Jesse Jackson jr says the tears were "in response to her appearance", and
connects that to Katrina, of all things, prior to the South Carolina vote.
Bad move.
---
Update: Jeebus, I hadn't seen that
NYT's MoDo unloaded on Hill with both barrels. (No surprise, except for how exceptionally
vicious MoDo's column was, even by her own standards.)
This seems like an appropriate time to emphasize some recent
Daily Howler observations and conclusions about the
rabidly anti-Clinton/Gore media, and how they would handle Obama.
One of the most important
Daily Howler posts ever didn't even get posted on Monday, as intended. It came online yesterday, and I want to spotlight this quote:
With the presumptive defeat of Candidate Clinton, a 16-year story will come to an end. This gives Democrats a new chance to take control of the narratives told about its leaders. By now, it’s abundantly clear that a Nominee Clinton would be subjected to endless nonsense throughout the campaign, as was the case with Candidate Gore all through 1999 and 2000. These attacks would be based on sixteen years of mainstream demonology—and it’s clear that many Dems and libs believe many parts of these RNC tales. (Let’s not pretend that we don’t.) Obama’s nomination lets Dems start again. And, with new, more aggressive liberal institutions in place, it will be harder—much, much harder—to assemble the welter of Demon Tales that were used to trash the Clintons and Gore. The defeat of Clinton will let Democrats and liberals at long last start over again.
If you don't read Bob Somerby on a "daily" basis, that claim might not strike you as being momentous. But no one places more importance on media narratives and scripts than Somerby. And for him to immediately recognize how "much, much harder" it will be for the media to use RNC "Demon Tales" to trash Obama is quite extraordinary. As a blogger, Somerby would seemingly be invested in the continuance of the "16 year story" he has tracked on a daily basis. Yet he was incredibly quick to envisage how much differently the media will treat Obama than Clinton,
even after Obama becomes the nominee.I'm impressed.
On
Friday, Somerby came to the initial realization:
If Obama becomes the Democratic nominee, how will his campaign be covered by the mindless fraternal order we still describe as the “mainstream press corps?” By now, it’s abundantly clear how a Candidate Clinton’s campaign would be covered; she would be covered much as Candidate Gore was covered in the twenty-month war which changed the world’s history. But would Obama be covered that way?
And after reading that query I expected Somerby to follow up with a very cautious or pessimistic answer. I thought Somerby would either say that he "had no earthly idea" how Obama would be covered as a general election candidate, or that he would refer back to the media's treatment of John Kerry's swiftboating. However, to my surprise, Somerby-- who is
obsessed by negative media scripts, and who would never underrate the media's potential for viciousness-- makes a startling assumption. He says:
On balance, we’d assume that the answer is no— and that raises a giant historical question. Were the press corps wars of the past fifteen years an artefact of the corps’ realignment as a more Republican entity? Or were these disgraceful wars against Clinton/Gore/Clinton a weird, anomalous personal oddity? History will offer no perfect answer—especially in a world where housebroken career liberal pool boys refuse to even ask such questions. But make no mistake: It’s abundantly clear how a Nominee Clinton would be covered later this year. After [the Iowa caucuses], it’s more likely that we’ll get to assess the coverage of a Nominee Obama.
Somerby is right. The defeat of Clinton
would liberate Dems and liberals from "the 16 year story". It
would provide an opportunity for a fresh start. Sure, the media would give Obama "the treatment". But it wouldn't be the "
Clinton/Gore" treatment.
Is that fair? Of course not! But anyone who assesses a candidate's chance for success needs to understand what "scripts" the media is inclined to use. The ones they have for Hillary are hideous and grotesque. The ones they have for Edwards are not too "pretty", either. The ones they have for Obama, conversely, are generally positive, and they can't be easily re-fitted into the old ones they had for Clinton/Gore or Kerry. Is it "fair" that Obama has this "media script" advantage over the other Dems? Of course not, but it's crucial to understand this advantage when one is assessing Obama's electability.
In keeping the Hillary's tears" story alive, Obama's campaign apparently thinks the anti-Hillary media will successfully fit the tears story into their existing "Clinton narrative"-- that Hill and Bill are inauthentic, calculating political machines. The Obama campaign is playing it extraordinarily rough with this (risky) maneuver, yet many Dems will still assume that Obama is a softy who won't hit back come November.
Labels: Elections and Campaigns, Hillary, Obama
21 Comments:
I agree. Bad move, indeed. Disappointing. Obama has to distance himself from this. What will really diminish support for him (and will have an effect on me, for sure, a la the Nagin "Chocolate City" moment) will be if the race card becomes a part of the Obama strategy in South Carolina. Obama's got to respond and he's got to do so personally and unequivocally in opposition to this.
oyster - for an interesting item on the "rabidly anti-Clinton/Gore media," you'll want to take a look at this posting over at Andrew Sullivan's blog: http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/01/women-spoke.html
It's quite revealing and adds a whole new layer to what may have happened in New Hampshire.
Personally, I think Obama needs to pay attention to this and go to lengths to counter and blunt the media's narrative regarding the Clinton/Gore machine during the PRIMARY season, not to encourage it with the likes of Jesse Jackson Jr.'s gambit, which has the potential to really, really, really backfire.
I have no idea if this will work or not, but I know it's a big risk.
And don't think that JJ jr's gambit was his own idea. (Obama will disavow the gambit if it backfires, of course. But I'm sure that they were behind it.)
I don't know about the Jesse Jackson Jr. comments - it strikes me as the wrong track but maybe it's always been naive to think the sharp elbows weren't coming out. Bill Clinton got brutal with Obama the day before NH voted and in reading some of the old '92 campaign coverage (I had a bout of Tsongas nostalgia) I saw that Bill Clinton accused Tsongas of being a heartless version of Reagan-lite.
And ABC reports today: "The woman whose empathetic question "how do you do it?" sparked uncharacteristic emotion Monday from Sen. Hillary Clinton ended up voting for Sen. Barack Obama in the New Hampshire primary.
Marianne Pernold Young, 64, a freelance photographer from Portsmouth, N.H., told ABC News that while she was moved by Clinton's emotional moment, she was turned off by how quickly the New York senator regained her "political posture."
I sense the Obama campaign in on the verge of channeling old Dads everywhere: "You better knock off that crying or I'll really give you something to cry about."
Something to cry about is likely to include - HRC's Iraq War vote, the $46 million dollars (or so..I'm quoting Brian Lamb from memory) Bill Clinton has made giving speeches since being out of office, phantom dishwashers who gave HRC $4600.
A lot of people see some JFK in Obama. Well JFK was a big enough SOB to beat Dick Nixon. Let's see what Obama's got.
Oyster,
I'm giggling a bit as I see you have placed Obama's feeding the beast of stupid media in the category of "risky maneuvering".
I see what you mean but I don't think this is a "risk" they want to take.
I disagree with Somerby (as I do sometimes but not often). It strikes me as incredibly myopic to assume that this insitutionally juvenile press only acts in such a fashion towards people name Clinton or Gore. But Somerby is something of a Gor sycophant and therein lies his weakness, I believe.
For one thing, it seems a bit strange to assume that there exists now some "new, more aggressive liberal institutions in place" that provide an effective counter-narrative to Maureen Dowd's bullshit on EXACTLY THE SAME WEEK that we are witnessing Dowdism in its fullest flower poison the debate as it always has.
This is a systemic problem with our national discourse that cannot be cured through a simple Clinton-ectomy, so to speak. If Obama were a truly Hopeful and Audacious leader he would be speaking out against the hideous treatment of his (admittedly hideous) opponent. Instead his campaign is out there participating in it. They will pay for this short-sighted selfishness eventually. Trust me.
"Gore sycophant" in case the typo obscured the meaning.
I can't believe you think they won't come after Obama with every knife in the drawer. The attacks will be geared toward stoking up racism, in addition to everything they threw at Clinton, Gore and Kerry. These are the people who questioned the war record of a man with 3 purple hearts and got away with it, not to mention what they did to Max Clelland. JFK would be trounced in this day and age because of his sex life, his hidden illness, his father's defeatism during WWII, and his lack of major accomplishments as a senator. The major media are Republican tools, and if they have to make shit up about Barak Obama in order to elect John McCain, they will. I'm totally not buying the idea that they will back off if we promise not to nominate Hillary Clinton. They can't win unless they play dirty, therefore, they will play dirtier than ever and slime Barak Obama for all he is worth. I'm not about to base my preference on which candidate is less likely to be slimed by Republicans, I'm assuming an all-out slime war no matter who the Democrat is, it's just what they do.
Yeah, but dangerblond, the question isn't wRepugs, but who is going to be slimed by the Maureen Dowds of the world without any prompting. How much of the right wing noise is picked up by the mainstream media is a crucial variable.
blogger ate a line: "who is going to be slimed by Repugs"
Again, Jeffrey, it's folly to expect politicians in a presidential campaign who are playing the game to be systemic "change-agents" towards the very media system in which they're participating.
Notice how Somerby doesn't focus his ire on pols.
As for the "knives", naturally they'll come at Obama with knives. Removing the Clintons doesn't change that, but the deadly "knives" are the ones that create or feed into a crippling narrative.
It's folly to expect politicians in a presidential campaign who are playing the game to be systemic "change-agents" towards the very media system in which they're participating.
Couldn't it be said, however, that he current "media system" is the very product of decades of Republican candidates acting as "change-agents" by relentlessly intimidating and "working the refs" with incessant ranting against the "liberal media"?
It's one of the oldest and most effective plays in the book.
Wouldn't it be a Hopeful and Audacious (sorry can't help it) "risky" strategy to start working the refs in the other direction?
If Obama were a truly Hopeful and Audacious leader he would be speaking out against the hideous treatment of his (admittedly hideous) opponent. Instead his campaign is out there participating in it. They will pay for this short-sighted selfishness eventually. Trust me.
You know, I have to agree with jeffrey 100% on this. I don't mind knife-sharpening if the meat the Ginsu will be carving is something meaningful to the electorate. Obama should beat this identity politics monster back.
Frankly, I was really heartened listening to Obama's concession speech. If the stunning rawness of disappointment surely felt in the Obama camp didn't cause Obama himself to draw out the knives then, when would it? Silly me for thinking this. And the graciousness of Obama's concession speech I took as a sign that Obama would not go Ginsu, much less go Ginsu in such an unflattering, identity politics way. I was proud of the entire Democratic Party family for a half a day. I guess a one-half day of goodness in the the Democratic Party family is better than none; but, geeze Louise! It could have lasted longer.
I'm still a diehard Obamaphile, and I still think the man's got an unrivalled MoJo and the best plan, but I stand duly chastened by what the banality of campaign politics will produce, even in the best of us. I'll wait to see what turns up on this over the next week and how it plays out; but I have to admit to feeling a little worse now than I did even moments after NH was called for Hillary.
Boyd, I think the media will go for it 100%, in the manner of "A group calling itself Swift Boat Veterans for Truth has published an ad claiming that..." But, it will be "A group calling itself Madrassa School Drop-Outs for Truth is claming today that Barak Obama is a card-carrying member of Al Qaeda," with no original reporting and no one but Jesse Jackson, Jr. denying it. Democrats will not hit back with the same shit because they know the MSM won't let THEM get away with it. The media these days just types up whatever the Republicans tell them. Look at the recent Wash Post article about Obama's religion, and their excuse was "well, we gave him a chance to deny it." When the Democrats tell them something, they don't just type it up, because they all have a ve$ted interest in keeping Republicans in power. You watch, they will let John McCain charm the pants off them while they publicize Republican attacks on Obama (or whoever). If Democrats try to say McCain is crazy, they will have 10 psychiatrists on TV to say he's not. They love Obama now, but if he looks like he might beat their guy, the love will be gone. I can already see the love affair between McCain and the press happening. They will drop Obama like a hot rock. The only way they will stay in love with Obama is if Huckabee is the Republican nominee, they hate his guts worse than Hillary.
..and don't forget, if the GOPers forget their script of character assassination on Edwards, they have people like you to rely on!
Triple-J's "tears" remarks are Obama's "Chocolate City" moment. Nothing but racial pandering to the black voters of SC.
Jeffrey writes:
Couldn't it be said, however, that he current "media system" is the very product of decades of Republican candidates acting as "change-agents" by relentlessly intimidating and "working the refs" with incessant ranting against the "liberal media"?
I don't think the change-agents were the GOP candidates; more like think tanks, fundagelical political groups, talk radio, evil rich dudes... etc.... The passionate people of the "conservative movement".
However, that's certainly not the entire problem. The media has a few ingrained liberal biases remaining as well as its insipid natural tendency towards: trivia, stupidity, politics, narrative, horserace/gamesmanship stuff... etc.. So, the "problem" isn't just that the conservative movement successfully created certain media scripts that tilted the game more than it used to be (mainly due to liberal passivity, as chronicled by Somerby).
Ashley: yeah, I'm the Goopers secret weapon.
Yat: that's an interesting parallel.
I'm late to this dance but color me extremely skeptical that Obama will be treated by the media with kid gloves. They fall in and out of love with candidates all the time. I don't think Obama will be treated like the messiah by the msm, which is what some of his more overzealous supporters seem to think he is. The best case scenario is that he's a Gary Hart who can keep his pants zipped up, which wouldn't be half bad.
The pro-Hillary is re-inforced by the dishonest (or so exaggerated as to be dishonest) talk of "crying" and "tears" on the part of Obama supporters and Clinton-bashers in the MSM. It's absurd to continuously talk of tear while continuously showing a clip that doesn't contain actual tears.
I wouldn't expect the MSM types to know any better, but on the 5:00 (our time) Hardball, Michael Eric Dyson looked almost as dishonest as Chris Matthews. I suppose it was the tunnel vision of a hedgehog, but he made himself look closeminded (by discussing the failure of polls taken over the weekend while ignoring a shify that occurred Sunday and Monday) and he didn't help Obama. I know how pretentious the hedgehog line was, BTW, but I'm too sleepy to come up with anything better.
Media pundits won't, but but Edwards and Obama supporters should stop "crying."
Am I the only one who sees the so-far positive treatment of Obama by the MSM through conspiracy glasses? That maybe--just maybe--that treatment is because Obama is the desired opponent of the right wing? That yes, perhaps there is a "16 year story" in place already with which to beat a Clinton about the head and shoulders...but it pales when compared to getting a chance to rev up the Southern Strategy machine against not just a candidate you can paint as liberal and "for the coloreds" but against a candidate who is most demonstrably and assuredly BLACK himself? One who even has Jesse Jackson Jr. as his spokesman, for cryin' out loud? With an Islamic-souonding name?
Unless, of course, you're among that large cohort of self-hating Dems who blame Kerry for "letting" the machine ruin his candidacy and reputation, and somehow think that the decorated war veteran was an easier target for the rethugs than the black guy with the foreign name will be.
Obama may very well be the major Democratic candidate who would actually make the best President; all I think anyone can definitively say at this point is that (like William Jennings Bryant) he's a helluva orator. But even granting the assumption that he might make the best President doesn't mean that, despite the existing Clinton narrative, he might not also be the candidate the Republican machine would most like to face. Remember--Clinton may have 16 years of crap-slinging to overcome, but that also means she has 16 years of experience in dealing with Republican crap-slinging.
I'm late here, too, but if Obama is the nominee, the viciousness of the media-Rethug machine will take your breath away, Oyster. In one way or another, he will be swift-boated. Whether the viciousness will be successful enough to cause an election loss, I can't say, but it will be ugly beyond your nightmares.
Points well taken, puddinhead.
But let's not conflate RNC strategies with MSM storylines. Reporters like the story of Obama, they like the chance at history, they especially like the prospect of a Clinton being defeated.
Somerby's point is that the lib/Dem establishment has a chance to help write the new "scripts" for Obama. The old ones for Hillary (which were too greatly influenced by relentless kooky con/RNC/wingnut propaganda) will be with Hillary not only throughout the campaign, but throughout her administration, should she win.
And a whole generation of voters will have never experienced the presidency outside two families.
