Democratic Voters on Clinton/Obama Being Treated Badly by the Press

by: Matt Stoller

Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 11:20


Via Greg Sargent comes this non-remarkable statistic asked of primary voters.

Compared to the way the news media have treated other candidates, have the news media been harder on Hillary Clinton, easier on Hillary Clinton, or have they treated her the same as other candidates?

Harder 48%

Easier 8%

Same 43%

And now to Obama.

Compared to the way the news media have treated other candidates, have the news media
been harder on Barack Obama, easier on Barack Obama, or have they treated him the same as
other candidates?  

Harder 14%

Easier 33%

Same 52%

I bet if you asked blog readers who has been treated well in the press, they would answer differently than Democratic primary voters.  I'm having a tough time keeping any interest in this primary, it's both discouraging and upsetting to watch this disconnect between the internet space I've worked on for four years and reality itself get worse.  When I offer obvious points, for instance, that Obama may not be progressive, since he has in fact spoken repeatedly of his lack of ideology, I get ridiculous pushback from his supporters denying what he himself has said.

There's no discussion of Iraq, just conversations about irrelevant ads that talk about 3am phone calls between fear-mongering politicians who agree with each other.  It's so unbelievably dumb it's hard to deal with.

I suppose the fact that Democratic primary voters actively agree with Clinton activists on the media and do not agree with Obama activists will be explained away somehow, but I hope it isn't.  I hope somewhere some progressive in the Obama inner circle is trying to figure out how to reconnect this movement to reality.
Matt Stoller :: Democratic Voters on Clinton/Obama Being Treated Badly by the Press

Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Democratic Voters on Clinton/Obama Being Treated Badly by the Press | 76 comments
No disconnect here (4.00 / 2)
I'm an Obama supporter, but of course the press has been harder on Clinton than on Obama. They hate her. The Cokies and the Broders hate her. They hate her because she's a Clinton and, in specific cases like Russert and Matthews, there's a huge and sickening portion of misogyny. Then there are the institutional biases against women: Robin Ghivan's "cleavage" column, for example.
But that doesn't necessarily translate into "easy on Obama". Russert's Farrakhan schtick, for example? CNN did a poll on whether Obama was "patriotic enough", based on flagpins. Nedra Pickler, lead political reporter for one of the largest and most influential journalistic organizations in the country, did a story on the same, and the first person she went to was wife-swapping Republican hitman Roger "C.U.N.T." Stone. Maureen Dowd's lazy schtick smears "Obambi" as much as it does Clinton; Richard Cohen and Froma Harrop have been taking dictation from Howard Wolfson; Paul Krugman seems to have an intensely personal dislike of Obama.
That said, still, Hillary Clinton gets worse press coverage. No doubt about it (though it has to be said again, part of this does come from the incompetence of Penn and Wolfson--these two are Keystone Kops). Is it a bad thing to have a candidate with better the media? Do we want to lose the GE in a state of principled martyrdom? I don't.
Media Dislikes Hillary=Reason to Vote for Obama (0.00 / 0)
I have been making this point to friends for a while.  I just don't get why the media giving unfavorable coverage to Hillary Clinton is an argument that works in her favor.  She has been in public life for over 30 years.  Yet, for all of that experience, she has not figured out how to get the media to give her favorable coverage.  He campaign continues to take an adversarial position with the media.  

Do we think this will help her pass health care reform?  Will this help her withdraw our troops from Iraq?  

The media clearly like John McCain.  Why wouldn't we want a candidate that they also like?  

John McCain hates children. Expose McCain!  

[ Parent ]
What's the difference between this argument (4.00 / 1)
and saying some voters won't vote for Obama because he's black?
[ Parent ]
Really???? (4.00 / 3)
I can't imagine letting the Russerts and the Dowds of this world determine my vote one way or another.
[ Parent ]
All true (0.00 / 0)
And when it comes to the campaigns attacks on one another, exit polling shows pretty consistently that voters see the Clinton campaign as more unfair in their attacks than the Obama campaign.

I don't see the need to blow away a distinction that the population of voting Democrats is quite able to make on their own just to set up a hit job on Obama supporters.

Yes, both candidates are far from ideal from a progressive standpoint, because progressives are not strong enough to select a Democratic nominee at this point in time. Candidate supporters are magnifying the differences, and -- surprise! -- the same anti-war voters who have overwhelmingly populated the progressive blog world for the last 6 years are favoring Obama.

Why spark an internecine feud just to keep your interest going, Chris?  

[ Parent ]
oops (0.00 / 0)
Matt, not Chris :)
[ Parent ]
Do you really think (0.00 / 0)
those voters' perceptions have no relationship to the relentlessly negative coverage Clinton and her campaign get from MSM?

"And when it comes to the campaigns attacks on one another, exit polling shows pretty consistently that voters see the Clinton campaign as more unfair in their attacks than the Obama campaign."

[ Parent ]
Why I remain enthusiastic (4.00 / 3)
Matt, I think you have raised important, thought-provoking and essential questions about Clinton and Obama. Rather than look at the disconnects, I look at it as a campaign which has kept movement politics vital. I suppose mine's a glass-half-full optimism.

Certainly, the Clinton machine approach to politics is what the movement seeks to displace. Just as certainly, movement leaders like you are bound to be disappointed at Obama's ideological shortcomings from our perspective.

I support Obama primarily for these reasons:  He has attracted large numbers of new people to the process; he has built a new machine from the bottom up, combining old street-politics savvy with innovative, hopeful and engaging messages and practices.

In Texas, where I live when not working in California, and where my daughter lives and where her future lies, there is no question that an Obama nomination will make our '08 general election prospects much, much better. Large numbers of new voters and more independent voters seem to like him. It's not fair, and it's almost entirely the result of the longest lasting and most expensive negative campaign against an American politician ever, but Hillary is despised by many in Texas we need to hang with us in November. I'm not discounting the potential for a sad racial backlash here, either. But it won't approach a Hillary backlash.

Let me propose what seems counter-intuitive, because ultimately we get progressive policies only after we have elected progressive officeholders. From a movement perspective, elections, especially presidential elections, are  usually going to be disappointing. Tactically-focused campaigns are simply not equipped to advance long-term shifts in public opinion.

Don't get me wrong, pushing and shoving Democratic campaigns in our direction remains key. But progress is going to be made by re-shaping the political opinion environment outside of campaigns and before candidate campaigns take place.

Candidates need to find themselves in  a world that we have created. I think Clinton and Obama have found themselves in a radically changed Democratic primary context, changed because of the work you and others have been doing. That's why I am optimistic.

i hope so (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
The medium is the message? (0.00 / 0)
"I support Obama primarily for these reasons:  He has attracted large numbers of new people to the process; he has built a new machine from the bottom up, combining old street-politics savvy with innovative, hopeful and engaging messages and practices."

Do you think these processes he's been so effective at are in and of themselves in some way transformative, or just a Good Thing, no matter what the message, or in his case, near absence of message is?

As a cranky old skeptical type, I wonder what your sense is of what will happen if (and imo, actually, when) Obama's actions or lack of actions in office crush the hopes of many of those legions of voters and young activists?

Serious question on how you see the relative importance of the process and the message.

I'm struggling to be as fair as possible here in saying that Obama, whether intentionally or not, has created a situation where even his most fervent supporters can't agree on what he means and how he would govern because he's done so much dog-whistling in different directions and given so few direct statements or explanations.  (And speaking of the desirability of "transparency," that brings to mind a whole 'nother rant I'll spare you!)

If he bitterly disappoints a substantial fraction of those new voters and activists, as he is bound to do no matter what he does, do you think that's an essentially inconsequential effect that's heavily outweighed by the fact that he got them engaged -- at least for this one election cycle -- in the first place?  And if you do think that, could you explain why?

(I'm coming from the perspective of someone who has not been convinced by Obama but is also not at all happy with Clinton and particularly the way she's run her campaign.)

[ Parent ]
If this were stock trading instead of politicking (0.00 / 0)
... we would dealing with the pure "churn." Things of little value going back and forth in minor, meaningless transactions.There's a combination of causes for it, one being the stretched-out time frame.

But even churning can produce small benefits. Remember the week when the issue of Obama not being "black enough" became part of the froth? I believe that's been tossed overboard for good. Just have to tap your foot and wait, Matt.

i like that analogy (0.00 / 0)
Churn...
[ Parent ]
Harder? Sure in a way. They hate her. (0.00 / 0)
No doubt about that. So they're more overtly hostile  and sexist at times. Of course Obama has to face subtle racism in the media and any push back at that would be painted as "race-baiting". She can get Schuster suspended. He can't even comment on Russert's more subtle racist attack on him or he'll be seen as defending the scary, but ultimately powerless, black guy which of course turns him into "the scary black candidate" (something which the HRC campaign and the GOP has been trying) and the media seems more than willing to explore at times.

As far as getting the movement back to reality could you expand on that? Are you referring to the internets or folks in real life? The internet supporters aren't really reflective of Dems in general. Now I haven't seen any high profile internet bloggers claiming he's an ultra-progressive candidate (though I have yet to meet a person who skipped the big bucks to help people who wasn't) he's just more progressive than we've had. The terrain has been pushed so far to the right that you really can't reasonably expect that a true lefty would get elected. The mere fact that the guy wants to talk to people who are important enough to blow up is seen as super-liberal these days. Any progressive candidate that takes an overtly progressive position will be marginalized by the corporate media very quickly. He can only work in the country as it is not in the country that we wish it was.


Huge Disconnect.... (4.00 / 2)
Yeah! Totally. Obamabots have that Obama song in their head so they can not hear anything...they are almost Borg like in their support of Obama and that is one of the reasons why i can not vote for him. I want a president that i know how they will be in office and Obama is a "blank screen" and empty suit depending on who you are asking.

Does anyone even know his voting record in the US Senate? I just heard that he missed more votes in 2 years then Hillary has missed in 8!!! That is shocking and he missed vital votes on legislation that is important to progressives. I dont get this guy or the support he has from progressives. I am a very progressive democrat and I have so many reservations about him as potential president! Maybe i feel the way i do because i am not 20 years old...i have seen and supported people various candidates through the years. I have watched the Dems say get us elected and we will change congress and end this war...none of which they have done.

At the end of the day, Obama is nothing new or spectacular. He was at the right place, right time and nothing else to that. People lined up with him, and many say because he was opposed to the war (even though he was not a senator at the time) single issue voters are not always the best judge of character.

All this junk about Obama will come out when the GE is starts, people think he is made of teflon but I just don't see it. He is afraid to take a stand on the tough issues. Saying your against the war before the senate and then funding it while your there is plain BS! He whole campaign is BS. I am one progressive who doesnt buy it.

and on ideology.... (4.00 / 1)
as to the ideology/relative progressivism of both candidates: They're both centrists. Not as bad as Pryor or Bayh, not as good as Boxer or Feingold. They are both, in fact, Clintonites. If the Republican nominee were anyone but McCain, I'd be much less interested in the outcome of the primary.
So we're back to "more and better Democrats", which got me thinking about the down-ticket elections. I don't have a handle on the House races, but in the Senate, even the best case scenarios look pretty Clintonist to me. The Udalls, Mark Warner, longshot Tom Allen, none of them strike me as hard-charging progressives, though all are better, I think, than my own odious Liebercrat Ken Salazar, who will tack left if that's the way the wind's blowing. Even Al Franken, for a the knickers-in-a-twist hyperventilating we're going to hear about the "Hollywood Liberal", will I think prove to be a very cautious centrist if elected. And if Clinton or Obama is elected, I don't see Blagojevich or Spitzer replacing them with progressives, though I believe Lowey is more progressive than Clinton.
A long way of saying that any shift in the party is going to have to come from the grassroots up through the House.
Boxer and Feingold (4.00 / 2)
I'm from California, born and raised and never left except for a year and a half abroad.
You're nuts if you think Boxer and Feinstein are real progressives.
Boxer has everyone fooled, I'd say she's progressive about 60% of the time, and Feinstein isn't even trying to fool anyone anymore.
Feinstein's our very own Strom Thurmond who just. won't. go. away.
Boxer feigns outrage at hearings...and then capitulates.  Feinstein tries to be a grand, wise stateswoman by crafting compromises that compromise our constitutiional rights away.
[ Parent ]
Feingold!!! (0.00 / 0)
Russ Feingold! not Dianne Mukasey Alito Feinsteinn!! Heaven forfend!

I still think Boxer is in the top tier of progressives in the Senate, as low as that may be setting the bar.

[ Parent ]
Is it that big of a deal? (0.00 / 0)
The difference between our opinions here and the opinions at large can be explained many ways. It might not be that Obama's online supporters are all delusional. It could be that the facts the media is reporting are bad for Clinton, and have been since she lost Iowa. If you asked this question on January 3rd, for example, the results may have been reversed. The media wasn't particularly hard on Clinton when they were touting her inevitable juggernaut. Now, however, the media has many stories that point out uncomfortable truths about the Clinton campaign regarding pledged delegates and when she'll drop out.

There are die-hard supporters of Clinton and Obama everywhere, not just on our blogs. There are always people who believe that everything bad that happens to their candidate is driven by a hidden conspiracy, while the media is hiding the real dirt of their opponent on purpose in a dark effort to prop them up.

You get it from both sides here--some Clinton folks screaming about Chicago slum lords and some Obama fans yelling about tax returns and Borat-gate. But since there are more Obama fanboys online, they have a louder voice.  

I don't think it's a big deal. This happens all the time when large numbers of people become invested in their candidate of choice. In an ideal world, we'd go to each of these people, call them stupid, and point out the truth. But since we don't have the time or the will to do that, we should just be thankful that the netroots candidate of choice is winning the nomination and hope these people come back to earth for the general election, or after Obama is inaugurated.  

Media Bias (4.00 / 1)
As an Edwards then, Obama now, supporter, I generally agree but this week it seems that Chris Matthews, having been taken to the woodshed for his obvious long-term dislike for Clinton, has actually been taking constant cheap shots at Obama.  The problem is that the Villagers do not view this thing as electing a president to lead the most powerful nation in the world out of the mind-boggling messes Bush created.  Instead, they see it as pure sport for their benefit -- tactics, voting-blocs, news clips and sound bites, mistakes, etc. They are not interested in why no candidate is talking about single-payer as the best approach to health care but they love to jump on them for spending sixteen minutes on mandates versus subsidies, a debate that was actually substantive -- albeit narrow -- and important, something no Republican would be so stupid to ever allow to consume sixteen minutes of their debate.

It is no wonder that as Clinton's options narrow, she would turn to fear and Obama would try to turn fear back to judgment.  We might be dissillusioned by these low-brow tactics and wish they were talking about any of the many looming crises we face but that is not what the electorate has been trained to pay attention to and that is not how they either hang on for one more round or try for the knockout now.  I suppose we just have to take it, knowing that in the general election the issues will be somewhat more progressive than they were in 2004 and certainly more so than in 2000.  

From The Economist, this week (4.00 / 6)
Good gods, I hate The Economist, but here's what they say about our "worryingly populist" Democratic primary, emphasis mine:

... How worrying is their populism? The sanguine-and conventional-argument is that none of it matters much. Democratic candidates always veer to the left during primaries, because that is where the votes are. But come the general election, the winner will tack back towards the centre, where the crucial independent voter resides.

The winner, unless Mrs Clinton can stage a dramatic comeback in the big primaries on March 4th, is likely to be Mr Obama. If you look on his website rather than listen to his speeches, there are plenty of intelligently designed, reasonably centrist proposals to be found (see article). It is sensible, for instance, to make it easier for people to save for retirement by enrolling everyone in a scheme unless they specifically opt out. His plans for health-care reform, like Mrs Clinton's, are middle-of-the-road. And his economic advisers, even more than hers, are sound academic economists. So although it might seem odd to advise suspicious voters to ignore the rhetoric of a man whose principal appeal rests on his speeches, Mr Obama in office would surely seek to be something other than the capitalist-hating demagogue he has recently sounded like. ...

Trust him, he's going to be different from the campaign. Yeah. When both hardcore Obama partisans and the flagship magazine of the global economic elite, master purveyors of disaster capitalism, are selling the same line, that just makes me twitchy.

And I don't like the sound of their obvious pleasure regarding his economic team one little bit.  

look at actual policy positions (0.00 / 0)
It's pretty clear Obama is not a Progressive and so few go and read the two.  Yes, the corporate church of free trade is endorsing Obama because he will be more of the same.

Now Hillary?  Well, she has slightly better positions but will she stand up and actually turn the US economic policy around, in the national interest, working America's interests?

Well, let me just say I consider this race on economics, trade, labor least objectionable candidate versus joining up some campaign cheer leading squad acting like the candidate is something I wish them to be versus what they are.

NoSlaves.com  


The Economic Populist

[ Parent ]
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make Matt (0.00 / 0)
This media meme is getting old and quickly.

First, let's make a distinction between MSM and the progressive media. Across the board, I've been pleased with the steps many sites have taken to be balanced and corral  negativity in their discussions (TPM, Digby, MyDD, OpenLeft). It's been a heated primary and I think you all have done a wonderful job dealing with such a volatile atmosphere.

The MSM coverage is a joke, has been a joke and more than likely will continue to be a joke. None of this more evident than the coverage leading up to the Iraq war.

Now, I think who's had more fair coverage in this cycle in MSM is debatable (as an Obama supporter, I had to put up with 9 months of how Clinton was inevitable and praise of her daunting campaign machine). That said, for the purpose of this discussion, I must concede the point that Democratic primary voters view Clinton as being more unfairly portrayed in the MSM.

My issue with your post is the insinuation of fault in Obama's campaign or his supporters. To say that all Obama activists disagree with the voters is using quite a broad stroke. How is Obama's campaign, or his supporters, at fault for Clinton's negative coverage in the media?

I hope somewhere some progressive in the Obama inner circle is trying to figure out how to reconnect this movement to reality.

What exactly are you hoping for? What connect to reality are you seeking? Do you want the Obama campaign to admit that he's had better coverage? Have they argued otherwise?

In an ideal world, the MSM would cover every candidate fairly. But that is just not going to happen. Moving into the general election against St. McCain, it's only going to get worse.

I think the progressive media has done an admirable job changing some elements of the debate in the MSM. For example, as a push back to the Farrakhan mess, progressives have been successful with pushing the Hagee contrast into the conversation.

This may be a matter of me not understanding your point, but while I agree that Clinton's coverage has been crappy in the MSM, I think it's a stretch to blame the Obama campaign or his supporters.

Try not to get too discouraged Matt.... (4.00 / 1)
.....it's gonna be a long haul to connect the essentially progressive electorate, see Why I am an Idiot!, to the elected. As in I've said incessantly it took the ReichWing fools in this nation 40 years to screw it up; it's gonna take a while to reverse the lies, criminality and shear stupidity.

Obama isn't gonna be very helpful. He is no progressive no matter what his legions of low-info MySpace fans try to assert. I foresee gridlock at the national level until we get enough true progressives into Congress to drain that swamp of fear, corruption and senility.

Progressives must continue to take heart in the fact that the citizenry are with them despite the movements shortcomings which are, currently, a reliance on ID politics and a lack of real narrative to tell the voters what solutions progressives have to the nation's problems.

Stuff like the Solar Grand Plan.

Hell, if engineers and technologists can come up with that there's hope...even for places like CheetoLand

Keep after it Matt. Nobody said it was gonna be easy.

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.

What have you done along the way to change this amongst your friends (0.00 / 0)
who lead the A list blogs?
Are you trying to shame us into not saying what we think? (0.00 / 0)

What discourages me (4.00 / 1)
Is all this focus on the primary like it's a high school election.  Who's in with the press?  Who's more popular?  Who do the superdelegates like better? It's really, really dumb, and distracting from other issues.  

Right now, the Congress is probably poised to ram telecom amnesty through while trying to give those who object "political cover."  Since it hasn't happened, yet, we could be using this time to prevent it.  Also, there's the cable companies trying to stack the deck against net neutrality.  Should we be writing letters to the FCC?

But who cares?  Wasn't Clinton on Saturday Night Live?  Let's talk some more about that.

Focus is an outcome of who and where you... (4.00 / 3)
........are looking. I and many others remain focused on the FISA immunity fight. This issue has engendered far more activity in the 'sphere than any other issue, at least from my traffic patterns, and I don't think that's going to change.

As it becomes clear that the nominee, whoever it may be, will simply mean 'More of the same...', as Chris so presciently pointed out many, many months ago, the 'sphere will go back to doing what it has always done with perhaps some of us writing about how easily fooled the voters have been in recent elections. And of course more focus taking the House away from the Miss Nancy the elitist and the rabid pack of 'Bush Dogs' who are roadblocking change in the name of 'electability'.

Plenty to do for progressives and we get to see what the next President has in mind.

I doubt me it will be anything that the voters expected would happen. The stupid....

It burns.................

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.

[ Parent ]
A look at the Top Weekly diaries at Dkos (4.00 / 1)
A look at the top weekly diaries at Dkos offers both hope and worry along these lines. See Jotter's post on the subject here.

Only one pro-Obama post is in the top ten, although the one that is there touts Obama as a great defender of liberalism for distancing himself from the term. Otherwise, the five or six other candidate posts in the top thirty are non-ideological. The candidate ones are mainly anti-Clinton.

So, there is some delusion on Obama's ideology, but not too much. Most people in the blogospehre seem more annoyed with Clinton than pro-Obama.  

Re: (0.00 / 0)
What concerns do you have regarding an Obama presidency and the progressive movement? No snark, no sarcasm.
[ Parent ]
Re: (0.00 / 0)
No snark or sarcasm in my question that is. Genuinely interested.
[ Parent ]
Specifically (0.00 / 0)
that, after all the work we did, the activists following Obama will start to justify things like centrism, bi-partisanship, and putting conservatives in positions of great power as somehow actually progressive. It would be like a reversion to the early 1990's, when progressive internalize the belief that progressive positions are unwinnable, and conservative legislation and administration under an Obama presidency are given a free pass. I don't want to return to the 1990's. While Obama is a less obvious return to that era than Hillary Clinton, much of what he says and does indicates otherwise.  
[ Parent ]
Thats interesting (0.00 / 0)
But don't you think that you and Stoller have only ever contributed to that possibly happening?

Unless you think repeatedly calling them cults, stupid, sheeple, etc is winning them over to your side?

The liberal wiki
Send an email to terra@liberalwiki.com

[ Parent ]
I doubt it (0.00 / 0)
At least that's the opinion of this Obama supporter.

A. Neither Chris or Matt have been about that.
B. It insults the reason many Obama supporters are behind him. He isn't infallible, I don't support him b/c I'm so completely charmed. It's about the issues and his capacity to get them done.  

[ Parent ]
Unfortunately (0.00 / 0)
there are many more diaries by Obama supporters touting his polling numbers, great organization, and "beat the bitch!" - than diaries about Obama's positions.
[ Parent ]
nice smear (0.00 / 0)
and "beat the bitch!"

Quoting a (female) McCain supporter to tar Obama supporters as sexist.

Lovely.

[ Parent ]
No there have been Obama supporters who wrote that over at D Kos (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
Re: (0.00 / 0)
From the perspective of this Obama supporter, I'll be pissed if we see a significant turn to Lieberman-bi-partisanship in an Obama presidency.

While I hope for every bill signed and appointment made to be 100% progressive, and will push and advocate and vote for that to happen, I fully expect to be disappointed at some point. But, I won't be one of those activists to spin it as a great bi-partisan achievement - I'll fight it and look on to the next issue.

I am one of those "new voters" you hear about. My first opportunity to vote was in 2000, and I voted Gore, then Kerry ... but I wasn't engaged and didn't expect much. I became engaged after hearing Obama speak in 2004 and have come to care and fight for progressive issues since (I mean, that probably seems obvious since I'm posting on this site).

The reason I'm voting for Obama isn't because I think he'll be 100% progressive on the issues and/or appointments (I think the boat sailed on that candidate when Kucinich dropped out), but that he'll be more progressive and successful than Clinton.

For someone who hasn't been in the progressive fight for as long as many of you here, I fully understand the sense of hesitation with Obama ... he hasn't been around along enough to earn your trust. And I understand the anxiety that must run down your spine when you hear Obama speaking of "unity." If I thought that meant pushing b.s. bi-partisanship bills for eight years, I wouldn't be supporting him.

I support Obama because I think he has the unique ability to tap into the new progressive electorate, voters like me, who haven't been engaged b/c we felt like in the long run it didn't really matter. The new progressive electorate which showed its potential in MD by nominating Edwards. My concept of unity isn't compromising your political soul on crap bills, but mobilizing the people who are sick on tired of conservative rule by using the new electorate to push those out of office who rely on ideology, histrionics, and fear-mongering.

And while I realize the risk in an Obama candidacy, I also recognize the conservative platform is bankrupt and this is the election to capitalize on it. It's not like the other option is "safe" ... I feel like the best option right now is to support the candidate who has the best shot of moving the progressive agenda forward and then hold them accountable.

But I understand your hesitation, your reservations (as well as everyone else's), and I have my own. Thanks for the response Chris.

[ Parent ]
ONe of the problem with many of you is that you are too (4.00 / 1)
self referential  and not enough about objectively looking at what is being said and done. It's great you will be pissed after teh fact, but he has said and done much that should have pissed you off already. But it hasn't.
[ Parent ]
and so has she (0.00 / 0)
policy-wise, they're not that different. And I would hope we're all grown up enough to know that whoever the next president is, McCain, Clinton, or Obama, that president is going to do things that piss off people who voted for her or him.

Yes, there are starry-eyed Obama supporters, there are also Clinton supporters who think she is single-handedly going to slay every dragon in US politics.

[ Parent ]
can I make a few suggestion since you are talking about being "grown up" (0.00 / 0)
a) Don't lecture people about what being grown up means. The first step in proving your diplomatic chops (something I don't claim like you as a virtue) is to actually exhibit the talent for it. So far, what I hear is "you disagree with me" and therefore you are not grow up enough. Hardly a sign of diplomacy with people who are your natural allies and certainly brings into question your ability to talk to people who naturally are not.

b) Don't use Clinton or McCain as an way to excuse Obama. Eventually, the buck will stop with him- hopefully for some of you it will be sooner rather than the later you are projecting right now. I don't see Clinton does it to as a response to what Obama is doing. It hardly matter if someone else may stab me if your guy is also doing it to use an exaggerated metaphor to get the point across.

c) Don't tell me that we will have to compromise or that some people will be pissed off. It's unnecessary because 1) it's not a response to my post (just an assumption that you made about the audience to whom you are talking rather than what I actually think); 2) There is a difference between compromise and capitulation- sadly, Democrats have been trained to not know the difference.

d) The whole pissing people off statement by you seems again a bit of projection and self reference rather than objectivity. Have you been watching McCain and what he is doing? He's been trying to placate his base, and will move further right. The Democrats have no. How in this objectively speaking environment you can write what you write is a reflection of the lack of objectivity. McCain almost certainly will not piss of his base because he knows there is a consequence. The Democrats-- not so much. THat's not because we don't have values. It's because folks like you give the leadershi the power to walk all over you and then justify it by seeing their walking on you was necesary and was really your fault for getting in the way of their foot. Objectively speaking- that's what you put out there.

[ Parent ]
Wow (0.00 / 0)
Sorry to have misunderestimated how angry you are.

Have a nice life.

[ Parent ]
There you have it, I am angry, and therefore my points can be ignored. (0.00 / 0)
You are right, we shouldn't talk, but not for the reasons you state.  
[ Parent ]
PS let me know when you grow up enough actually listen (0.00 / 0)
to people who differ with you.  
[ Parent ]
I genuinely... (0.00 / 0)
...have no idea what it was about my post that set you off. You were implying that Obama supporters are naive and can't see him for what (in your opinion) he "really is". I was making the point that no candidate was perfect, no matter what your political orientation, and you started screaming about my "lecturing" you and "projecting". Frankly, your rage-filled screed wasn't coherent enough to debate. I don't know what button of yours I pushed, but if you take the chip off your shoulder, I'll be happy to hear what flawless candidate it is you support.
[ Parent ]
A response (0.00 / 0)
a) Your thinking up something doesn't make it true. You can certainly keep posting ad nauseum about my 'rage" it that makes you feel better. And, as an aside, there is nothing wrong with a little anger. If you aren't angry, you aren't paying attention. More importantly, none of my posts reflect what you say. It's simply you saying he is "X" without much proof of  "X" than you don't want to respond to how I describe you.  Do you see the difference between thinking a thing up, and that thing being true?

You still have not answered my points and concerns. This is entirely with in my critique that you are too self referential, and thefore unable to understand the discourse that's happening.

b) You contradict yourself in this post. I will leave it to you to figure out how. I will say that if something I said really didn't make sense, the first step would have been to ask "what does this mean" rather than trying to tell me what you think my emotions are. Again, not a sign of someone who has any gift at diplomacy, and you are from a group that prides itself on claiming to be able to reach across. Yet, in practice, I've seen pretty much a real intollerance to inner party differences. I've seen this from Obama too.

c) When you are ready to discuss my points rather than trying to deflect from them, let me know.  

[ Parent ]
and still... (0.00 / 0)
...I have no idea what you're talking about.

It seems you think "self-referential" is in broader currency than it is.

Just let me end with this: Brevity is the soul of wit.

[ Parent ]
And lazy is the currency of Obama supporters (0.00 / 0)
Good luck.
[ Parent ]
Agreed (4.00 / 2)
It seems that so many Obamabots are really Hillary Haters (including the republicans voting in the primary...some thing they will actually vote for Obama in Novemeber...i am not so stupid to believe that hog wash)

What kind of party of change can you have when your supporters vote for you because they hate the other "guy"?

[ Parent ]
Well, Matt (4.00 / 5)
I'm rather confused about how you can write this w/out irony.

I mean, you, and most of the other A-List bloggers in the left blogosphere wrote Hillary off from the very beginning.  I know that your stated reason was that she voted for AUMF, and if that's how you felt, that's fine.  But understand that by doing that, you created a situation in which all of Hillary's other positions, particularly her positions on domestic issues, which by and large were more progressive than Obama's positions, were marginalized in the progressive communities.  Your refusal to discuss Hillary's positives created a vacuum in which you led many of your readers simply to become Obamabots by default.  Now you seem to have some concerns about the situation you helped to create.  Unfortunately, the Obama supporters are now just, in typical fashion, going to be angry with you.  And Hillary supporters who recognized her progressive leadership just don't find you credible at this point.  

I believe on some level, you meant well.  But, I think you're much to blame for the problem you outline.

he's not alone (0.00 / 0)
Many of us, completely disgusted with the entire field, ignored candidates way too long.  Now we have this situation and people are digging in deep doing the research to find the least objectionable candidate but we are all way to late to the party.  

NoSlaves.com  


The Economic Populist
[ Parent ]
Eek Matt, this is going to generate some heat (0.00 / 0)
But I think you have a good point.
Progressive (0.00 / 0)
Personally I'd argue that non ideological thinking is the progressive position.  I don't agree with the idea that ideological thinking is compatible with progressivism.  My opinion is that it is inherently conservative.

I am myself starting a series of posts trying to sell people like yourself on Obama.  The basic point will be that being thoughtful and fair minded is being progressive.

Thats what the democratic party wants after all as shown by the support for Obama, but the minority of the party that likes Edward's style isn't sold on him yet and getting that activist part of the base excited about Obama is important to help the democratic party as a whole.

The liberal wiki
Send an email to terra@liberalwiki.com

Yes, yes (0.00 / 0)
I think you've hit the nail on the head here. I think the genius of Obama's political philosophy is that he seems to understand this point perfectly. If we are fair minded and thoughtful and let everyone have their input considered on an equal basis, it's quite likely that "progressive" solutions will be the ones that win at at the end of the day. You know why? Because they generally make more sense. Progressives want to find ways for government to effectively solve problems. Conservatives are really more interested in demonstrating that it can not. Ideological battles, then, benefit conservatives, whereas a bipartisan search for practical, common sense solutions, benefits progressives. Now, progressives do not have a monopoly on good ideas, so an honest and open-minded consideration of the alternatives will inevitably incorporate some conservative and moderate perspectives in the final solution. But on balance, I think we would see progressive ideas winning the day in that environment.
[ Parent ]
What exactly is your point? (4.00 / 1)
I'm having a tough time keeping any interest in this primary, it's both discouraging and upsetting to watch this disconnect between the internet space I've worked on for four years and reality itself get worse.  When I offer obvious points, for instance, that Obama may not be progressive, since he has in fact spoken repeatedly of his lack of ideology, I get ridiculous pushback from his supporters denying what he himself has said.

The usual complaint among activists who have labored long and hard as you have is that the public is not keeping up with the online progressives. I am surprised to learn that you think it is the other way around. Or, you are just mightily disappointed that the candidate you support in the primary may lose. Lord knows, I have been there and will be there again.

Putting aside the question of whether Clinton is more progressive than Obama (do progressives support unnecessary oil wars and rattle sabers at Iran?) I am sure Obama is not as progressive as you or me or most of your readers are.  But (1) we couldn't get elected and (2)he advances many progressive policies, e.g. annual increases in min. wage, national health insurance, getting out of Iraq, etc. So when you  suggest that he is not progressive (if you have) then you will get pushback.

I don't disagree that the press has been harder on Hillary. The question is why? A lot of it is ancient history which has now been institutionalized (most of which was unfair), some of it is sexism, some of it is part of her campaign theme which is working with voters, and some of it she is getting the old fashioned way -- she has earned it.  

John McCain doesn't care about Vets.


The media's foremost consideration (4.00 / 1)
is NOT which candidate is the most qualified - or who will keep us safer - but which candidate will generate the most profits for them.
Obama joins a long line of media-created icons - Britney, Paris, etc.
Clearly the candidate omitting 15M from his health care plan is more "presidential" to the media's corporate sponsors than candidates advocating UHC for ALL.

[ Parent ]
"ALL" (4.00 / 1)
You do realize the "ALL" is totally fictional.  The same people who say Obama leaves out 15 million say that Clinton's plan will also leave out millions.  

New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.
[ Parent ]
The media's foremost consideration (0.00 / 0)
is NOT which candidate is the most qualified - or who will keep us safer - but which candidate will generate the most profits for them.
Obama joins a long line of media-created icons - Britney, Paris, etc.
Clearly the candidate omitting 15M from his health care plan is more "presidential" to the media's corporate sponsors than candidates advocating UHC for ALL.

[ Parent ]
Tells me all I need to know about your position (0.00 / 0)
Obama joins a long line of media-created icons - Britney, Paris, etc.


John McCain doesn't care about Vets.


[ Parent ]
There is a cheese store down the street (0.00 / 0)
There's no discussion of Iraq, just conversations about irrelevant ads that talk about 3am phone calls between fear-mongering politicians who agree with each other

No discussion on Iraq? Is that a w[h]ine?

3 am ad - who put out the ad? And had the Obama Camp not responded immediately the progressives would have been whining that the HRC Camp was swiftboating Obama.

As for linking Greg Sargent: Well, we all know who GS endorsed.

And wasn't it posted here about how the HRC Camp had finally reached out to the Progressives/grassroots?

It is getting really hard to follow you guys lately.

If not NOW, when?

Huh? Contradict yourself much? (0.00 / 0)
"I suppose the fact that Democratic primary voters actively agree with Clinton activists on the media and do not agree with Obama activists will be explained away somehow, but I hope it isn't."

How did the 48% who believe Hillary was treated harsher or the 33% who believe Obama was treated easier become a majority Matt???  Do math much?

You were really readable before the primary Matt, and in fact you are very readable when you are writing about just about anything other than this primary.  Maybe that's why you dislike it so much.  The fact that you waste a post trying to show that it proves something that the less than 50% of Democratic primary voters who support Hillary also agree with her about the media is really laughable.

Poor Hillary, Again! (0.00 / 0)
Let me preface by saying my husband and I are Democratic voters, we voted for Obama, and we read MSM and blogs.
From our observations, a few weeks ago, it was impossible to find ANY news about Obama in the MSM, except snarky attacks emanating from the Clintonistas. Right up until this weekend, nearly all the MSM coverage of the Democratic race was focused on Hillary: Was she up? Was she down? In? Out? Was Bill an asset? A liability? Blah, blah, blah.
In other words, she got the coverage. Obama did not. And, they spelled her name correctly every time.
Don't know what more a candidate could ask for.
This looks like another nonstory emanating from the Clintonistas, and once again, it's poor Hillary. (Must be another misogynist plot!)  
In fact, since Super Tuesday, on Google's news page, there were days upon days in which Obama's name did not appear in the People in the News section, while both Clintons were listed every day.
JFK, whom Obama admires, brought together The Best and the Brightest (R.I.P. David Halberstam) from all walks, mainly his Harvard classmates, but others, too. Like Kennedy, Obama's approach seems less ideological regarding party platforms and more values oriented and process oriented.
We're all for it. We need to get the government working again, as in three branches, checks and balances, vigorous discussion, etc. Obama is a constitutional scholar, and his focus seems to be getting us back into the framework of the Constitution, the rule of law, etc.
I'm beginning to realize what a tremendous shift in governmental outlook it may be for those born in the last two to three decades to live with a Constitutional government, as opposed to the corporatized mess we now have.
WHen the media turns on Obama, as they are starting to do (4.00 / 2)
I expect many of you to all of sudden realize "oh. my gawd the media does matter in a democracy."
[ Parent ]
not this blogger (4.00 / 2)
I see blatant misogyny going toward Hillary, brazen, blatant.

Seriously.  It's so bad I feel the US has come a lot way on defeating racism but sexism is alive, well and endorsed.

Seriously and on the blogger front, I have read so many sexist, misogynistic comments it's frightening.  I mean so many supposed liberals, the left who supposedly value equality, diversity and out of their typing little hands comes some of the most women hating statements of all.

Well, well.

I even commented in the grocery where someone was concerned about some hate group going after Obama that to me it looks more of a concern that some misogynist would go after Hillary.

I'm also convinced that many people will not vote for her because she is a woman and even more frightening is I found bloggers who said they wouldn't vote for her because sexism is so prevalent in US society thus she can't get anywhere.

hmmm...now that's one hell of a Progressive value, because it exists well, I'll just endorse it and enable it then.

I don't think people are voting on the policy positions and I do think Hillary is way tougher, because she has this onslaught, in personality.  That has to be tough to take frankly.  

NoSlaves.com  


The Economic Populist

You're being unrealistic, Matt (0.00 / 0)
When I offer obvious points, for instance, that Obama may not be progressive, since he has in fact spoken repeatedly of his lack of ideology, I get ridiculous pushback from his supporters denying what he himself has said.

I hate to pop your balloon, Matt, but NO authentic progressive will ever become President of the United States anytime soon.  Our nation is still too conservative and entrenched in religious ideology.  Therefore, I think you're going to continue to be disappointed if 100% liberalism is what you're looking for in a presidential candidate.

The most we can hope for is a candidate that talks about "some" of the things that are important to us as progressives.  I'm glad Sen. Clinton has brought sexism to the forefront.  And I'm glad Sen. Obama talks about anti-Semitism and homophobia.  I wish both candidates would talk more about racism against blacks and immigrants, but I can't have everything.

Conservative (0.00 / 0)
I don't believe our country is too conservative.  I know lots of people that want smaller government, because of years of work by Grover Norquist and the anti-tax crowd.  I don't think that means conservative though.
[ Parent ]
Point (0.00 / 0)
I don't understand the point of this post.  The Clinton camp has been dismissing Obama for a long time.  Now, they are not dismissing him.  There have been debates and attacks on positions, but generally it is an election.  In an election, like it or not, issues are not the most discussed thing.  The candidates do not usually discuss issues, they give sound bites and you get issues from news articles, plans and their websites.  There have actually been some really good policy discussions in debates(so I have heard, didn't watch them..would be a long explanation, I have a reason for it).  So, Clinton had unfavorable press coverage...  I have heard reasons listed for this.  Trouble even getting in touch with the campaign, and distance from the campaign.  There is baggage from the 90's.  I read a good post arguing that portraying herself as a fighter that will do anything to win wasn't a good idea.  Essentially, Obama portrayed himself as a new kind of politics, now whenever something looks like he was being underhanded, he gets the benefit of the doubt.  Clinton has the opposite.  Whenever she does anything, it looks underhanded and old politics.  Not that she has been helping that image with the: Super delegates will give me the nomination, none of the states matter but these few which I won, and all these other insane things her campaign has put out.

Why does the Obama campaign have to reconnect with the reality that the MSM has been giving him favorable coverage?  Obama may not be a progressive, but I am more comfortable with him, his past, and the people he surrounds himself with than Clinton.  I don't think Bill was progressive.  I think Hillary is the same as Bill and has the same advisers.  So, we need to choose one of them.  Early on there was a lot of push to get Edwards, but it failed.  So, we have two choices now...

I think at some point reality has to come back to the people backing Clinton.  They all believe that Obama will implode and she will win;if not, the party elites will give her the nomination.  If she loses Texas or Ohio, I hope she drops out.

The arguments that she will win are getting strained.  The latest I have seen is that she has a greater share of the Democratic(self-identifying) party voters.  So, she is losing the popular vote, the pledged delegate count, the overall delegate count, the money race, and the total number of states won...but, she wins because of the exit polls?

Misogyny: the new hate crime? (0.00 / 0)
No criticism of Hillary allowed based on her vagina? WOW! She's a candidate for President of the United States, not head cheerleader, or maybe based on our present pResident, it is a race for head cheerleader, class clown, etc. and I need to go do something more useful than read screed.
Why isn't the blogosphere screaming racism over the lack of media coverage of Obama? Notice the so-called survey didn't ask who got MORE coverage just what kind! What difference does it make? Name recognition is what counts when people pull the lever in the voting booth. They buy the better known brand. By not covering Obama to the extent that the MSM has covered Clinton, they're giving her a not so subtle edge.
Go to Google and look for People in the News. The guy who just won 11 primaries/caucuses in a row isn't even mentioned. But the loser is, again and again.
The MSM needs to get off the Clinton bus, as cozy as it's grown, and get on the Obama bus. Once Obama is elected, the MSM will be far behind the eightball and people hungry for news about their new administration will seek out better coverage in the blogosphere, as they've done with everything else that's happened in the past eight years.
Misogyny: the new hate crime? (0.00 / 0)
No criticism of Hillary allowed based on her vagina? WOW! She's a candidate for President of the United States, not head cheerleader, or maybe based on our present pResident, it is a race for head cheerleader, class clown, etc. and I need to go do something more useful than read screed.
Why isn't the blogosphere screaming racism over the lack of media coverage of Obama? Notice the so-called survey didn't ask who got MORE coverage just what kind! What difference does it make? Name recognition is what counts when people pull the lever in the voting booth. They buy the better known brand. By not covering Obama to the extent that the MSM has covered Clinton, they're giving her a not so subtle edge.
Go to Google and look for People in the News. The guy who just won 11 primaries/caucuses in a row isn't even mentioned. But the loser is, again and again.
The MSM needs to get off the Clinton bus, as cozy as it's grown, and get on the Obama bus. Once Obama is elected, the MSM will be far behind the eightball and people hungry for news about their new administration will seek out better coverage in the blogosphere, as they've done with everything else that's happened in the past eight years.
There's an 800-pound elephant in the room. (4.00 / 2)
The fact is, members of the corporatist media have become de facto superdelegates. What they choose to write (or ignore) has real consequences, and for Democrats to choose candidates on the basis of the media imprimatur pretty much guarantees we're never going to have anything approaching a progressive president ever again.

Should we simply accept that as "reality" and let them?

Like Chris, I don't think this campaign bodes well for the party. We're conceding that "real" people don't want progressive ideas (which just isn't true). What's really sad is that Obama alone seems to have the ear of the nation to advocate for those ideas but he squanders it every day, talking mostly toward the mushy middle. Am I supposed to put my faith in Clark Kent, bursting from a phone booth after the election as Super Progressive?

When you run in a Democratic primary from the center-right, as Obama does, where do you go for the general? And if you run from the right and win by a landslide, what do you have but a political mandate for conservative ideas? When you do all this bi-partisan negotiating and you're already starting from the right, where do you have to go but further right?

And finally, why should any Democrat vote for Obama when he's talking about appointing Republicans to his cabinet?  

800 lb gorilla & the mush (0.00 / 0)
Yes, the MSM in its corporate guise does behave like a gang of superdelegates and not the traditional Fourth Estate. I imagine some people on the Clinton bus are terrified of leaving just in case there's a Diebold event in Ohio or wherever, and Clinton is crowned. Then, they're castigated for doing what is ostensibly the job of the media ... reporting without fear or favor ... hah!
(Doublespeak is so much the new language that nobody in the MSM has questioned how a woman riding on the coattails of her husband can describe herself as a feminist.)
As far as the mush in the middle, he needs their votes. I'm thankful he's not going to the right in order to get elected.
What I do like is what looks like a clean campaign. Obama seems to be a gentleman, and what looks like aboveboard behavior is very encouraging. We've been in the gutter for so long, it's starting to look like the norm.
For instance, while Obama's debating style looks like jujitsu (h.t. MoJo), he didn't leave a mark on her.
So two terms in the Senate don't count? (0.00 / 0)
Never mind, I know better than to attempt rational discourse with you. Too many red flags in one post...
I think it's naive to assume... (4.00 / 1)
....that either Obama or Clinton will be automatically progressive regarding all the issues we care about.  And frankly, I do not consider that my greatest concern.

My greatest concern is that, once we win the White House, if we win the White House, too many of us will kick back and say, "Well!  Glad that's done!", and assume that they no longer need to be active participants in politics for the forseeable future.

Whether we like it or not, whoever gets into the White House, whoever controls Congress, will need to be held to our standards and made sure that they feel the repercussions of ignoring us.  And that means no rest after November of this year.

We get the government we're willing to fight for.

The fight will NOT end in November.  It may be a little easier, but the fight will still be necessary.

Democratic Voters on Clinton/Obama Being Treated Badly by the Press | 76 comments
Donate to Open Left







QUICK HITS

Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.
As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment.
blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS
STATE BLOGS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2009, Powered by SoapBlox