So, what does he know that we don’t know?

Or is he just being gutsy? (And, well, Drudge-y)

Russert says that Clinton has canceled all Wednesday morning’s TV appearances. (This via Andrew Sullivan.)

MEANWHILE….. we wait for…

(Ha! I see Andrew Sullivan has his own YouTube version.)

OH, YEAH, the LA Times’ Mark Z. Barabak says that nothing has changed after Tuesday’s primaries.

The results left the dynamics of the presidential race essentially unchanged. Obama remains well-positioned to win the nomination when the voting ends June 3, but has not mustered the strength to finish off Clinton. Clinton has an incentive to keep campaigning, but faces increasingly steep odds that she can push past Obama without some dramatic development.

Uh, huh. Okay, well then, define “push past.” That would be in delegates? The popular vote? What?

Bookmark to:

Obama’s found his voice again and he’s got a new musical refrain…

Instead of Yes We Can—which he uses not mostly as a punchline—he is using as his repeating chorus “I trust the American people.

And he uses it well:

We can choose not to be divided…..we can choose not to be afraid..

This time can be different than all the rest….

This is our time to answer the call that so many Americans have answered before…..

I didn’t get into this race thinking that I could avoid this kind of politics, but I am running for president because this is the time to end it.

Read the rest of this entry »

Bookmark to:

Barack Obama has had a very unpleasant April says Andrew Tyndall of the Tyndall report. Well, that’s hardly new news. But Tyndall isn’t talking about Obama’s loss in Pennsylvania or his former pastor’s not-so-comedic stand up performance at the National Press Club. Media analyst Tyndall is talking about the deluge of relentlessly negative media coverage that has plagued Obama in the last month.

Andrew Tyndall, through his Tyndall Report, has been monitoring the nightly newscasts of the three television networks for 20 years. He claims to be the only person on the planet who has personally watched every single weekday network nightly newscast since the summer of 1987.

Here’s what he says about April’s coverage of Obama and Clinton.

As for the candidate coverage, Obama attracted more than HRC and McCain combined (62 mins v HRC 26, McCain 24). For both Obama and Rodham Clinton, most of the month was negative when it came to covering their campaigns. So the accurate way to contrast the two is on their quantity not their quality. The tone of Obama’s coverage was not noticeably more negative than hers; he just received more than twice as much of it.

Tyndall is not suggesting bias. But rather he says something else is at work.

Our explanation rests on the new style of political coverage we have called Reality Gameshow Journalism, a style that sees the Presidential campaign as an elimination contest between larger-than-life personalities, that focuses on the character rather than the ideology of each, that is interested in socio-psychological factors more than issues, that believes that character is most clearly revealed when a candidate is subjected to the ordeal of near elimination.

Under the rubric of Reality Gameshow Journalism, questions about a pastor’s words are transformed from guilt-by-association to insights into judgment and loyalty. Under this rubric, the frontrunner would naturally receive twice the attention of the second place candidate since the closer one comes to victory the more scrutiny one deserves.

And under this rubric, any coverage that helps tighten the race makes a possible elimination primary all the more compelling and dramatic.

What Gameshow Journalism is not, is coverage that examines, illuminates, and weights the worth of the candidates.

And it doesn’t have to be balanced.

Read the rest of this entry »

Bookmark to:

Often Jon Stewart gets it right.

Last night he got it very right. Unlike every other news outlet in the country, he declined to mention Jeremiah Wright on his show—at all. But when the subject was brought up (not broached by Stewart) in his interview with Newt Gingrich, he politely pointed out the utter hypocrisy of the media’s fixation with Barack Obama’s former paster.

“I’m really stunned that his pastor has become a focal point of the campaign.”

If Barack Obama loses this nomination fair and square, fine. But if he loses it because of the Jeremiah Wright issue, the American media is entirely complicit.

As I posted yesterday, I’m aghast at the Shakespearean nature of what Wright did at the National Press Club because of what it says about his own narcissism and his disregard for Obama’s campaign for the presidency.

But the destructive nature of what is going on in the American news media with the obsessive pawing over the Wright matter to the exclusion of EVERY OTHER ISSUE is nothing short of tragic.

No matter whom you favor for President, every one of us loses when serious dialogue goes out the window, as it has in this campaign.

PS: BTW, what Stewart did report on (hilariously) is the vexing and counter-factual committee hearings that took place in Congress yesterday regarding sex education.

Bookmark to:

UPDATE 2: Barack Obama held a press conference this morning and came out forcefully and appropriately on the Wright issue. Link to coverage and video is here and NPR has the entire press conference here. It’s long and it’s very, very interesting.

This is such a strange and sad drama that it almost defies political analysis and frankly begs for a literary interpretation.

**********************************************************************************************************************

Unlike others, I haven’t been all that bothered by Reverend Jeremiah Wright’s more inflammatory remarks that have been played repeatedly on YouTube.

And then came the 48-hour Jeremiah Wright-a-thon

His Moyers appearance and his NAACP speech were fine.

But in some kind of horrifyingly cringe-making reverse Oedipal thing, Wright was so entirely full of himself and so creepily competitive with Obama yesterday when he spoke to the National Press Club, it was hard to understand what he was thinking.

Yes, of course he has the right to defend himself against out-of-context clips and scurrilous attacks, but timing is everything, buddy. If Barack’s the guy Wright wants in the White House, this was the moment to shut up and take one for the team.

But he didn’t. Instead we got the smirky narcissism-on-parade he displayed at the press club.

On the other hand, why the press had to do All Wright All the Time last night—complete with the worst kind of talking-head screamers—is another issue altogether. (See yesterday’s post.)

All this and the Supremes decide that voter ID requirements are just fine and dandy.

Feh.

UPDATED: Commenter Woody provided this link to an interesting story by New York Daily News columnist Errol Louis who suggests that maybe there was more to Reverend Wright’s sad and destructive appearance at the National Press Club than meets the eye.

BLOGFATHER Marc Cooper also has a good post on the subject.

Bookmark to:

In yesterday’s New York Times Elizabeth Edwards slapped the media upside the head for its repeated dwelling on trivia, both now and last year when the Democrats were still in the midst of a multi-candidate race.

This morning’s LA Times wants SOMEONE…ANYONE in the media to ask the candidates less about flag pins,” bitterness,” and “geriatric radicals,” and more about actual….you know…. issues. Helpfully, the Times lists some sample questions, among them the following:

You have criticized President Bush’s expansion of executive power. Detail for us how you intend to legally forbid yourself — and your successors — from using signing statements to alter legislation. Don’t tell us that your judgment will be better than Bush’s, so not to worry. Give us specifics.

How exactly would you ensure that no American citizen can be declared an “enemy combatant”? Explain what you believe a president ought and ought not to be able to do with a foreigner captured abroad and suspected of having plans to kill Americans.

Describe a situation in which you would defend the president’s asserted power to monitor telephone conversations and e-mails of U.S. citizens without a warrant.

I’d also like to hear what suggestions all three candidates have for curing the nation’s hideous urban school drop out rates.

In addition, it might be nice to hear if they have any constructive thoughts on the spreading world food crisis that is now called the worst in a generation.

And what about the fact that one in every nine African American men between 20 and 34 is behinds bars? I’d prefer to hear those who might be president give a few words over to that troubling issue rather than hearing one more thing about somebody’s pastor (or sniper fire, or possibly purloined favorite recipes, for that matter.)

And now that we’re on the subject, when a bunch of editors and writers were sitting around at the LA Times book fair, talking about life, books, and the NEA (among other things) it was mentioned that we we wouldn’t mind knowing who each of the candidates would be likely to appoint as their arts advisers. (No. Issue-wise this is not exactly as pressing as the Iraq War, the nose-diving economy, global warming, or health care, but the answer would be, in its own way, telling nonetheless. And it has a hell of a lot more to do with the emotional/moral/spiritual health of the nation than freaking flag pins.)

What would you like to ask?

Bookmark to:

So who’s right? And what does it mean?

Maureen Dowd says this:

….She’s been running ads about it, suggesting he doesn’t have “what it takes” to run the country. Her message is unapologetically emasculating: If he does not have the gumption to put me in my place, when superdelegates are deserting me, money is drying up, he’s outspending me 2-to-1 on TV ads, my husband’s going crackers and party leaders are sick of me, how can he be trusted to totally obliterate Iran and stop Osama?

[snip]

The Democrats are growing ever more desperate about the Attack of the 50 Foot Woman. With gas prices out of control, with the comically oblivious President Bush shimmying around New Orleans — the city he let drown — and Condi sneaking into Baghdad as rockets and mortars hail down on the Green Zone, beating the Republicans should be a cinch.

But the Democrats watch in horror as Hillary continues to scratch up the once silvery sheen on Obama, and as John McCain not only consolidates his own party but encroaches on theirs by boldly venturing into Selma, Ala., on Monday to woo black voters.

[snip]

The Democrats are eager to move on to an Obama-McCain race. But they can’t because no one seems to be able to show Hillary the door. Despite all his incandescent gifts, Obama has missed several opportunities to smash the ball over the net and end the game. Again and again, he has seemed stuck at deuce. He complains about the politics of scoring points, but to win, you’ve got to score points.

And here’s what Joe Klein says at Time Magazine:

Read the rest of this entry »

Bookmark to:

I’m running out so am just posting fast, but if you haven’t seen this, it’s pretty funny.

Bookmark to:

One of the genuine joys of the crazed, often incredibly petty and seemingly unending election season has been seeing the enormous voter turn-out—at both ends of the age spectrum. People turned off to politics since the Vietnam era now feel energized. College students and 20-somethings who previously felt completely left out of the political world have suddenly become impassioned. Some of them have come out for Hillary, others for Barack.

But which ever candidate you support, it’s hard not to be heartened by the record turnouts that the two history-making Democratic candidates have inspired.

At least so one would think.

Then I came into possession of an audio recording in which, at a small, private fund raiser, Hillary Clinton expressed her antipathy toward the Democratic activists who showed up in gushers and torrents to vote and/or caucus all across America in great numbers—IF those voters and caucus-goers happened to favor someone other than….well…. her.

The story I wrote about what Clinton said, the context, and reactions from both MoveOn and the Clinton camp, is posted on the Huffington Post and it’s getting a fairly strong reaction.

But here’s the main Clinton quote in question. (The audio is also over at Huff Post.)

“Moveon.org endorsed [Sen. Barack Obama] — which is like a gusher of money that never seems to slow down,” Clinton said to a meeting of donors. “We have been less successful in caucuses because it brings out the activist base of the Democratic Party. MoveOn didn’t even want us to go into Afghanistan. I mean, that’s what we’re dealing with. And you know they turn out in great numbers. And they are very driven by their view of our positions, and it’s primarily national security and foreign policy that drives them. I don’t agree with them. They know I don’t agree with them. So they flood into these caucuses and dominate them and really intimidate people who actually show up to support me.”

This is one of the biggest problems a great many of us have with Hillary. Despite her considerable talents, there’s a With-Me-Or-Against-Me quality that never seems to go away.

By the way, yesterday I told both of my USC journalism classes about the story that might be in the offing and my students had terrifically smart and insightful things to say during a very lively discussion about how such stories should be best and most ethically handled. I’m proud of each one of them. If they are the future of journalism, we’re in very good shape.

*************************************
Here are some of the more interesting reactions to the Hillary post:

MyDD.….LA Times Top of the Ticket…Ben Smith at Politco….Raw Story, the Wall Street Journal Blog…

I understand Keith Olbermann just mentioned it, but I didn’t hear it.

******************
PS: The editors at Huff Post tell me I should encourage people to DIGG the article. So, I guess, do so if you’re over there and feel so moved.

PPS: Among the reactions that have come in so far to the Huff Post piece, I’m told that there several emails from Clinton staffers who said that, while they weren’t thrilled to see the article, that at least they felt the issue was handled fairly. Whether or not I succeeded (and despite the fact that, as is well known here, I’m an Obama supporter) I tried my damnest to do just that.

Bookmark to:

As WLA commenter Reg has pointed out, today Bruce Springsteen has declared his support of Barack Obama for President.

So, are we supposed to care who this or that celebrity endorses the presidential race? Of course not! What do you take us for???
Unless it’s The Boss doing the endorsing. (I see the news is on the front page of the LA Times website. Normally I’d be critical of such celebrity-related pandering. But, in this case…[see aforementioned point.])

Actually, Springsteen’s statement, posted at his own website, and bannered at Huff Post, was very thoughtful and articulate. To wit:

LIke most of you, I’ve been following the campaign and I have now seen and heard enough to know where I stand. Senator Obama, in my view, is head and shoulders above the rest.

He has the depth, the reflectiveness, and the resilience to be our next President. He speaks to the America I’ve envisioned in my music for the past 35 years, a generous nation with a citizenry willing to tackle nuanced and complex problems, a country that’s interested in its collective destiny and in the potential of its gathered spirit. A place where “…nobody crowds you, and nobody goes it alone.”

At the moment, critics have tried to diminish Senator Obama through the exaggeration of certain of his comments and relationships. While these matters are worthy of some discussion, they have been ripped out of the context and fabric of the man’s life and vision, so well described in his excellent book, Dreams From My Father, often in order to distract us from discussing the real issues: war and peace, the fight for economic and racial justice, reaffirming our Constitution, and the protection and enhancement of our environment.

After the terrible damage done over the past eight years, a great American reclamation project needs to be undertaken. I believe that Senator Obama is the best candidate to lead that project and to lead us into the 21st Century with a renewed sense of moral purpose and of ourselves as Americans.

“Still at the end of every hard earned day people find some reason to believe…”

By the way, Hillary Clinton just received the backing of Salsa icon, Willie Colon.

Bookmark to: