The myth of "soft on Obama"

I am always fascinated by the "groupthink" dynamics present in the media. Where do they come from, how do they grow, why do they stick, and how come journalists who are supposed to demonstrate a minimum of critical thinking completely give up to intellectual laziness and abandon their objectivety to blindly repeat the latest conventional knowledge.

The latest example for me has been this notion that the press has been soft on Obama. It took a lot of whining about a candidate who lost eleven elections in a row, a couple of SNL sketches reinforced again by the Clinton campaign, and suddenly the talk of the town is that the media is giving Obama a free pass.

Never mind the insidious questions about Obama's faith which have been picked up by all networks.

Never mind the troublesome allusions about black / jewish tensions (if you didn't pick it up, let me spell it out for you. When Hillary questions Obama's rejection of Farakhan, that's what she's banking on).

Never mind the constant Rezko associations with Obama. Frankly, should we also re-open whitewater, Vince Foster and the Rich pardon?

Never mind the fact that the air has constantly been filled with attacks from all sides on Obama since Iowa. Every attempt by the Clinton camp has been raised, given credibility despite the abject nature of some of them, and been allowed to stick.

Never mind all of this. Because the Clinton campaign - in full attack mode - has repeated this fallacy often enough, it is being accepted as unquestionable truth by all the mainstream media pundits. I know this is par for the course, and I should not be surprised, given how likely the media has been to pick up and repeat the neocon trash during Bush's eight years, but I am still amazed at how manipulable they are.  

•  Let's stop using Rove framing.

  Rove would argue that the media is soft on the democrats therefore Bush wouldn't get asked hard questions.  

  by Shhs on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 09:17:38 PM PDT

•  Bullshit

  the media has always been soft on clinton and hard on Obama. i hope voters in ohio and texas sends that monster back to chappaqua

  by rem123 on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 09:18:28 PM PDT

  •  Yep, Obama Was Never Inevitable. nt

    by Gooserock on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 09:37:27 PM PDT

•  there aren't any real rumors to sling

  so the media gives play to the fake ones.

  gotta look unbiased, right?

  by amnesiaproletariat on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 09:18:38 PM PDT

•  Cable news is fucking garbage

  Except Keith.  It's for profit - they will do WHATEVER it takes for ratings.  They could give a shit less about objectivity, full and fair reporting, etc.  Just look at today.  If Obama does well tomorrow, the media will lose a ton of money because the horserace is over.  So what do they do?  They join in throwing the kitchen sink at Obama, rarely if ever visiting the actual MATH of this primary, and assist Hillary in moving the goalposts.  It's disgusting.  And it's not going to change.

  by 1 20 2009 on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 09:20:58 PM PDT

  •  If Hillary loses the delegate count tomorrow

    but wins OH and TX by 0.5% -- the cable news will be agog with stories about Hillary's comeback -- of course fueled by her campaign.

    The media doesn't care.

    by psycho liberal on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 09:23:12 PM PDT

    •  Exactly

      If I hear Comeback Kid one more time....goddamn I hate her campaign staff.  Wolfson and Penn may be my least favorite people right now.
      And she will say "on to the convention."

      by 1 20 2009 on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 09:27:12 PM PDT

    •  Media schmedia

      At that point she may start to hear it from too many Democrats.   The media may change if every influential Democrat who isn't totally in the tank for Hillary is calling on her to drop out.  

      What's important about the media and the narrative she has managed to create is that it's meant to cripple Obama in the general election.  

      by Sun dog on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 09:28:34 PM PDT

      •  Dems appear to be afraid of the Clintons

        If she wins the pop vote, AT ALL, in OH and TX, the party will be way too scared to call on her to resign.  She "did what she set out to accomplish." AGHHH it's driving me nuts.  I need to chill.

        by 1 20 2009 on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 09:30:55 PM PDT

        •  Probably Their Funding Infrastructure

          There's a lot of messaging out of Clintonville that smacks of dogwhistling to donors and media decisionmakers.

          by Gooserock on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 09:36:22 PM PDT

      •  I don't think she cares about

        Democrats. Or what everyone thinks. She's in it as long as she thinks she has a shot, one way or another.  And maybe even after. Would she be willing to give McCain the election now so she could be the nominee in '12? I dunno. But I am cynical enough I don't see evidence for "no."

        by psycho liberal on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 09:33:01 PM PDT

        •  How'd Democrats Do During Bill's 2 Terms? nt

          by Gooserock on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 09:36:48 PM PDT

          •  Is that rehtorical question?

            Because we lost the house and the senate.

            by DeanDemocrat on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 10:27:06 PM PDT

•  You hit on a huge issue here

  This has much bigger implications for the general election than people seem to recognize.  It's already difficult to get accurate coverage in the media as a Democrat running against a Republican.  The old 'liberal media' myth still lives on, amazingly.  We know the effect it is meant to have and indeed often has.  It creates a chilling effect on positive coverage for Democrats, even when they do something positive.  And it makes media people squeemish of criticizing Republicans even when they're guilty of mass murder and torture.  

  So, along with the usual 'liberal media' bullshit, Hillary has ensured that Obama is being hung with a specific 'Obama media' type of bullshit.  

  Witness the feedback loop she created with her pals on SNL, incredibly turning CNNs obvious pro-Clinton bent around.  Witness dorks like Ellen posing questions to Hillary in the vein of, "Do you think the media is biased in favor of Obama because you're a woman."  

  It should be a major goal of Obama supporters and, indeed the Obama campaign to start pushing back against this shit before all the 'Maverick' advantage for McCain starts to really kick in.

  And let me just say, in appreciation, thanks a lot Hillary.  

  by Sun dog on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 09:21:02 PM PDT

  •  Absolutely

    Obama's been getting essentially smeared by proxy on CNN all week. And when he's not getting smeared he's simply getting drowned out in the relentless exposure of Clinton's stump speeches--actually a few minutes of a Hillary speech, followed by a few minutes of a Bill speech, followed by a few minutes of a Chelsea speech, followed by a few minutes of Candy Crowley summing it all up for them. Then maybe, if we are luck a few minutes of a Barack speech--as if that all balanced out.

    You can see the results in the reversals in the polls, and i fear in the results tomorrow.

    by Beekeeper on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 09:37:55 PM PDT

    •  One week...

      ...versus 15 years...let's get some perspective...this is exactly what we knew would be coming...and now the fault is Clinton's?

      Remember Chris Matthews statement "We (the press) are McCain's base"  This is the nut who was forced to apologize on air regarding his misogynist statements about Clinton...

      Get a grip here...Obama will get unfair coverage...it's a given, but it has nothing to do with Clinton....a quick read of the DailyHowler from day to day...and a scan through the archives will give you some idea of how long this has been going on.

      (e.g. search 'war on gore')

      by elial on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 09:46:08 PM PDT

      •  Baloney

        that it has nothing to do with Clinton.  She has very clearly pushed this idea.  "I'm not complaining, I like answering the first question" etc.  She and her campaign complain constantly about media coverage.  Her supporters explain every defeat as victimization by the media giving too much love to Obama.  Her campaign very directly pushes this idea.  She plays feedback loop games with  her pals on SNL.  She's always the victim.  

        I have a grip thank you.  I watched them pull this shit in the media for Reagan.  I've understood how this is done for a long time.  This is just another version of the 'liberal media' myth.  It has been going on a long time before the 'war on Gore.'  

        They know the trick because they've been on the other end of it.  Clinton constantly employs on Obama the sleaze tricks of her GOP enemies.  

        by Sun dog on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 10:03:42 PM PDT

        •  Then what happened to the inevitable...

          ...Hillary...the press had nothing to do with it?

          You can't believe that..remember the 'rumors' of race-baiting on LBJ-MLK...the press picked up on that  quickly and it was deeply damaging and without substance.

          Who will racism take down next?

          by elial on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 10:24:30 PM PDT

          •  Huh?

            What happened to the inevitable...Hillary...

            What did that mean?  

            What I saw early on was her campaign trying to wrap up the nomination from the start by playing up their support among superdelegates and claiming that anyone criticizing her was somehow in league with the GOP because she was, after all, the inevitable nominee.  

            She has continually been able to direct the narrative in the pliable press, including the constant, ironic, victimization bs.  

            by Sun dog on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 10:31:24 PM PDT

            •  The fact that she has fallen from...

              (let's take the intrade numbers) a 70% chance of the nomination to 20% indicates to you that she is able to control a compliant press?

              They have been running her down for 15 years.

              They have not stopped...take a look at the CNN clip on one of the highly recced and commented diaries about the McCain comment... the film...and the diarists comments omit the part of the remark that clarifies what she is talking about. She is talking about campaign strategy and people here now believe or rather 'know' that she is endorsing McCain.
              The media has been doing this all along...

              by the way...what I meant when I said 'what happened to the inevitable... Hillary'
              was
              What happened to the inevitable Hillary?

              I meant what you assumed...

              by elial on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 11:00:09 PM PDT

              •  But your premise

                is that losing proves that the media is against her.  

                This stuff doesn't work for me, in part because I'm an Iowan who was active and open to all the campaigns when they came to town.  For me, it wasn't a media event for much of ten months.  I saw them in person, I met them, I heard their speeches evolve without edits.  And THEN I went home and saw how the media covered it.  

                Hillary lost because she's not as good of a choice for the nomination and she's not as good of a candidate.  She lost Iowa because of those facts.  The national media can't really beat you in Iowa.  That's why we do Iowa.  For us, the media, for ten months is our local paper reporting events that are happening right in our towns.  And we are at many of the events ourselves.  

                by Sun dog on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 05:44:56 AM PDT

•  If you repeat a lie often enough,

  it will become true.

  Look at CNN, Saturday night live(!) the NY Times and other papers.

  I don't think Hillary is a bad person or would be a bad president.

  But, I don't know where the bar is for her campaign anymore. I don't know what part of the 'kitchen sink' strategy would be too ugly, too wrong, to at least not float a trial balloon on.

  It makes me sad.

  by psycho liberal on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 09:21:13 PM PDT

  •  Yes she is, yes she would

    I don't think Hillary is a bad person or would be a bad president.

    Just sayin.

    by Sun dog on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 09:22:32 PM PDT

    •  I don't want to admit that to myself.

      yet.

      by psycho liberal on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 09:23:47 PM PDT

    •  Yes, indeed.

      She lost my possibility of a vote when she instructed her operatives to steal the Nevada caucuses.

      There is little lower than that.

      by khereva on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 09:24:17 PM PDT

•  Didn't hear anybody bring this one up...

  

  Ohio Debate Video vs. Clinton Ad

  by converse on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 09:23:27 PM PDT

  •  Obama

    Too Black?  

    Photos at 11.  

    by Sun dog on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 09:24:54 PM PDT

  •  The scareder she gets, the darker he gets?

    That's some contemptible shit, right there.

    by khereva on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 09:25:15 PM PDT

  •  Obama's lying to the American people, we need to

    enforce how black he is!

    by NotablyZen on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 09:26:06 PM PDT

  •  can you provide a link to the ad? n/t

    by elial on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 09:46:48 PM PDT

    •  asdf

      http://www.youtube.com/...

      by converse on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 09:57:11 PM PDT

  •  Good question though about the hearings...

    Here is part of his debate response...

    I became chairman of this committee at the beginning of this campaign, at the beginning of 2007. So, it is true that we haven't had oversight hearings on Afghanistan. I have been very clear in talking to the American people about what I would do with respect to Afghanistan. I think we have to have more troops there to bolster the NATO effort.

    ...apparently he doesn't need hearings from experts to make these judgments on escalating the war.

    by elial on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 10:07:28 PM PDT

    •  Well played...

      just ignore the intentionally revolting racist element here... we need to focus on the "real" issues.

      by converse on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 10:10:53 PM PDT

      •  well I remembered it

        as his most disappointing response of the last debate...I was waiting for a link to actually see the ad and somebody provided one...

        I agree that it looks doctored...this is the first thing I have seen that will make me reconsider support.

        by elial on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 10:28:46 PM PDT

•  Puhleeze...

  You have to be brain dead to not see how the media has treated Obama with kid gloves.

  The only fallacy is the delusion that Obama has somehow been treated to more scrutiny...

  Puhleeze...

  by GregNYC on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 09:27:36 PM PDT

•  Obama's campaign has been...

  doing a fine job of making their own news.  I don't know whether I'm accurate but it feels like everything's gone quiet for a spell.  The surrogates are quiet.  Obama's quiet.  It's all Hillary's attacks all the time with not a whole lot to counter it.  And Hillary's been all over the MSM.  I don't quite get it.  But, hey, it's a marathon not a sprint I guess.  

  by mayan on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 09:31:01 PM PDT

  •  Actually...

    it kinda felt like this before Wisconsin.  At least to me.  Anyone else feeling the silence?

    by mayan on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 09:32:52 PM PDT

    •  Yes!

      I've been wondering the same thing....where are our troops?

      by Beekeeper on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 09:39:57 PM PDT

      •  GOTV I hope n/t

        by forestgreen on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 09:48:56 PM PDT

  •  If He Can't or Won't Cut It He Needs to Lose

    Obama's human, he's as capable of dumb strategy as anyone else.

    This after all was one of the site's foundational objections to the Kumbaya Kid, that he would not respond.

    As an individual he's gifted at parrying stupid attacks from individuals. But it's seeming more and more like our original fears were right that his organization is not interested in appropriately addressing bigger more institutional attacks.

    This entire process is almost completely insurgent proof. It's still easier to see how Clinton ends up taking it even if it's at the convention, than Obama.

    And the longer her attacks and his unpreparedness dominate the news cycle, the more inevitable she re-becomes.

    by Gooserock on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 09:41:22 PM PDT

    •  I'm not selling them...

      down the river.  I think they've been brilliant.  I've credited them with being fighters.  It's just perplexing to me.  Hopefully, they are retooling for another day.  I'm just hoping it's soon.

      by mayan on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 09:46:52 PM PDT

•  New post today on Rezko and Obama

  over at TPM...is this part of what you call negative coverage?

  Obama has acknowleged, however, that Rezko's likely motivation for buying the lot was to curry favor with him. Rezko reportedly admitted as much to his business associates. And as The New York Times reports today, Rezko was so heavily in debt at the time he purchased the lot that he did it under his wife's name in order to protect it from creditors.

  'nothing to see here...'

  The rezko story has not been fleshed out
  whereas whitewater etc. investigated exhaustively...(though the NYT...first to break the story...never reported on the exoneration of the Clinton's..how's that for media coverage!)

  Clinton has taken a beating...take a look at the daily howler today...he talks about only one network (NBC) and the treatment of Hillary by Matthews, Shuster and Russert and it is heinous...but misogyny much more accepted than racism...they go at it whole hog...yes Russert was despicable too with Obama at the debate...but that is to be expected...they drag Hillary through the mud and Obama is next on the list.

  The motives of the press corp are transparent..as Matthews said about McCain..."we are his base"

  by elial on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 09:40:20 PM PDT

  •  Except the people who sold the house

    Say Obamas offer was the best one they were given. They actually held out 3 times for more money and he gave it to them.

    If the people who SOLD the house feel they got what they wanted out of it I don't see how anyone could claim Obama used his relationship with Rezko to get a "sweet heart" of a deal. It sounds more like Obama paid more than he originally wanted too.

    by DeanDemocrat on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 10:31:30 PM PDT

    •  well...they wanted to close the transactions

      on the same day...so they needed two acceptable bids...given that...would they care how it was split up?

      Obama paid 1.65 million and Rezko's wife .625 million.
      What if Obama paid a dollar and Rezko's wife the rest?
      Would that have been suspicious? The point is that if the size of Rezko's bid can affect the probability of Obama's bid being accepted there is at least the appearance of impropriety.

      Further Rezko (or his wife.. TPM alleges that Rezko was too far in debt to make the purchase) paid full asking price while Obama paid a price lower than the ask. I was chatting with a real estate professional here who told me that vacant lots never sell below asking while homes often do...that seemed odd to me...and doesn't seem to be confirmed by Obama's staff who say there was another bidder for the land...his bid was the reason Rezko paid up for the land...(as noted in the story...the seller has not confirmed this aspect of the deal)

      The issue of the pricing of the side lot is also curious. The piece Obama bought (1/6th of the whole) was assessed at about 40,000.  Obama paid instead more than 100,000 for it so as to avoid the appearance of impropriety...great that looks encouraging. But the assessment sure makes Rezko's buy at 625,000 look high..

      Anyway I only raise these questions because when the  sellers spoke up to say Obama was the high bidder that seemed to address all the questions people here had...and as you can see...new elements of the story are coming out (e.g. Rezko's financial status at the time.)

      by elial on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 11:30:56 PM PDT

•  Add a pinch of irony to your analysis

  More than once I've encountered Hillary supporters who claim Obama supporters are always playing the victim.  This coming from supporters of "I always get called on first," "You vet me but not him," Hillary.  Then when supporters respond, such as in this diary, Obama is accused of playing the victim.  I hope he puts her out of her misery tomorrow.

  by geomoo on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 09:42:52 PM PDT

•  Blitzer was on fire for Hillary today

  "An embarrassing day for Barack Obama." By my count he described Obama as "embarrassing," at least 7 times. Way to go wolf--is Clinton giving you a Franklin a "embarrassing?" Boy would that be "embarrassing" for you, Wolf.

  Soft on Obama, my ass. They've been harshly cruel to him. 60 Minutes talking about the Muslim smear, the drug use, the plagiarism, the NAFTA non-story, and the list goes on.

  Meanwhile: news that Bill accepted a $131 million bribe broke, and the press ignored it.

  Meanwhile: Hillary never released her tax returns even though she self-funded her campaign and the press ignored it.

  Meanwhile: Hillary hasn't released her records from the White House, and the press ignored it.

  Hillary has effectively adopted the RW position of claiming that the press is always biased against her. By constantly whining about it, the press starts to think it's true, and then produces actually biased coverage--coverage biased in favor of the whiner.

  by The Bagof Health and Politics on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 09:56:47 PM PDT

•  seen stories about Obama's...

  ... 'misstatement'?

  SEN. OBAMA: Let me just follow up. My objections to the war in Iraq were simply -- not simply a speech. I was in the midst of a U.S. Senate campaign. It was a high-stakes campaign. I was one of the most vocal opponents of the war, and I was very specific as to why.

  Actually he was running for state senate in a district strongly opposed to the war...

  Here's another funny statement...

  "Earlier today, Sen. Obama attacked Hillary on Iraq by invoking Sen. Rockefeller and incorrectly saying that the WVA Senator opposed the 2002 Iraq vote. The truth is that Sen. Rockefeller voted for the war resolution - not against it as Sen. Obama suggested to the people of Ohio. This seems to be an Obama campaign talking point since its top strategist also claimed that Sen. Rockefeller voted against the war resolution when he was on national television this morning.

  His mastery of the facts on this pivotal critical generational vote seems suspect...I am sure it couldn't have been intentional...I wonder if the press will 'gang up' on him for statements like these?  

  by elial on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 10:02:24 PM PDT

•  Soft on Clinton

  At least on the NAFTA/Canada story, the media has been soft on Clinton, considering the report that her own campaign made the same assurances that were alleged about Obama.

  http://www.dailykos.com/...

  by Whitefish on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 11:28:09 PM PDT