Daily Kos

Bittergate & Activist-non-gate: Declaring Independence and the Coming War

Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 04:34:30 PM PDT

One could argue that the episodes are similar.  Both involved comments at closed door fundraisers that could be used as fodder for gotcha politics.

But barely 24 hours after the story broke, you get the sense that the media is ready to let Hillary's comments about Moveon.org die.  Quite a difference from "Bittergate," in which the media was eager to make Kerry-Dukakis elitism into media narrative du jour even though there is little evidence the voters are particularly outraged by what Obama said.

This despite that Hillary's comments are demonstrably worse than "Bittergate."  Hillary's words had a clear lie - Moveon.org opposed Afghanistan.  She contradicted earlier statements praising Moveon.org. Her comments channel Judas since Moveon.org helped save the Clintons during impeachment.  Most importantly, Hillary just kicked the very groundtroops she would need if she were to be the nominee.  

So why aren't the media jumping on this story like they did bittergate?

I am sure the media people would say that swing voting Reagan Democrats decide elections and so their reactions are more important than Democratic activists'

If that is their argument, it is easily refuted.  Papa Bush lost in 92 in part because he pissed off his loony right base breaking his "read my lips" pledge.  You can't win an election without your base.  And a polarizing candidate like Hillary who unifies Rebublicans against her and turns off independents can hardly afford to lose the democratic activist base.  After what she has done to black voters, this latest kick to the base is the final nail in the coffin of the notion that Hillary can ever be elected President. Hillary has triangulated away whatever shread of a general election chance she might have had left.

I think the media know this, but they shall persist in assigning more weight to Bittergate.

Why?

We know the notion of a "liberal media" run by General Electric, Disney, Viacom, and the New Corp is a fairy tale, so to speak.

That bittergate merits media feeding frenzy but the activist comments elicit a yawn crystalizes the reasons why the corporate media is determined to kill Obama's candidacy.

It's because they are the true elites.  But the problem is that the elites, by definition, don't constitute a powerful voting block.  

The way these corporations retain their power is one the greatest examples of Chutzpah in modern American life.  They use their media subsidiaries to cast candidates who actually want to help working class folks - i.e. Democrats - as elitists and they lionize candidates who support corporate hegemony and unaccountability - Bush, McCain, Clinton & the DLC crowd - as anti-elitist, regular folks.

And so they fictionalizes rich actor Ronald Reagan as regular plain spoken guy.    George HW Bush is transformed from blue-blooded northeasterner into a quaint Texan who plays horeshoes.  His war-dodging, Ivy league legacy  son is spun as brush clearing, regular guy who you'd have a beer with if he hadn't so bravely quit drinking.  

And now lobbyist-powered, tax cut perpetuating, press-worshipped McCain gets to be the anti-elite candidate?  Please.

Democratic candidates, who advocate policies that actually help working class people, are turned into "elitists" through selective distortion of their words and actions to fit a manufactured media narrative.

The shamelessness is breathtaking.  The corporate media elites spin elite candidates as in-touch and pro-working-class candidates as elitists.  To paraphrase Al Gore, the they turn up into down and down into up in order to perpetuate their comfortable existences.  That's why they worked so hard to bring down Gore candidacy.  He dared use the theme "people vs the powerful."  

Then they blur the distinctions on policy issues or fail to cover them at all because they are "boring."  Instead, they rev up culture wars to make the elections referenda on the supposed cultural elitism of Democrats instead of the palpably real economic elitism of the corporate media.

The only time the Democrats are able to break through this Orwellian headwind is in the aftermath of Nixon in 1976, a tanking economy in 1992, and a failing war in 2006.  Usually the corporate overlords successfully use their power to choose the subject of national coversation to keep their shills in office.

This is why they get their tax cuts.  This is why they get their loopholes.  This is why they get their (ratings generating) wars.  This is why they get to kill universal health care.   This is why they get to widen income inequality in America.

When you think about this sordid history of American politics for the past few decades, Obama's call to declare independence from this kind of politics sees the media's chutzpah and raises it with revolutionary clarity.  

Wow.

Obama is declaring independence from the media-driven decay of American life that has enriched the few and stagnated the many.

And that is why they are ignoring his historic rally in Philly last night..choosing not to quote his call to declare independence.  They bury or ignore his quote because he dares to question the elitist goal of the modern political journliast to distract the American people with Jerry-Springer-like sideshows to manipulate them into supporting the corporate media's elite interests above their own.

That's why they go after Obama so hard.  That's why they try to bring him down over Wright, over bittergate, by sandbagging him in a debate.  That's why they declare any fair coverage they occasionally give him as pro-Obama media bias.  If they were so biased for Obama, would they tell us they are biased for Obama?  They're not just disingenuous, they're liars.

The media are like the corrupt British empire and the "activist democrats" they spurn are like the revolutionary colonists, attempting the extraordinary with the hope that things can finally get better if they can overcome entrenched opposition.

The media will not go quietly.  They are corrupt corporate oligarchs who claim to love America, accuse Democrats of not loving America,  but can't themselves bring themselves to do what is best for America.

Shame on them.

The executives of the corporate media can't claim to love America when they piss on most Americans from the perches of their penthouse offices.

Our response to the ABC Debate was like our Boston Tea Party.

Now Obama has declared independence in Philadelphia.

But as in 1776, we have a long war ahead.  John McCain is the latest heir to the throne of the media royal family of Viacom, GE, Disney, and News Corp.  Their armies are powerful because they have shortchanged education of the masses to keep them docile and gullible.  

The Revolutionary war was not an easy stuggle.  Even after we won, the British still managed to attack us and burn down the White House in the War of 1812.

It won't be easy.  

Yes, we can.  

Yes, we will.

We have no choice.

The media empire must be defeated in order to make America great for all Americans.

 

Tags: Barack Obama, American History, Media Bias, Corporate Media, Bittergate, Democratic Activists, Moveon.org, Traditional Media (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 15 comments

  •  And this is why the blogosphere is so important. (6+ / 0-)

    Because it's here that we can educate ourselves and each other in an active and participatory way, not be passively spoon-fed propaganda by MSM propping up traditional politics and corporate interests.

    Thanks for this posting.

  •  Great Diary - I have to wonder (4+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    geejay, costello7, RKA, MarthaMyDear

    what the TM's reporter's views are about MoveOn.  I wonder if there's a concern about "liberal activist" groups, including the netroots movement. How threatening are they to the TM?  Is not covering stories featuring MoveOn an attempt to limit the organization's influence? I'm not normally a conspiracy theorist, but today seems as good a day as any.

    I wondered about that after Chris Matthews, just yesterday, said that his job was to critique politicians, not critique other media.  Weird.

    Not only is another world possible, she is on her way. On a quiet day, I can hear her breathing. Arundhati Roy

    by Denni on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 04:41:40 PM PDT

  •  perhaps because they think it would help HRC (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    geejay, MarthaMyDear

    to raise the issue?

    Or perhaps because they would have to explain who or what MoveOn.org is, and that gets too complicated.

    Or maybe simply because IOKIYAR

    oh wait, you say HRC is NOT????

    do we still have a Republic and a Constitution if our elected officials will not stand up for them on our behalf?

    by teacherken on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 04:46:55 PM PDT

    •  Hey ken (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      MarthaMyDear

      I've been noticing an uncharacteristic feistiness in your comments today.  Have you been getting bitter over what's been going on lately?

      Onward to the Mountaintop!

      by NWTerriD on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 05:32:47 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Oh I can get snarky from time to time (2+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        RKA, MarthaMyDear

        but I usually don't do it in diaries

        when something really annoys me I am prone to express some level of annoyance.  And given how much the Clintons benefited from MoveOn.org, one wonders whether Carville's label of Judas might not more appropriately apply to Hillary's diss of them?

        And, no, I'm not bitter.  I am also not surprised.  Remember, I did do a diary a bit back of why Hillary's actions had placed her beyond my supporting her.  

        That others are increasingly coming to a similar position does not at all surprise me.

        Besides, my personal focus this cycle will be largely in the Old Dominion, although there are few friends - some incumbents,  some challengers - whom I will try to assist as I can.

        do we still have a Republic and a Constitution if our elected officials will not stand up for them on our behalf?

        by teacherken on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 05:51:14 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Has Obama spoken? (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    MarthaMyDear

    I believe Hillary immediately jumped on the "bitter" comments and made it part of her campaign rhetoric.  So far I've heard no comment from Obama.

    I'm indifferent to rule by a single tyrant 3000 miles away or 3000 tyrants one mile away.

    by Ken Bank on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 04:52:29 PM PDT

    •  I doubt he will (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      MarthaMyDear

      Obama did not jump on the Bosnia story since the media was on her about that. He'll probably do the same thing here. He'll say nothing in the media about it, but you'll be sure that his campaign will use this when talking to super-delegates. It works in this way, if Clinton takes the nomination, her not having moveon behind her destroys a large base of GOTV and funding.

      The people that are responding to this are the netroots, activists, and moveon.org. Obama doesn't need to say a thing.

  •  They Like the Clintons Are Opposed to Liberals (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    MarthaMyDear

    and popular activists. Nothing more complicated than that.

    It's not breathtaking chutzpa when it's the public square itself making the claims. By definition whatever they present is mainstream.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 05:07:29 PM PDT

  •  It is clear there is a co-ordinated effort (3+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Mr Tentacle, RKA, MarthaMyDear

    to smear Obama.

    Let's look at the latest attacks on Obama.

    1.  Is he American enough?  Has any Presidential candidate before had their patriotism questioned like this before?  Why is it that Obama has to prove his American Pedigree while nobody else does?  Is it because his father, who has been dead for over 25 years is not an American?
    1.  Bill and Hillary have made millions from Saudis, Chinese Communists, and Dictators, why is Hillary not assumed to be a Communist because of these associations, but Obama knows a couple of Americans who have questionable pasts, IE. Ayers, Wright and Rezco.  None of Obama's associates have committed atrocities like the Clinton associates from countries that torture.  Not one question in the debate, not one story in the papers about the questionable relationships of the Clintons.
    1.  And oh, the flag pin.  Why does everyone go after Obama for not wearing it, when the only people that do are on the far right of the Republican party?  Obama is running for the Democratic Nomination, not the Republican nomination.
    1.  Obama's Religion.  Why does he get called a Muslim when nobody else does?  He is a Christian, he knows the scriptures better than most politicians, and I am sure he knows way more than the Republican Candidate, McCain, but McCain is never questioned about it.
    1.  Why no stories on Hagee, but continuous loops of Wright's words played  over and over and over.
    1.  And Politico has a 5 page story about how when Obama served on a board, he helped pass stricter gun control measures in the state Legislature. I will say not one word about Clinton's anti-gun stance in the past.  Why 5 pages?

    One thing that is clear, is the Clinton campaign has guys writing press releases, digging up dirt, and sending it out to every media outlet.  Obama has been not so diligent about smearing his opponent so the stories don't get written.  

    I believe this anti-Obama media is driven by a few factors, laziness (As the Clinton surrogates are busy digging up dirt), the media's obsession with the horse race and wanting to keep this thing going to help McCain, and keep people reading their papers and watching their shows.  

  •  You see, Obama's comments fit... (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    MarthaMyDear

    Easily into the traditional media's narrative every four years.  It's too much hard work for them to actually think about how Obama's comment makes sense.  However, in Clinton's case, they just see it as some liberal vs liberal fight so there's no reason to report it.  Yet, if Obama had made those comments, you can bet that the traditional media would be shouting it from the rooftops.

    It's expected, and I am hoping that ordinary voters are now seeking other sources of information in addition to the traditional media to do their own fact-checking.  I'll be very happy when the primary is over.

    Nothing is more powerful than an idea whose time has come -- Victor Hugo

    by BasharH on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 05:45:15 PM PDT

    •  I agree, what Obama needs to say, (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      BasharH

      He needs to say, "The people spreading the misinformation, are the same people that have said that Sadamm Huessien was responsible for 911, the same people who said if you didn't support The Iraq War, you were with the Terrorists, the same people who say Global Warming doesn't exist, the same people who say that Bush's Tax Cuts for the Richest 5% helped all Americans, and it goes on and on.  These are the same people that created these problems by not being honest with the people.  These are the same people that are afraid of me, because they know I will speak the truth to the people of America, and they are terrified."

      Well, if I was Obama, that is what I would say.

  •  Great diary RKA (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    RKA

    It's indisputable. I wish I could strap down about 50 people I know and make them read it until they know it by heart. And then, in my dreams, they would go around like all newly reformed, spreading this gospel to all their MSM-watching buddies. With a new tipping point reached, we could all join together and decide who to take down first.Tweety, joe, Faux news.....so many ...so little time. Damn, I just woke up.  

    OBAMA 08...It's Patriotic!

    by MarthaMyDear on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 06:10:33 PM PDT

Permalink | 15 comments