to being in her court?
That argument doesn’t even begin to make sense.
April 24, 2008 at 12:01 pm
Greatgeno, here’s what I said: “And the last thing they wanted when Hillary Clinton was peaking strongly in February was for her to run against McCain.” I don’t believe they thought Obama would garner as much support as he has, although a lot of it has been from Republicans, who perhaps now feel they have taken it too far. Ari Fleishmann, a more refined and dare I say intelligent person than Rush, even though they are on the same dark side, said the other night the Republicans would much rather run against Obama. I think they are both afraid of him, because if the “charisma” thing is real, they can’t control it, but they also know he’s weak where she isn’t, which he displayed in the PA debate and his subsequent behavior in the days after.
April 24, 2008 at 2:28 pm
I meant running against McCain, not Obama. Sorry for the typo.
In fairness to yourself, I have heard the argument that with Hillary they know what they’re getting; a solid 47-49% popular vote. Maybe they can beat that, maybe they can’t (it worked for Bush), but at least they can game plan for it and are quite certain it will stay below 50%. Barack is much more up in the air. So I guess I can see how one might prefer Obama because the potential there is to knock him down lower. The flip side is, as a Democrat, I’m a little nervous about nominating someone who can’t bring in half the votes. But that’s just me.
Still, I’ve heard the argument from the right many times before Feb. that nobody mobilizes Republicans like a Clinton. I think their “dream ticket” always featured her because her negatives have been very high since the last spring and they don’t feel she can win independents. And Republicans will line up in droves just for the right to vote against her. They also know she’s weak in a lot of areas Obama isn’t, which to be quite frank has been on display for quite a bit longer than ten days.
April 24, 2008 at 8:27 pm
You are correct about the change in media attitude towards Obama, but I don’t think that it is due to the news outlets desire to grease the skids for McCain. I think its actually about the allmighty dollar. Business is very good right now for the cable news networks, and having this fight in the Democratic party is creating enormous ratings and that creates ad revenue. They don’t want Obama to wipe Hillary out, because that would decrease the interest in their 24 hour spin machines. I’ve actually heard a famous radio host say as much…”Business is Good” he said.
April 24, 2008 at 9:50 pm
P.Cash, you may be right. I am sure business is good. Perhaps we should all take a break and go back to watching Nick at Night and watch cable news have a meltdown. I am not sure I could organize that kind of mass boycott though. Glad you came by.
April 27, 2008 at 12:29 am
Just a little “fair and balanced” amendum to my previous comment:
Newt Gingrich (or as Chris Farley would say, “Newtie”) was the reciever of the “20 Questions” segment in this week’s issue of Time. He was asked something along the lines of who would be the better candidate for the Republicans to run against. He echoed my statement that Obama has more upside so he could be dangerous, though he could also be beat pretty bad so he’s up in the air, while they pretty much know what they’re going to get with Hillary. However, he placed Hillary’s count at 47 – 54%.
So according to Newtie, I sold her a little short. Thought you’d like to know.