I have talked about this often, as have other bloggers such as Taylor Marsh. For whatever reason the media seems to be giving Obama a free pass. Will that continue, should he become the nominee? I'm not the only one who would like to know.
After several weeks of swooning, news reports are finally being filed about the gap between Senator Barack Obama's promises of a pure, soul-cleansing "new" politics and the calculated, deeply dishonest conduct of his actually-existing campaign. But it remains to be seen whether the latest ploy by the Obama camp--over allegations about the circulation of a photograph of Obama in ceremonial Somali dress--will be exposed by the press as the manipulative illusion that it is. ... ..
... .. To a large degree, the campaign's strategists turned the primary and caucus race to their advantage when they deliberately, falsely, and successfully portrayed Clinton and her campaign as unscrupulous race-baiters--a campaign-within-the-campaign in which the worked-up flap over the Somali costume photograph is but the latest episode. While promoting Obama as a "post-racial" figure, his campaign has purposefully polluted the contest with a new strain of what historically has been the most toxic poison in American politics.
More than any other maneuver, this one has brought Clinton into disrepute with important portions of the Democratic Party. A review of what actually happened shows that the charges that the Clintons played the "race card" were not simply false; they were deliberately manufactured by the Obama camp and trumpeted by a credulous and/or compliant press corps in order to strip away her once formidable majority among black voters and to outrage affluent, college-educated white liberals as well as college students. ... ..
Race Man
by Sean Wilentz
How Barack Obama played the race card and blamed Hillary Clinton.
4 comments:
The dynamic at play is a much larger one.
The Clintons are old hat and they have squandered their good will with the press. Remember the halo around Bill's head when he was elected? Remember how inclined they were to brush off multiple allegations of sexual infidelity which did not derail his campaign?
That's just the nature of politics. The press loves a fresh face and need I remind you, Bill's campaign was in 1992, which was SIXTEEN YEARS AGO. He was Obama's age then and now he and she both are part of the Old Guard.
The media now incorporates many people in Gen X, my age and a little older who have had their fill of Clintons and want a change.
Rest assured, if Obama wins two terms and decides to run Michelle or his hand-picked successor who is running against a charismatic newcomer, the media will give him or her the benefit of the doubt and fawn over him or her.
That's just how it goes, BAC.
That may not be fair, but that's part of growing older.
I absolutely reject your comments here. Hillary clinton is not "old guard." It's not about wanting a "fresh face" and more about a Corporate media that has been moving toward the right for DECADES now.
When this campaign season started Republicans absolutely did not want to run against Sen. Clinton. And a complicite media was more than willing to help.
And you say you've had your "fill" of the Clinton's? So you are against a booming economy, a nation at peace, legislation that provides health care for children, and their many other accomplishments?"
Just how stupid is Gen X????
BAC
I personally have mixed feelings for the Clinton years. Although they were better compared to most other administrations in the past 20+ years (more like 40+), there were many failings and their actions (Bill's and Hillary's) led us to where we are now.
You are mis-characterizing their administration somewhat:
Booming economy - the last two to four years of the booming economy were fueled by the tech bubble, which was doomed to crash shortly after the Clinton administration. He does deserve some credit for it, but he also holds some (emphasis on "some") of the blame for the poor regulations that allowed the subsequent bust too.
Nation at peace - you remember Kosovo, right? Somalia? WTC? Waco? Oklahoma City? The military actions we took were largely justified, but we weren't "at peace." We were fighting; we just weren't in the midst of the Iraq war. I don't think at any point in human history we can truly be said to have been at peace.
You are also forgetting that Clinton's administration was the impetus for the "Republican Revolution" that gave them control of the House and Senate for the next twelve years. The divisiveness the Clintons inspired, more than anything, is why the people who grew up during this era are against allowing another Clinton in, just as much as we are against another Bush.
Clinton has also been, from the beginning of these campaigns, a rallying point for the Republican base, and the one Democratic candidate they felt they could most easily beat.
The media is not supporting Obama because they are more right. Obama is further left (or equal) on all of his positions than Clinton.
JohnJ ... I simply don't have the energy or the interest in explaining to you once again why you are absolutely WRONG.
It would probably be easier to just suggest that you look an any one of the other DOZEN times that I've actually devoted time to trying to educate you on this particular moment of time in history.
BAC
Post a Comment