What Digby Said

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 09:31:05 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Obama can take care of himself:

Barack Obama has been fighting and defending himself impressively down in South Carolina and across the board. He isn't some fey mystic who needs to be treated with kid gloves. . . . He's throwing hardballs right along with Hillary Clinton and he's obviously getting some over the plate or this wouldn't be the fight it is.

The punditocracy's "protectiveness" toward Obama is patronizing and insulting. And this silly case of the vapors among the villagers over the "nastiness" of the race and how its going to tear the party apart is nearly guaranteed to make him look like a weak sister, which he isn't, and his elite supporters are falling right into the trap. Watching David Brooks and Mark Shields elbow each other to get to the fainting couch about the unprecedented horror of the South Carolina campaign (which as D-Day pointed out in the post below is a complete joke) is not helpful to Obama or Clinton.

(Emphasis supplied.)

< South Carolina Whites Are Not Moving Away From Obama | South Carolina : Signs to Look For >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

What Digby Said | 44 comments (44 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Speaking of media... (5.00 / 1) (#16)
by Teresa on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 11:57:59 AM EST

with Hillary not staying in SC tonight, will they cover Obama's speech? When Obama left Nevada, they didn't cover Hillary because of the fairness issue.

Also, to all the people posting on blogs (not this one) about Hillary not having enough in her to stick around to take her loss, where were your complaints last week? That goes both ways: if you support Hillary and dissed Obama last week, is she wrong to leave SC today?

I'll bet (5.00 / 1) (#29)
by Jeralyn on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 12:50:40 PM EST

she has the courtesy to call him and congratulate him if he wins -- something he didn't do when she won New Hampshire.


He didn't in Nevada either Jeralyn. (5.00 / 1) (#33)
by Teresa on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 01:15:57 PM EST

I'm sure she will call him as well. It disturbs me that he isn't as gracious as I thought he would be.


Foreshadowing (5.00 / 1) (#39)
by squeaky on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 02:40:54 PM EST

Of how the Unity Schitck will play out? Just like W he may turn that unity BS into you're with us or against us.


: yeah (none / 0) (#40)
by athyrio on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 02:53:14 PM EST

sorta like compassionate conservatism....whatever that is....

I agree. Plus, this would be (none / 0) (#32)
by oculus on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 01:01:41 PM EST

a savvy move re black demographic in upcoming primaries.


Hear, hear. His not giving a concession speech (none / 0) (#17)
by Cream City on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 12:15:04 PM EST

in Nevada was graceless. But I'm not betting that the msm will remember that tonight, as they have the attention span of gnats.


: I expect Bill to give a speech. (none / 0) (#20)
by oculus on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 12:18:00 PM EST

Why pass up the opportunity?

: I though so too, but I don't think (none / 0) (#24)
by Teresa on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 12:38:04 PM EST

Hillary will look any better if she doesn't give one tonight. She was very gracious after Iowa. Maybe she will speak from Tennessee?

interesting about Morning Joe on MSNBC (none / 0) (#19)
by athyrio on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 12:16:54 PM EST

Mika has a brother and a father working with Obama and another brother working with John McCain.

Hmmm. Has anyone heard that before? I admit I haven't been a morning Joe watcher, but I haven't heard it any of the posts about MJ either.

a bit of a conflict of interest if true...


Speeches. (none / 0) (#38)
by TheRealFrank on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 02:18:12 PM EST

Obama will, of course, give one. It's what he does best (probably using a teleprompter again, as in Iowa).

However, Clinton will also want to give a speech, looking forward to feb 5th, and perhaps even dropping the word 'Florida' in there, although that's hard to do in a subtle fashion.. For her, it'll be all about making the impact of SC as small as possible, and going for Feb 5th. If I were the Clinton campaign, I'd have her give a speech.


I like Digby (none / 0) (#1)
by Judith on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 10:05:10 AM EST

I have seen similar comments elsewhere about Obama and I agree. But I disagree with the last line - I think it is helpful to both of them to be seen as fighters. The meme about weak Dems wont play here - at least not with HRC.

As for the media's part.. (none / 0) (#2)
by TheRealFrank on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 10:07:06 AM EST

The media has been full of "Bill Clinton is a meanie" stories. However, if you look at what Bill Clinton has been saying, stumping for his wife, it's pretty run-of-the-mill campaign stuff: you grab something that you think is a good stick to thwap the other guy with, and go for it. Stuff like context and details are often left in the dust, that's how it goes. There's nothing that Bill Clinton said that hasn't been done by other other campaigns, and it's certainly not more negative than other primaries before this one.

Why then all the "Bill Clinton is a meanie" stories? Well, the Obama campaign picked the "crying foul" defense against him, obviously unhappy with the impact that he was having. Again, not an unusual tactic. But why did the media go along with it so enthusiastically this time?

If you read the articles, virtually all of them mention that Bill Clinton wasn't nice to a reporter as well. And I think that's the issue here. They already dislike him, but he's being a meanie to them. They know that what he's saying on the stump is nothing unusual, but god forbid that someone isn't nice to the media.

The lesson here is: always suck up to the media. Beware, Obama, because the whole "Obama gets testy" thing the other day is just a prelude of what to come, if you get the nomination, and the arrogant press corps decides they don't like you anymore.

Amen! (none / 0) (#3)
by BernieO on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 10:15:24 AM EST

I was so disgusted by Mark Shields and David Brooks last night I turned them off. After all the unbelievably nasty campaign tricks that Republicans have used courtesy of Atwater and Rove for them to act like what is going on in South Carolina is horrible is beyond belief. They shrugged off the Rezko thing by saying that there is a picture of the Clintons with him, failing to mention that Obama had not only gotten funding from him (Norman Hsu also) but had also gotten help in buying his house from Rezko after it was clear that he was being investigated for corruption. Even Pat Buchanan on McLaughlin said that the Clinton picture was no big deal. Politicians routinely have these taken with hundreds of people whom they do not know.

This morning on MSNBC I was pleasantly surprised to hear Craig Crawford challenge Mika and Joe to show him anything that the Clintons have said which is racist. He pointed out that it is common for past drug use to be brought up in campaigns, and asked why it should be any different if the candidate is black. I cannot believe how many people have bought into this dishonest and very dangerous storyline pushed by the media and the Obama campaign. I agree that acting like Obama should not be criticized is extremely patronizing.

it is very simple to me. (none / 0) (#4)
by hellothere on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 10:19:18 AM EST

if obama cannot take the heat in the kitchen and defend himself, i want to know right now. of course, he can! now all these vapors because people are actually talking really insults my intelligence. i should say all thinking people's intelligence. bush is destroying the middle east, middle class, and assisting global warming for his corporate sponsors. and these pathetic excuses for the media whine about what?

i am beginning to think they want us to discuss brittney or anything but reality.

The Republicans will not hesitate (none / 0) (#5)
by felizarte on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 10:34:35 AM EST

to use Obama's past cocaine use against him no matter what age he was when he did it. I find it amusing that being in Indonesia as a boy, he claims, gives him special foreign policy insight.

And if that stage of his life is to be mentioned, why is it such a taboo to mention something he himself brought up in his book?


: very true! they will hit obama with (none / 0) (#8)
by hellothere on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 10:57:41 AM EST

everything they can if he gets the nod. obama has stated he is ready, but seeing his campaign up to now, i don't agree. his supporters get emotional and starting really complaining to the willing hears of the press will turn people off rightly so or not.
and then the behind the scenes rovian tricks? geez it makes my head hurt to think about that.
i recall jessie jackson wanted the veep slot when he ran. i'll have to go back and reread about that, though it does not compare to today at all.

: let me clarify what i mean by (none / 0) (#10)
by hellothere on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 11:00:36 AM EST

of course he can defend himself. what i mean by that is obama has experience in hardball politics and is not the victim some of his supporters and followers are trying to paint.
however though he can defend himself, i don't think he is ready at the present time for the general election.

What's underneath (none / 0) (#6)
by Camorrista on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 10:38:09 AM EST

Digby could have gone a step further and described this protectiveness the way black comedians describe it: the Sidney Poitier (or Bill Cosby) syndrome.

You never see this protectiveness for, say, Charlie Rangel, or Maxine Waters, or Cynthia McKinney, or Sheila Jackson-Lee, or Al Sharpton, or Jesse Jackson, or Whoopi Goldberg.

But, then again, none of these white pundits would invite Rangel, or Waters, or McKinney, or Lee, or Sharpton, or Jackson, or Goldberg to dinner.

But Obama (or Cosby), well, that's another story; he'd be invited to these sophisticated white homes in a nano-second--he's eloquent, he's witty, he's courteous, he's visionary, and he doesn't make a fuss over....you know, whatever those trouble-makers do make a fuss over.

With friends like these, Obama needs no enemies. The sooner he ditches (and disses) them, the better.

this is somewhat like the (none / 0) (#7)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 10:41:21 AM EST

is "Obama not black enough?" question.

He is black enough of course whatever that means.

But he is misreading the politics. See my post on Paul Rosenberg's thinking on this above.


A bit puzzled (none / 0) (#9)
by Camorrista on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 10:58:50 AM EST

Sorry, I didn't know how to find the post you mentioned.

In any event, I was talking about the unacknowledged (or, if you prefer, unconscious) racism of the white pundit class.


: What Paul Rosenberg Said (none / 0) (#11)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 11:02:31 AM EST

It is above this post.

i dont get your argument (none / 0) (#12)
by Judith on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 11:09:00 AM EST

Cosby is hugely successful. Wouldnt Obama prefer to be a Cosby?


The assumption is that the media is 'protective' (none / 0) (#13)
by byteb on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 11:32:05 AM EST

of Obama b/c: 1) he's African American and 2)he benefits from the "Sydney Poitier African American Syndrome" which, of course, explains why "You never see this protectiveness for, say, Charlie Rangel, or Maxine Waters, or Cynthia McKinney, or Sheila Jackson-Lee, or Al Sharpton, or Jesse Jackson, or Whoopi Goldberg." He's invited for dinner in white homes b/c "he's eloquent, he's witty, he's courteous, he's visionary, and he doesn't make a fuss over....you know, whatever those trouble-makers do make a fuss over." And he's "clean" too, don't forget he passes the Biden "clean" test. IMO, this is nonsense. Talk about patronizing? This kind of thinking is incredibly patronizing. I invite one and all to try and imagine other reasons why the press might be treating Obama more favorably than Clinton..b/c there could be other reasons. For instance, the MSM love to pick favorites in political races and bathe them in good will..and expample currently on the Republican side is McCain. He's their guy. Looking back into recent history, they ate Georgie Bush up. They loved the straight talking, swaggering cowboy from Texas. No matter that it was all a mirage. They didn't care. On the flip-side, they love to demonize a candidate and interpret every action through an extra critical light either casting them as duplitious or as a joke. Again, look back into recent history: Gore was the nerdy kid who lies. He was great to joke about like a group of high school heathers making fun of the awkward loser. Kerry was the elitist, French snob. Swiftboaters made up outrageous lies about him and the press absorbed them and printed them. (and yes, Kerry didn't fight back soon enough and hard enough). Now to Obama and Hillary. Unfairly, the press has never liked Hillary. Books can be written about the whys, but it won't change the meme in place. The press likes Obama. Now you can dismiss it as mere fawning over a black candidate or you could place their reaction towards Obama in persepctive and see it as another example of the need to cast the narrative with a good person and a bad one. Obama does possess charisma, youth, a vision and the gift of soaring rhetoric...very much like JFK decades ago. Now, you can debate whether those qualities are enough to make a good President and that would be a honest debate but to dismiss the positive press coverage of Obama b/c just he's the new African American kid with a Sydney Poiter acceptability ignores past MSM history and their perchant for picking favorites and casting villains. It also is patronizing. If Hillary wins the nomination and McCain wins the Republican nod, well, I don't think it will be hard to imagine how the press coverage might swing b/c it's already in place. Wouldn't it be nice to enter the general (for once) w/the press on our side? And this is a generalized vent and not directed at any one person.


: nah (none / 0) (#14)
by Judith on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 11:36:59 AM EST

<<Wouldn't it be nice to enter the general (for once) w/the press on our side?>>
as they said in New Hampshire - eff the press.

: Re: mostly your last couple sentences (none / 0) (#22)
by spit on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 12:22:28 PM EST

the press can turn on a dime, and if it suits their overall narrative at any point to destroy Obama, they'll do it in a heartbeat.
Don't count on the media as an ally, because they're an incredibly fickle one.

: Not quite persuaded (none / 0) (#43)
by Camorrista on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 04:29:48 PM EST

Everything you say is true, but I didn't think we were talking about the generally favorable press treatment of Obama, but about the protectivness shown him when the press believes (or more often pretends to believe) he's under attack.
No doubt there are many reasons for reporters to like Obama (and dislike the Clintons) but--as was almost pornographically obvious during cable news coverage of the South Carolina primary today--when it comes to defending Obama, white reporters frame all their comments to demonstrate their own superior tolerance (in contrast, of course, to that bad old Clintonian racism).
Your argument is that Obama's "charisma, youth, a vision and the gift of soaring rhetoric" are (more than) enough for the press to adore him. Mine is that without what white reporters perceive as his (perceived) Poitier-like qualities, that adoration would be much more contained.

if Obama (none / 0) (#15)
by athyrio on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 11:42:21 AM EST

got the nomiation, the media would swing over to dissing him so fast it would make your head spin...if you think the media will ever support a democrat over a republican you are indeed living in a dream world...the media is controlled by the corporate world and the corporate world is best serves by republican values...enough said...

I don't think the majority of newspaper reporters (none / 0) (#18)
by oculus on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 12:16:40 PM EST

are at all conservative.


I sure do Oculus...they are quite conservative... (none / 0) (#23)
by athyrio on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 12:28:25 PM EST

by and large, they are always pointing out the talking points of the current administration...there of course are excepts to that, but I mean for the most part...


you are describing laziness (none / 0) (#25)
by Judith on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 12:40:04 PM EST

not affiliation


or maybe Judith (none / 0) (#26)
by athyrio on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 12:42:15 PM EST

they know what side of the bread is buttered as far as their paychecks are concerned....


depends (none / 0) (#27)
by Judith on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 12:43:07 PM EST

on who they work for.


LOL but more and more the media is being (none / 0) (#28)
by athyrio on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 12:44:37 PM EST

bought out and controlled by big business....


: not all (none / 0) (#30)
by Judith on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 12:51:07 PM EST

and my point is still valid as is yours.
yes and no, maybe and so.
cheers.

They don't have to be conservative (none / 0) (#31)
by rebecca on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 12:53:40 PM EST

The ones who make it are the ones who've learned which stories and story lines will get them promoted. The ones who didn't learn never got promoted and probably ended up in another profession. So it's not about being conservative it's about being ambitious. It really doesn't take much awareness to realize that pointing out reality doesn't really get you ahead in our current media situation.


: sadly rebecca (5.00 / 1) (#35)
by athyrio on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 01:24:04 PM EST

You are most likely correct on that....Their ambition will sell this nation down the tubes...As Merle Haggard said, and I dont know the exact quote, but something like "I have been priviledged to live at the end of what was once obviously a great nation." That quote makes me so sad.....

Amended opinion: since I (none / 0) (#34)
by oculus on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 01:16:47 PM EST

really only read the NYT and used to only read the Los Angeles Times, my sample is quite limited. San Diego Union Trib: I don't read because everything about it is usually conservative, although two reporters received Pulitzers for uncovering the Randy "Duke" Cunningham story.


I'm quite familiar with the news business (none / 0) (#36)
by Cream City on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 01:32:57 PM EST

-- grew up in it, family members in it from coast to coast and in between, and I worked in it myself. And I've read lots of studies on it, and . . . no need for you to amend. You're absolutely on target.


A reporter I have read for years, Tony Perry, (none / 0) (#37)
by oculus on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 01:39:28 PM EST

is San Diego Bureau Chief of L.A. Times. He has been to Iraq at least three times "embedded" always with Marines from Camp Pendleton. Although I no longer subscribe to L.A. Times, I do hear Perry on local NPR, both when he is reporting from Iraq and when he is back in the U.S. As far as I can tell, w/o reading him consistently in L.A. Times, he seems to not be very sceptical about U.S. presence in Iraq anymore, quite out of character compared to his cynical view of the world and politics in general. But he really likes those Marines, even though, as he says, he is way older and his frame of reference around these young people is skewed.


Well, we all . . . (none / 0) (#42)
by Cream City on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 03:42:42 PM EST

support the troops, huh? Sounds like he has figured out that the best way to support them is to get them the heck outathere. (Thanks for the tip to his work, btw; I'll look for it.)


: Sometimes my local NPR radio station (none / 0) (#44)
by oculus on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 10:16:55 PM EST

has him on with other guest, who have a really hard time getting a word in.

I enjoyed reading Digby's post last night. (none / 0) (#21)
by oculus on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 12:19:22 PM EST

Kudos for sharing it here also.

Not so much protecting Obama (none / 0) (#41)
by Bob In Pacifica on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 03:01:27 PM EST

as being tired of Clinton's camp besmirching the campaign.

For example, for all the talk about Rezko it's as if the years of Republicans chanting "MacDougal" never happened. Bill Clinton used to praise Reagan. Maybe the Clinton supporters are too young to remember or it's been long enough to forget.

This isn't to say that Obama hasn't misrepresented her. But the problem with a mudfest is we don't get to delineate the candidates by actual positions on issues.

And, by the way, the only way that Democrats succeed is by uniting. The social fabric can only strengthened if each constituency is connected to the rest. If unity is a schtick to all the Clinton supporters, then the Democratic Party is in worse shape than even I could imagine.

Maybe Clinton can't run on the issues. I think she can.

What Digby Said

The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

Menu

Search

Login

Creator and Principal Author

TL Alumni

Contribute To TalkLeft

Sections

Site Credits

Legal

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment