Moving Goalposts Arrive in Denver

I realize now that those shifting goalposts from the primary season may have been much more media-created than I previously understood.

Last night I was impressed by Hillary's speech after having been firmly ensconced in the ABC (Anybody But Clinton) Camp throughout the primaries. This morning, I found myself amazed, enraged and ashamed by how the media is pushing the PUMA-driven "Clintonistas are bitter" storyline so aggressively.

I'm exhausted by the media's relentless handwringing (and schizophrenic) chorus.

First, they told us, "Michelle must define herself and allow voters to become comfortable with her family"
initial reviews: CHECK
"Good job. But where was the red meat?" Is there any rational human (other than those who receive the RNC's daily talking points email) who believes the image of an angry, on-the-attack Mrs. Obama would have endeared her to undecided voters?

Next they turned their obsession to Hillary's Herculean task. "How can Hillary pivot and transfer the support of her 18-million strong army to become part of Barack's Battalion? Will she look genuine? Or will she come off as readying her 2012 bid?"
initial reviews: missions accomplished!
Well, she was good - maybe her best speech ever, in fact. But, wait, come to think of it, you know she forgot to mention whether or not she now feels Obama is ready to receive that 3 AM call. And, look, here's an angry white woman who still seems dissatisfied that the system robbed Hillary. Cleary, she left some work undone.

Where are all the critiques of the Bush/Cheney administration? Why haven't they hung that 24% approval rating around McCain's neck? They're missing their opportunity! Is this Kerry '04 redux? When will the Democrats learn politics is a contact sport? All the time they're saying this, speaker after speaker is on the podium denouncing Bush, McCain and failed Republican policies.

The media opts to air more of themselves bloviating about the real issue before voters: Bill Clinton feels dissed by the upstart and aloof Barack Obama.

So, today we're treated to "What will Bill say? And, what will he look like while he's saying it? Will he look like he's passing a kidney stone? Will he wag his finger? Even more importantly, what will he be thinking when he says it?

Thankfully, we have Dr. Maureen Dowd to help us with that analysis.

Oh, and by the way, Obama speaking in front of 75,000 people - that just reinforces this celebrity thing dontcha think? Politicians should be serious and not really popular. American leaders should be plodding and boring - not inspirational. Maybe if he had spent time in a POW camp, he would understand how unwise it is to make the most important speech of his lifetime in such a public venue.

The inevitable result is an unwinnable situation where Democrats are confronted by an endgame with bogus goalposts, impossible Catch-22s created by morning after psychologists and manufactured drama driven by a minority who are desperate for their fifteen seconds of fame (yes, in the youtube era, Warhol's prediction has been truncated into nothing more than a sound bite).

I've taken to watching the convention on CSPAN, where there is no bloviating media telling me what to think. I'm hoping Barack and Plouffe have made a similar decision.

UPDATE 3:26, 8/26/08: The Boston Globe's editors share my affinity for CSPAN's convention coverage.

MSNBC: Falls for One of the "Oldest Tricks in Politics"

This story has been in the "hourly loop" playing during MSNBC's "The Place for Politics" daytime coverage. There's a new anti-Obama ad (in addition to the abysmal NC State GOP one "denounced" by McCain yesterday) being peddled by the creator of the infamous 1988 Willie Horton ad. I say "peddled" because there has been no "buy."

Oh, but no worries. MSNBC (and I'm sure the other 24-7 cable outlets) have decided to hawk what these fearmongers are shelling out for free.

The ad shows scenes from a desolate urban streetscape with tag lines saying "Tamika McFadden-Harris: Murdered shielding her daughter. Mike Boyd: Beaten with bricks in gang attacks." These are shown on the TeeVee screen as Contessa Brewer dutifully reads from the teleprompter:

A conservative third party group led by infamous ad man Floyd Brown claims Senator Obama is weak on street gangs and will be just as easy with terrorists. Well, here's the catch: Brown does not have a single ad buy in any TV market. Instead of paying for airtime, he just announces this in a press release for outlets like YouTube to pick up."

Contessa introduces the segment's talking heads (Craig Gordon from Newsday and Jonathan Allen from CQPolitics.com) and without even a hint of self-awareness, Contessa pivots to Gordon and asks:

"OK, so, Craig, is this a new way to get your ad covered without buying any time?

Craig (laughing) says, "Uh, it's actually one of the oldest tricks in politics where you, uh, even, even respectable campaigns will do this sometimes. Where they will announce an ad. They'll show the reporters. They'll be very vague about how much money they're going to spend putting it on the air. We all write about it. You put it on your TV networks and they've - voila! they've got their ad out there.

So, it's actually kind of an old trick that folks use sometime. Obviously, it's a pretty controversial topic for an ad. And we're talking about it here today so he's probably accomplished what he hoped to accomplish."

Come on, MSNBC. You don't even have to have a long memory to remember when Huckabee pulled this stunt. One of the reasons these "tricks" work is because the media enables and promotes them.

The Incredible, Shrinking Ex-President

In the closing months of his presidency, the subject of Bill Clinton's "Legacy" and the paramount concern he supposedly placed on how history would regard him was a common media talking point.

He had survived a scathing partisan battle and left the White House with a higher approval rating than he had at the start of his second term. Despite an all-encompassing impeachment and a few minor mini-scandals (last minute pardons of a wealthy fugitive and the "plundering" of the White House come to mind), the Clinton brand was strong and durable enough to propel his wife to victory in the race for RFK's New York Senate seat and positioned the president as a powerful and influential force on the world stage.

The Clinton Brand isn't what it once was.

At the end of March 2008, a majority of Americans viewed the former president unfavorably. His wife's presidential campaign has brought out the worst in the former president. As her chief surrogate (and attack dog) he has left many wondering, "What happened to the sharpest political mind the Democratic party has seen in a generation?" Was it all an illusion built by a sophisticated political marketing machine?

Today, Ambinder pronounces:

"The debate about his political legacy is effectively over, and no one but a handful of prominent Democrats will argue that his presidency was salutary for the Democratic party."

On David Gregory's new MSNBC Show, the panelists discussed (video below) the fallout from Bill's latest misstep - resurrecting the Tuzla story and blaming the media's unfair treatment for his wife's floundering campaign. But, Chuck Todd disagrees and points the finger right back at Bill:

"Every time you see him. (Don't) forget - elections are never about the past. They're always about the future. And every time you see him, you never think about the future. And I think that's the fundamental sort of message problem that the Clinton campaign has because Obama seems like the future...and Bill Clinton's - just - aura says, "The Past."

- snip -

"That's been the issue that the Clinton campaign hasn't really grasped that well. It's this. How much credibility damage that Bill Clinton did to the Clinton Brand over that long period of time between 1998 and the end of his presidency."

Todd (and Newt's former toady, Tony Blankley) believe Clinton may not have survived if there had been a 24/7 news cycle in 1992. The YouTube Age has rewritten political campaigning. Anything and everything can come back to haunt you. Just ask George Allen.

But, I'm still wondering, "Was he ever the sharp political practioner of the Clintonista iconographers?"

McCain: "This Meeting Is Over"

John McCain's recent "Service to America" introductory tour was a biographic trip down memory lane for the presumptive GOP nominee. Designed (perhaps by Karl Rove?) to reacquaint Americans with a political leader who has been lurking in Washington for nearly as long as Bob Dole and whose public image has been burnished by a lovesick corps of reporters, the S2A Tour ran into an unanticipated speed bump at McCain's alma mater, Episcopal High in Alexandria, VA.

The tough question comes from a high school student, Katelyn Halldorson who asks(h/t to Media Matters):

"We were told that this isn't a political event. So, what exactly is your purpose in being here?

McCAIN: I knew I should have cut this thing off. This meeting is over.

It takes a teenager to ask the real questions? Shouldn't this inquiry come from the professional journalists at CNN? Perhaps MSNBC?

The Grey Lady Learns Sex Doesn't Sell

This week's New York Times article about John McCain has been chewed up, digested and regurgitated by the 24/7 news cycle and what should come as no surprise to any alert 21st century citizen - the conventional wisdom's final conclusion completely misses the point.

Let's get this straight. The story is about the possibility of influence peddling by the self-styled ethics reformer and presumptive GOP nominee John McCain. It was not about sex. It never was.

The Times made a huge blunder by mentioning campaign staff's suspicions about a romantic relationship developing between the Senator and an attractive young lobbyist. Whether it was used as a hook to pique the interest of a salacious public or they actually thought the story would be more powerful by including this anonymously sourced "gossip" the end effect was devastating. It allowed the right wing noise machine to ratchet up attacks on the "liberal media" and created enough clutter to obscure the real story. The rabid Right Wing Freak Show suceeded in making the journalistic practices of the Times (and by extension the entire Main Stream Media) the diversionary story.

The feeding frenzy was reminiscent of the CBS News/Bush Air National Guard story during the 2004 presidential campaign. The truth of the underlying facts of a story are lost in the echo chamber. The press is silenced into submission. A timid press corps diminishes the likelihood of maintaining a vibrant public discussion vital to a healthy democracy.

And the REAL STORY is this: McCain is a politician who has made his national reputation by publicly denouncing the power of money and the influence of lobbyists in our political system while at the same time taking money from powerful corporate interests, developing cozy relationships with these "evil" lobbyists and may have even used his position to influence policy in their favor.

McCain defends his actions:



Whether or not McCain had sexual relations with that woman is unimportant to me (as it was regarding another politician during another place and time). What is important is whether the Senator's Straight Talk is simply more Republican Corporate DoubleSpeak. Americans are tired of our leaders talking out of both sides of their mouths.

Brave New Films has a take on McCain's "Friends"





Do something! Sign the petition asking McCain to end his ties to corporate lobbyists.

Bottom Line: MSM Wants Hillary to Hang On

Barack Obama has now won ten straight contests in the Democratic nomination campaign. He is not just winning - he's blowing his formerly inevitable opponent out of the water. He's expanded beyond his base and proved he's got the tactical ground game to back up his rhetorical brilliance. He has enticed the elusive American youth to vote in unprecedented numbers, tapped into America's deep desire for change and ignited a hope-based movement, attracting independents and Republicans to his campaign.

In a normal year, party elders would be urging the vanquished candidate to see the handwriting on the wall. Understanding the political damage likely to result from a long and divisive battle these superdelegates would be demanding an end to the contest "for the good of the party." The punditocracy would be observing "These lopsided losses are simply too much to overcome" and asking "When will she step aside?"

Instead, we have an ongoing narrative on the cable networks dominated by observations like "Never count the Clinton machine out." "Can victories in Texas and Ohio halt Obama's momentum and provide Hillary an opening?" "The campaign sees a viable path toward the nomination and may hold on through the August Denver convention." "The Clintons may go negative to derail Obama."

While there are scattered comments from the talking heads implying the Fat Lady is approaching the mic it is undeniable the dominant meme remains. Instead of being on a campaign death watch, the media is on the lookout for a "Clinton Comeback." Does anyone out there think if Obama was on a ten state losing streak the entire media-political establishment would not have already raised a deafening chorus demanding he step aside?

I believe there are two factors contributing to this strange, suspended reality. The fact Hillary and Bill are formidable politicians with a vast network and are proven Lazarus-like survivors is secondary to the MSM's profit motive. The nomination battles have helped feed the insatiable appetite of the 24/7 cable news channels. The seemingly "unpredictable" twists and turns of January and February provided fodder for the endless ego-filled television talkfest. When the spectre of this campaign coming to an end is raised on air, you can see the talking heads visibly disappointed. If Hillary throws in the towel, these politicos will see their airtime and public profiles diminished.

A few weeks ago there were stories about how Britney's tragedy feeds tens of millions of dollars into the economy, primarily into big media. This morning, I find myself wondering how much the Hillary & Bill drama pumps into the cable networks coffers?