Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Here Come the Media Attacks on Obama

By Eric Boehlert, Media Matters for America. Posted February 29, 2008.


Clear signs suggest that Obama's press treatment is going to get rough, as the media begins to adopt GOP spin.
Advertisement

With Sen. Barack Obama now emerging as the Democratic front-runner, clear signs suggest that his press treatment will soon change and that the media will fall back into their routine of viewing -- and critiquing -- leading Democrats through the eyes of Republican spin.

Just last week, we saw how a single line from a Michelle Obama speech was seized upon by conservative partisans, led by Fox News, to suggest she is not patriotic, and how that attack was given a wider airing in the mainstream press. (CNN casually raised questions about Barack Obama's patriotism, as well.) We've also seen the media-manufactured narrative take root that Obama is the leader of a cultish following (more on that below), which dovetails with the creeping media meme that Obama is a phony.

Meanwhile, in Sunday's New York Times, Obama was twice described as being overly effeminate: He's an "elusive starlet" who prefers "playing the tease," while espousing a "feminine management style." Compare that to the media's portrayal of Republican Sen. John McCain as sort of a man's man, and it's obvious where those competing narratives are headed.

Writing at Slate.com,

John Dickerson announced he's had enough of the Obama euphoria: "Isn't there a natural limit to our enthusiasm for to this kind of sweeping phenomenon?" By "our," I suppose Dickerson meant voters, but my hunch is he was likely referring to journalists and how they had reached their "natural limit." I'm not sure this foreshadows a full-fledged media backlash against Obama, but it certainly suggests a fundamental shift is on the horizon. The pendulum is swinging.

Specifically, look at the about-face being done by partisan conservative columnists who, rather unbelievably, had expressed their deep admiration for Obama, a liberal Democrat, during the primary season when he opposed Clinton.

"He is the brilliant young black man as American dream," wrote Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan, whose hatred of Hillary Clinton is limitless. But with the Clinton campaign now wounded and Obama grabbing the inside track on the nomination, Noonan quickly flip-flopped. In her February 22 column, she suggested the Obamas are self-centered "snobs" who can't relate to "normal Americans." (Bill Kristol is now hitting that nasty theme as well.)

New York Times Republican columnist David Brooks performed a similar pivot. Last year, he praised Obama effusively while urging him to take on Clinton for the Democratic nomination: "Whether you're liberal or conservative, you should hope Barack Obama runs for president."

More recently, in January, Brooks wrote of how Obama "offer[s] a politics that is grand and inspiring" and noted Obama's rhetoric about "the high road versus the low road; inspiration versus calculation; future versus the past; and service versus selfishness."

Then last week, the columnist showed his true partisan colors, the same colors he and an army of others will be waving for months to come. New narrative: Obama is an overhyped, waffling phony, and his followers are delusional suckers. To accentuate the mocking tone, Brooks in his column referred to Obama as "the Hope Pope," "His Hopeness," "The Chosen One," "The Presence," "The Changemaker," and the "High Deacon of Unity."


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: barack obama, media

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Media and Technology! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
False hopes!
Posted by: carbon-based on Feb 29, 2008 12:38 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Funny but I hear more Obama bashing coming from the liberals - NYT for example and Clintons own supporters - than I do from conservatives.. Fox news for example has been very easy on him..O'Reilly even defending him from the outrage surrounding his wifes comments.

As for the media, anything to sell circulation -not to mention how much fun it is to bash the guy on top vs. who's on the bottom.

The problem with this election is the media hype, who inturn created the Obama hype!

Obama maybe hasn't shown any meat in his speeches, but then, he apparently doesn't have to - he helps sell stories

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: False hopes! Posted by: mkdelta69
» RE: False hopes! Posted by: Figfest
» RE: False hopes! Posted by: D. Julian Terry
» Meat Posted by: foreverhope
» More Meat Posted by: foreverhope
» RE: Meat---more distinctions Posted by: asilsfable
» RE: Meat---more distinctions Posted by: foreverhope
LONG OVERDUE
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Feb 29, 2008 1:10 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The untouchable status can't last forever. obama had an unusually long run. The party's over and now he's another guy running for office about to take the lumps that go along with it. He must answer 'real' questions, stop preaching and talk to us. We don't need another cheer leader in the White House. Time for him to grow up. Thanks, ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: LONG OVERDUE Posted by: kimbari
» RE: LONG OVERDUE Posted by: carbon-based
» RE: LONG OVERDUE - THANK YOU Posted by: VZEQICVA
» RE: LONG OVERDUE - THANK YOU Posted by: carbon-based
» RE: LONG OVERDUE Posted by: mkdelta69
» RE: LONG OVERDUE Posted by: mainspark
» RE: LONG OVERDUE Posted by: gjohloc@hotmail.com
» RE: LONG OVERDUE Posted by: mkdelta69
» No, You Don't Get It Posted by: hogtowner
» RE: No, You Don't Get It Posted by: wonkywriter
» RE: LONG OVERDUE Posted by: D. Julian Terry
» RE: LONG OVERDUE Posted by: D. Julian Terry
» RE: LONG OVERDUE Posted by: BST
» RE: LONG OVERDUE Posted by: Knot_Rich
creswell
Posted by: creswell on Feb 29, 2008 1:24 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
anyone running, I mean anyone running for any office in this country is fair game, any person holding public office or has a government job is fair game, even BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: creswell Posted by: VZEQICVA
» It's Barack Hussein Obama, Jr., a**wipe Posted by: hurricane hugo
» RE: creswell Posted by: sss4r
Bashing Obama
Posted by: ibolyap on Feb 29, 2008 1:30 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Attacks just starting? Maybe. I expect that they will get darn right nasty but soon.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Bashing Obama Posted by: Lauren
It couldn't last
Posted by: Urstrly on Feb 29, 2008 1:35 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Obama's had a bit of a honeymoon with the media, who seemed fascinated that a black man could not be angry, but now things are getting real. He could actually beat Hillary, which for many (I think of David Brooks) is less than they hoped for. I wrote the Times a letter about his absurd flip-flop.

Although Obama shows plenty of substance, it's my hunch that he has the resilience of another successful politician, Ronald Reagan, and even when journalists act like two Ivy League degrees are no big deal, they do respect grace under pressure.

How many times can John McCain do his "I'm a maverick" act? He supported torture last week.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: It couldn't last Posted by: mainspark
gemajabe
Posted by: gemajabe on Feb 29, 2008 1:36 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Finally. I don't like attacks on anyone, but the ones leveled at Hillary Clinton have been so overwhelming and the left-wing media so reluctant to admit them, that if Barack Obama is now fair game, it's about time. Let's stop all the attacks, not just the ones on him.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hillary is getting the biggest pass of all.
Posted by: Christie on Feb 29, 2008 2:06 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In my opinion, Hillary is getting the biggest pass of all by the mainstream media. They apparently feel that it is entirely acceptable for her to serve another term or two, this time as top dog co-president, even though she was co-president for eight years already. It is technically legal. But every time she says she will be ready on day one, I think -- well, if we wanted someone completely ready on day one of a third term in the White House, we wouldn’t have term limits.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Change You Can Believe In
Posted by: gjohloc@hotmail.com on Feb 29, 2008 2:15 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is all crap.

Nobody expected Obama, a Black Man, to even have a chance at becoming the President of the United States. Well now America is surprising a lot of you and you can’t deal with it. America isn’t listening to the media’s passive aggressive racist’s rambling anymore. We’ve figured out what your game is and we are not playing.

First of all, Obama has never been short on details. You can read them on his web site if you are REALLY interested.

Secondly, nobody goes to a political rally to hear a position paper on policy. They go to a political rally to become inspired; to get the measure of the person running for office; to get some idea of the kind of leadership this person would bring to that office. THAT'S WHY THEY CALL IT A RALLY.

When I want to know the details of their policies, I read their position papers.

Thirdly, I didn't hear McCain or Romney or Huckabee making detailed position statements during their campaign speeches. But I forget, they are white guys. They don’t have to prove anything.

This is sooooo typical. Change the rules when things are not turning out as you expected.

And as for the opinions of the media, if you recall they are the ones who lead us all merrily into the Hell we are in today. Obama and his team caught the media off guard; that’s why they are attacking. They are scared he might win.

Change you can believe in, baby.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Change You Can Believe In Posted by: deepseas
» RE: Change You Can Believe In Posted by: mainspark
» RE: Change You Can Believe In Posted by: doneman2000
» OF WAR AND HOPE Posted by: weequash
» RE: Change You Can Believe In Posted by: newtype_alpha
» RE: Change You Can Believe In Posted by: Skills83
» Thank you! Posted by: hurricane hugo
oh NO! *Democrats under spurious ASSAULT**
Posted by: BlueBerry PickN on Feb 29, 2008 2:23 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
whatever.

blahBLAHblah.

the point is: both Dem candidates get to spend all their media time 'refuting' attacks from one another & the Reich Wing.

fecking convenient, isn't it?

I mean, it might mean someone would take the time to LOOK AT THEIR CORPORATIZED PLATFORMS long enough to notice that THE US ELECTORATE is swallowing WHATEVER the Democratic candidates feel they 'can allow their citizens'...

... if the US Electorate stopped playing Reality TV debates on the 2 candidates, they might have a chance to NEGOTIATE THE DEMOCRATIC PLATFORMS to an actual POPULIST REFORM.

nope. its more fun shrieking like grade school children & throwing temper tantrums about FAIRNESS.

you get the democracy you're willing to defend... but everyone's more interested in the CANDIDATE & IMAGE MANAGEMENTthan actual platform content.

& NEITHER has anything to write home about.

ITS UP TO YOU: either you DEFINE & NEGOTIATE the platforms of your candidates
OR
let the CORPORATE BACKERS do the negotiating while you're away from the Table shrieking like children relegated to the Kiddie Table.

~~~
Spread Love...

BlueBerry Pick'n
can be found @
ThisCanadian
~~~
"We, two, form a Multitude" ~ Ovid.
~~~
"Silent Freedom is Freedom Silenced"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» What's in the hand BEHIND Your Back? Posted by: Rabblerouser
Heh
Posted by: g50 on Feb 29, 2008 2:59 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Nah, the media will only poke & prod a bit so that the race is competitive - or at least competitive seeming. The media wants him to be president - he will move much more copy than McCain.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Heh Posted by: Lauren
The media need jobs too
Posted by: deepseas on Feb 29, 2008 3:56 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ms. Noonan is the perfect example of how the media jumps on any point to get coverage. I think the public sees through the smokescreens, just by look ing at the polls between Clinton and Obama. As long as Obama sticks to his same plan and his stamina holds, he should have no problem.

My advice to the media is to go for honesty and avoid sensationalism. The American people are burned out from the b.s. of the right wingers, and our cup will soon runneth over with the failed economy. The candidate and media who best addresses our concerns stands the best chance of staying power.

With $5 gas, food skyrocketing, and the bill collector howling by November, McCain, O'Reilly, Limbaugh and the likes better run for cover.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The media need jobs too Posted by: Lauren
Murder/suicide
Posted by: Jeanne on Feb 29, 2008 6:04 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That's what the Clinton campaign seems bent on committing. The harshness and the attacking are aimed at mortally wounding (figuratively) her opponent. Rather than focusing on her accomplishments and her plans to turn the country away from the policies of the Bush years, her campaign is hell bent on destroying the credibility of Obama. Attack his qualifications, attack his integrity, try to misrepresent his religious affiliation -- none of which will help when the campaign becomes the final one between Republican and Democrat. No matter who the Democratic candidate is -- can he/she survive this sort of campaign? Can either candidate emerge from the primaries still viable?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Murder/suicide Posted by: desidid
A Hopeful Sign
Posted by: Polenium on Mar 1, 2008 2:01 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Role of the corporate media seems to be to narrow our choices either by character assasination (ala Dean, Kerry and Gore), ridicule (Kucinich) or make candidates who won't pay to play disappear by refusing to cover them.
I had my doubts about Obama. His Senate record wasn't encouraging and he in hock to same bad actors that pull Bush and Clinton's strings.
The fact that the MSM find him enough of a threat is recommendation. They suspect he might actually do something that benefits ordinary Americans or they wouldn't be trying to take him out.
It seems all Americans need to do to get better government is to listen to media coverage a little differently; elect the people the MSM crucify and support the agenda the MSM warn against.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: A Hopeful Sign Posted by: Lauren
I'm frustrated by the whole mess
Posted by: dianectaylor on Mar 1, 2008 8:32 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Notice how Obama,who last year was the hope, is morphing into a "politician as usual"? For months it was all Hillary, Hillary, Hillary. Hillary was going to win, Hillary had raised more money, etc. Then, as Obama began winning primaries and caucuses, suddenly the media flip-flopped and it was all Obama. The upshot is, the media are CREATING the news, not reporting it.
McCain, the over-the-hill hawk, supports endless war and, of all things, torture - can he be more UN-American? Yet the media support him???
What no one has brought out is that all three are currently Senators, missing votes on crucial legislation and generally ignoring the mega-salary jobs they're being paid our tax dollars to do.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» not a high paying job Posted by: liberalibrarian
» RE: not a high paying job Posted by: Knot_Rich
» RE: not a high paying job Posted by: desidid
It is about policies
Posted by: nightingale on Mar 1, 2008 9:30 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yes, here come the attacks on Obama. However, it was naive of Boehlert to say that "long-term campaign press coverage has almost nothing to do with the candidate's policies." The "negative narrative" becomes inevitable with any slightly left, populist candidate. To be a populist means not to be exclusively dependent on the big donors. It means the possibility of the candidate responding to the real interests of ordinary people.

The corporate and wealth-oriented major media will attack the popular. Other than our left alternative media, there is no support for even a moderate populist.

Boehlers suggests press passivity: they "are persuaded," they "panic," and "absorb" right-wing talking points. But they are quite active. Aside from the rare breed who are investigative journalists, there is no liberal or moderate or fair-minded major media. There are only lots of major media paid jobs. Again, that's why we read alternative journalism and why even the rather centrist but popular Obama will be attacked in all major outlets.

For a different perspective see my "On Million Donors Dollars" at www.nightingaleatlarge.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What's wrong w/ this?
Posted by: johnclark on Mar 1, 2008 11:29 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Meanwhile, in Sunday's New York Times, Obama was twice described as being overly effeminate: He's an "elusive starlet" who prefers "playing the tease," while espousing a "feminine management style."

I used to think Media Matters was better than this, not sloppy. Sorry, but Maureen Dowd's commentaries on Obama's style are compliments, not attacks. Add to this a assaults on MSNBC, especially Chris Mathews, and you are beginning to lose credibility. Look, Media Matters has been used by a campaign, hardly a model watchdog for journalists it markets itself as.

Media Matters staff should know better than to fall for the B-M public relations campaign it is doing for their client. Come on, figure it out. This is what they do. And they do it very well. So well that their fingerprints are rarely on the spin.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Maureen Dowd is a snot Posted by: itzamirakul
BARACK OBAMA'S QUEST
Posted by: weequash on Mar 2, 2008 2:16 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The media as mouthpiece to corporate power remains the greatest manipulator of truth and disseminator of lies in this country, leaving no field of dreams unturned in their quest for control of the public brain. Why else would we be engaged in an endless, costly war that gets less primetime attention than who wins or who loses on American Idol or which sad 'celebritney' is in rehab this week.... Marshall McLuhan was right when he stated that the medium is the message, for we have endured over the past generation disastrous corporate buyouts and shakedowns of that most vital and necessary of democratic institutions, the 'free press'. And the lasting pity of it is, our pathetic congress allowed this corporate coup to happen without so much as a whimper of complaint or inquiry, much as they allowed this war and all its terrible consequences to 'happen'.
As for Barack Obama, I believe that he has the moral and intellectual stamina to withstand the growing character assaults from within his party and without. It is up to us, the American people, to stand tall with him against the pernicious fearmongers and corporate media mercenaries who would love to derail his historic quest for the White House. We simply cannot allow the corporate-controlled pundits and puppet prognosticators to attack this gifted and noble human being without cause.
Barack Obama's powerful message of renewal, resurrection and hope is, I believe, intended to heal the immense psychic wounds that we as a nation incurred on and since September 11th, 2001, and as an African-American of mixed parentage, he is also uniquely capable of healing the even deeper psychic wounds of our nation's troubled past and difficult present. Too many are still without hope, too many have been ignored or bypassed on the road to opportunity and prosperity, especially our young men and women of color. The only doors that have opened for countless young men are those that immediately close with a lock and a key. Education, hope, empowerment, are insufferably empty words, for they have little meaning to children caught up in the endless cycle of violence, crime and punishment in our desperate inner cities, places where 'hope' translates as surviving one more day without being shot. This is the message that Barack Obama delivers, the coded message that is addressed to the children of Altgeld in Chicago, of the South Bronx, of South Central Los Angeles, of everywhere in America that children live without hope. A precious truth is passed from person to person, that we are all in this country, this world together, connected to one another, responsible for one another. An enduring truth.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: BARACK OBAMA'S QUEST Posted by: creswell
» RE: BARACK OBAMA'S QUEST Posted by: radical53
Hate Speech, What You Can Do
Posted by: blondesprite on Mar 2, 2008 4:36 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Get off your backsides, quit sucking your thumbs and do something about it.
I returned from an Obama town hall meeting in Texas to learn from my grandson that his public school teacher was doing her part to lie about Obama.
Consider her paraphrased statement to my grandson:

I will never vote for Obama, because he never pledges allegiance to the American Flag.

I wrote a simple but formal faxed complaint the very next morning and sent it to her superior, the school principal.
I wrote that I was writing to him regarding a very serious matter and that I was appalled that a supposed professional in our school district would make such a vicious and untrue statement to an impressionable adolescent or a group of them.
I kept my complaint short and simple. I sent him the definition of the crime of hate speech, as defined by Wikipedia, and asked what the remedy and school or school board policy was for this type of infraction. I let the words and letter of the law speak for itself.
And I asked for his prompt attention to this matter.
He called me four hours later and asked for the name of the person involved because I had omitted it intentionally. I mentioned that I feared retaliation for my grandson and he guaranteed that if retaliation occurred, that would be another infraction and he would deal with it personally.
The principal confided that he had just sent out a scatter shot and official warning to all teachers and employees at his school against this very thing and that he knew he now needed to address it to this specific individual.
He also guaranteed the complaint and his corrective actions would be forwarded to the school superintendent.
I will follow up next week with a thank you note and ask, specifically, about the outcome of my complaint.
Next, I watched a previously taped version of the Clinton/Obama debate on Friday night and heard Brian Williams ask Obama how he will compete with McCain's "respected" experience on matters of national security.
Afterward, I sent an Email to Mr. Williams (nightly@nbc.com) and reminded him of the fact that McCain got it wrong (along with Bush and Cheney) on Iraq and that Obama's superior insight had provided him with better "judgement" on matters of national security.
Generally speaking, these opportunities to push back (metaphorically speaking) come one at a time,need to be addressed one at a time and where you live.
Let the media and other hate mongers know now, they will be called on to explain and/or defend their behaviors.
Stop complaining and sharpen your pencils, get Email addresses to your local and national media personalities and hold them accountable.
Time to stand up people. Our country can not stand under eight more years of Republican blundering and crime.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Hate Speech, What You Can Do Posted by: Democritus
On Experience
Posted by: samleg on Mar 2, 2008 4:07 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Marbw, posted this yesterday. I’m reposting it here because it’s such a poignant clip that has gotten so little attention. It underlines the point that Senator Clinton has no answer to the charge that she's making against Senator Obama (a common theme the past 6 weeks). Voters who pay attention realize that despite all her slogans about her opponent (like "he's all rhetoric and no reality"), it's she who has nothing to back up her claims. Unfortunately for Senator Clinton, it appears that the "people who pay attention" is a growing demographic.

From the National Journal, March 1, 2008
“It was, in this reporter's opinion, the most interesting moment in today's Clinton campaign phoner with reporters. Responding to the release of HRC's new TX TV ad, which asserts in no subtle terms that only she has the experience to deal with a major world crisis, and, relatedly, to keep your children safe, Slate's John Dickerson asked the obvious question:
"What foreign policy moment would you point to in Hillary's career where she's been tested by crisis?" he said.

Silence on the call. You could've knit a sweater in the time it took the usually verbose team of Mark Penn, Howard Wolfson and Lee Feinstein, Clinton's national security director, to find a cogent answer. And what they came up with was weak -- that she's been endorsed by many high ranking members of the uniformed military.”
Listen Here

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: On Experience Posted by: desidid
Then it's official...
Posted by: Gungneir on Mar 2, 2008 9:04 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Basic training is over for Obama. From this point forward, it's going to be the kind of nasty siege warfare we're used to seeing. But I think he's ready. He KNEW that this was coming, sooner or later. You'd have to be brain-dead not to. As in the real world, what's going to define Obama is not what happens to him, but how he handles it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Re: Obama and the media attackers
Posted by: kjdv on Mar 3, 2008 10:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
WHY AREN'T BROOKS, NOONAN, KRISTOL, ETC., PAYING WITH THE LOSS OF JOURNALISTIC STATUS FOR THEIR FULL FRONTAL SUPPORT OF BUSH ADMINISTRATION LIES, WHICH CONTINUE TO CAUSE THE DEATHS OF 4,000 PLUS AMERICAN SOLDIERS AND A HUNDRED THOUSAND PLUS IRAQIS? THEY ARE CERTAINLY PARTIALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE SOILING OF OUR GREAT COUNTRY'S REPUTATION WORLDWIDE AND THE BANKRUPTING OF OUR ECONOMY.
WHY IS THERE NO RECOURSE TO ADMONISH THEM?
HOW CAN THOSE LIARS DAVID BROOKS, BILL KRISTOL, AND ALL THE REST STILL BE HIRED BY SHOWS TO PONTIFICATE AFTER BEING SO COMPLETELY WRONG? THEY TRIED TO HIDE THE FACTS AT EVERY TURN CONCERNING THIS CRAZY WAR AND OUR CRAZIER ADMINISTRATION. WHY ARE THEY STILL HIRED AS TV EXPERTS WHEN THEY HAVE FAILED SO MISERABLY TO SPEAK THE TRUTH? WHY AREN'T THEY BENCHED, AT LEAST FOR ONE ELECTION CYCLE?
WHY ARE THEY STILL TALKING????

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» NAZIS! Posted by: BCcovers
» RE: NAZIS! Posted by: missy5050
Terrorist
Posted by: HeKnew on Mar 4, 2008 4:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's a foregone conclusion that the shit's gonna spin hard and to the right.

America is a one party state.


Government of the people, by the people and for the people.

Direct Democracy

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

You Still Don't Get It - It's Media Greed!
Posted by: barry1of4 on Mar 4, 2008 4:17 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The mainstream media has a vested interest in perpetuating the Democratic Primaries because they get most of the campaign money in ad dollars.
So they have their own version of "flip-flop", going between Obama and Clinton, pumping the system for as many ad dollars as they can get. When the time is right, they will focus on a single Democratic candidate and repeat the process with that candidate and McCain until November. Perhaps a bit beyond.
Remember, mainstream media is a (small) group of corporations ... their only motivation is profit. And while profit motivation is not in itself wrong, anything taken to extremes is "not good for ya", to quote George Carlin. The mainstream media is more extreme than ever. Just compare Keith Olbermann to Bill O'Reilly and remember they play the comparison themselves for ratings.
We need to get back to the days before Reagan, when the media was required to do news as a public service, in an unbiased fashion. You know, to pay back the public for use of OUR airwaves. Commentary is OK ... but only when it's secondary to the news and clearly labeled as commentary. Listen up Fox News. At least Olbermann and Air America are honest about their bias!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Some of us saw this coming
Posted by: Moonray on Mar 4, 2008 4:20 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
About two weeks ago I predicted that the MSM would quickly change their tune about Obama once it became clear that he has a good chance of winning the nomination. Remember: The MSM are corporate-owned and get their marching orders from the folks who sit on the boards of the Fortune 500.
Obama is unacceptable to these folks because he very likely would upset the status quo -- jeopardize all the billions of dollars they make from our goofy domestic and foreign policies and our endless wars.
And of course they probably will prevail. It's now likely that, regardless of who wins today's primaries, the Hillary faction, aided by the corporate mafia, will steal the nomination from Obama to ensure the status quo is perpetuated. Ain't democracy grand?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Some of us saw this coming Posted by: lil ole me
» Barrack Obama IS status quo Posted by: MobileSucks
Universal health care sacrificed to the Americon Idol candidacy
Posted by: KAEL on Mar 4, 2008 4:52 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Democrats, by falling into lock step behind the Americon Idol candidacy, have cost our citizens universal health care. Those of us who viewed Obama as a questionable investment when compared to Clinton have been virtually shouted down by Obama (only "cynics" don't support me) and his supporters who insinuate that race informs all opinions not Obama. Obama folks played the race card first in knocking Clinton on the MLK/LBJ issue. Obama divided our party further by dissing skeptics as cynics. Then he and his wife handed patriotic Americans that may have happily have voted for him all they need to say no to Obama as Commander in Chief.

It is not that the Obamas are unpatriotic. We don't know that. It is that they are INEXPERIENCED, exactly what Clinton and others have been saying for weeks. Obama's misstatements on bombing Pakistan, his taking off his US flag lapel pin while asking us to make him Commander in Chief, and his wife's Oprah Moment were not wrong. They were just collossally STUPID if you're running for President.

Shame, shame, shame on Democrats. We had it so good. We had the next 16 yrs of the Executive Branch virtually locked up with an A team for all time. And then we retired our star quarterback and inexplicably handed the team leadership over to an inexperienced second stringer. Democrats continue to show themselves completely unprepared for prime time.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Am I the only one who doesn't want a powerful president?
Posted by: dauphin534 on Mar 4, 2008 5:14 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The president shouldn't be seen as the end-all, be-all that's gonna make our country over in his image. We've just had 8 years of a very powerful president, and it hasn't been good for democracy.

I want a powerful congress instead. They are the ones who, according to that little thing called the constitution, should be getting things done and making laws, not the president.

The argument that Hillary and her supporters make that she will be able to hit the ground running and fix everything doesn't win me over. In fact, it scares me. It's a clear indication that she would do nothing to scale back the powers of the imperial presidency, and we would just end with a democratic queen instead of a republican king.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

mainstream media
Posted by: Burgerdroid on Mar 4, 2008 5:26 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To hell with the mainstream media. That's just the opinion of maybe 3 or 4 people, the few who own it. Turn it off.

Thank heaven for the Internet. And that's why they want to control it.

http://www.barackobama.com/tv

Compare the candidates yourself, then decide. Wake up, think for yourself. Get up, stand up.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Candid Candidates
Posted by: ProgressiveManiac on Mar 4, 2008 5:25 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Just last week, we saw how a single line from a Michelle Obama speech was seized upon by conservative partisans.

I will have to admit that when I heard Michelle Obama's comment I had to swallow hard. I was pretty amazed that anyone involved in politics at that level would say anything so controversial as an admission of not being proud to be American for even an instant, much less a period of decades.

I should add that I am not offended by the comment itself. I realize that it comes from someone young enough to not remember anything before the Regan administration, and the country has indeed been run into the ground by the reforms that administration brought. However, there are some things a candidate's wife just does not say if she wants her husband to be elected president, and this is one of them.

I wish this were not the case. Personally, I think that more honesty and a more open expression of what is on the minds of our presidential candidates would be a good thing. However, I've watched enough campaigns to know that comments like this can trigger a media hysteria that can bring down a candidate.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Candid Candidates Posted by: Marlena
» RE: Not ever proud of my country and why Posted by: ProgressiveManiac
» RE: Candid Candidates Posted by: hogtowner
» RE: Candid Candidates Posted by: desidid
Bashing, what do you expect
Posted by: BST on Mar 4, 2008 5:27 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have been and continue to be a very proud devotee of Hillary Clinton, who has shown herself to be courageous under fire, persistent, energetic, glass-half-full (and more) throughout months of assaults. She is a flawed individual, but then, so am I -- obviously many in the press do not see themselves that way considering their sacrosanct musings. You can almost see Russerts and Dowds preening into their coffecup reflections every morning.

When Clinton conecedes to The New Hope of America my one relief will be that for the next eight months I can put my feet up for the Coliseum fight and not feel so constantly bombarded on a personal level. Too bad it has taken some bedazzled Democrats so long to start to wake up. Hello? Anyone in there?

And presenting the next president of the United States ... John McCain.

What a collosal waste of the immense talent of Hillary Clinton. Some day take the time to really examine her record of votes, her championing of children and families, her outspoken criticism of abuses in China, her support for returning veterans in terms of money and care, ad infinitum, etc., etc.

Well, I am pleased now to head to the polls to vote for a stellar leader. Tomorrow, I'll grab a front-row seat, with my coffee, to watch the opening slugfests between Mr. Obama -- who will NOT experience a continued reign of unexamined adultation -- and McCain. Whew.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Right-wing spin machine
Posted by: Democritus on Mar 4, 2008 5:35 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For years GOP operatives have spread the lie about the "liberal media." When you have people like David Brooks and William Kristol writing for the New York Times, you know that it's not only Fox News and The Wall Street Journal that caters to reactionary causes, it's "the good old grey" itself.

The fact remains that our national media is corporate controlled, and corporations favor the GOP, no matter who is running for office, because Republicans favor corporations. Because there are more people with democratic instincts, the GOP has to use the media into brainwashing them to vote against their best interests. That's what our media hacks are paid to do.

Consider the latest ploy by Kathleen Parker, who complained recently that Obama's support among young people was an irrational phenomenon, running counter to the considered opinion of the "grown ups." Perhaps we do well to remember that Parker, in championing our invasion of Iraq, described young anti-war protesters in the same way. Who was being irrational then, Ms. Parker? Perhaps it's about time that we took the gloves off in dealing with the likes of Brooks, Kristol, Parker, Malkin, and the host of other JINOs (journalists in name only), and exposed them for what they are, miserable, lying whores for the corporate masters they serve.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Gore Vidal is right. Democrats and Republicans are two wings of the same party.
Posted by: Centavo on Mar 4, 2008 5:38 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm sorry, but that's my conclusion. Voting for one party or the other is voting for the continuation of the same agenda.

Yes, Obama sounds good. Yes, he is likable. But just because a commercial tickles your fancy, doesn't mean you should buy the product.

I know many feel differently. I understand and respect the reasons for that sentiment. But, were he elected, I predict Obama will perpetuate the same old same old. I don't see how it can be otherwise given our collective cultural aspirations and the deeply ingrained assumptions about who we are as a people.

The problems we face in the United States are systemic. No single election, no single individual, is going to make a difference. For that to occur, there must be a shift of conscience born of individual introspection about what is valuable, and that followed by a willingness to change one's habits.

In the wave of support propelling the Obama candidacy, I see wishful thinking and an unspoken and unacknowledged desire to have one's cake and eat it too. Once again, we as a nation are setting ourselves up for a let down.

For those who might be interested, here is the link to Gover Vidal's piece.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Nice post MS Posted by: oceanwaves99999
» RE: Nice post MS Posted by: MobileSucks
easy come easy go
Posted by: solrev on Mar 4, 2008 6:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Obama got a free pass because the media believed Clinton was going to be the nominee. Now that Obama is looking like the frontrunner, he is the news and Clinton is old news. Who ever comes out of Texas with the win will be the frontrunner and the news. The really sad thing is that the media is in the entertainment business, therefore they love American idol issues. The real issues get buried; they are just to boring for TV. If the demons let this primary run past Texas and McCain has a free ride, they are likely to lose. Example: Who do you want to answer the midnight caller, a lightweight or a real war dog? Clinton or Obama loses. Universal health insurance is not universal health care; it is just another liberal spending bill. McCain wins. The demons need to make a deal and get the national campaign under way if they want to win the national election. So far none of the demon pundits have a clue what is happening with the repuks. If the media mouth conservatives, the supply sidewinder conservatives and the social conservatives are not voting for McCain. Who is voting for McCain? If the demons do not run a campaign to win that election they will lose.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

</