January 27, 2008
Eason Jordan's legacy and The New Rules - UPDATED
Updated at the bottom of the post
The "Live by Identity Politics, Die by Identity Politics" bloodletting in the Democrat primaries has been fairly entertaining. No more so than watching the Clintons doing their patented slash-n-burn politicking and giggling at the reactions of Democrats who are shocked, SHOCKED by it. It was A-Ok when done against Republicans and bimbos, but One Of Our Own?? Oh the horror!
This hangwringing over karma results in some interesting reactions. Some no less than jaw-dropping self-parody (really too giggle inducing to be labeled nascent fascism as it would otherwise be deserved)
But Barack Obama has an opportunity here to make these new rules, as they pertain to him, lasting. And so does the progressive blogosphere. I have long stated that Obama is a Media Darling, and indeed it is one of the main reasons I tepidly support him for the nomination. Here are some of the rules that Obama and progressives should look to enforce through to the General Election:
1. Rezko is a nonissue and bringing it up is a slimy personal attack on Obama. This one has the virtue of being true. Let’s get that enforceable against John McCain and the other Republicans.
2. Discussions of experience and youth are, at the least, vaguely racist, and a personal attack. When a candidate touts experience or points to Obama’s lack of it, they are expressly arguing for a return to the past as opposed to looking to the future. It means they are opposed to change. Indeed, it expressly means for Republicans that they want to continue the policies of the Bush Administration. For Republicans, this also has the virtue of largely being true. The GOP field is indeed basically arguing for a continuation of Bush policies in most areas - tax cuts permanent, continuatio of the Iraq Debacle, less government regulation, etc.
3. What Obama Meant. Any review of Obama statements or past votes is subject to an explanation by Obama of what he REALLY meant. Any criticism of Obama’s statements which do not take into account Obama’s clarifications and explanations of what he REALLY meant are unfair personal attacks and the attacker is a “liar” who will say and do anything to get elected.
4. Obama’s attacks are always fair and merited. Any suggestion otherwise is, at the least, vaguely racist.
Can we get these rules enforced in the Media in a General Election? Let’s hope so if Obama is the nominee.
(h/t Dan Collins at PW)
Adding on to the above where big tent democrats have got to figure out how to enforce on the media the rules that Barry Obamachrist is beyond negative coverage, is word that CNN has already signed on to those rules:
I've just learned that CNN has told top Dem strategists James Carville, Paul Begala, and Robert Zimmerman -- who are CNN mainstays but are all Hillary supporters -- that they will not be doing any more political analysis on the network until the Democratic primary has reached a conclusion.
I'm also told that this move came after the Obama campaign repeatedly complained to high level officials at CNN about the presence of Carville and Begala on the network.
After I reached him today and pointed out that he hadn't been on CNN in some time, Carville confirmed to me that the network had told him that he wouldn't appear until the Dem primary is resolved.
Of course they'll be returning to their "analyst" spots post-primary season where they can properly "analyze" the Republicans as per the new rules.
Objectively, of course, from the most Trusted Name in News.
UPDATE Oh, looky, Big Tent Democrat takes umbrage at my post
Earth to Darleen, my "rules" are not serious.Not noticing, of course, that CNN is already playing by his "offered in jest" (yeah, that's the ticket) rules. CNN hasn't cautioned their "analysts" or decided to run a small on-screen disclaimer under their names, they have removed the Hillary cheerleaders completely at Barry Obama's urging. No problems, obviously, with their tactics, just who they are applied against. I have to laugh, too, at BTD's assertion of MSM "hatred of the Clintons." If Barry hadn't become a serious contender, they'd have continued along in the same HRC-inevitableness with continuing, loving coverage of First Gentleman Billy Jeff. The MSM runs by ratings first, partisanship second. No scandal, no controversy then run the puffpieces on all-things Progressive.
And how much is BTD's tongue really lodged in his/her cheek?
Do not get me wrong (5.00 / 1) (#17) by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 03:00:48 PM ESTIndeed.
If he is the nominee, I hope he gets the kid gloves treatment, I just do not think he will.
Posted by Darleen at January 27, 2008 10:07 AM
Bit of a tin ear for irony, eh Darleen?
Posted by: Josh at January 28, 2008 08:18 AM
it's not irony when it is a wishlist
Posted by: Darleen at January 28, 2008 11:05 AM
Um, CNN getting rid Carville and Begala as commentators because they're too closely affiliated with the Clinton campaign? That would be called *journalistic ethics*. The only shame is that CNN had to be prompted to do so.
I guess watching too much FOX "News" must undermine the ability to recognize the ability to discern ethical behavior when presented with it, but ...
Also, yes, a 3rd person pointing this out: irony/joke/tongue-in-cheek. Obviously.
Posted by: Bob at January 28, 2008 11:18 AM
Er, no. He's saying that the media is currently being soft on Obama and hard on Hillary, and that this treatment will not continue after the primary. He doesn't think there's any chance the "rules" will be applied after the primary is over. It must be confusing to go through life taking everything people say at face value.
Posted by: Josh at January 28, 2008 11:48 AM