On The Turning Away

It’s self-evident that race is an issue in this election, as in previous ones. Or else in the Dems race we have one candidate trumping his ability to “transcend race” and another accused of playing the race card by the left and the right and everything in between?

Fortunately, some cool heads prevail among the rank and file Dems and self-proclaimed liberals/progressives. And not every media type is given in to the raucous hysteria.

Craig Crawford maybe onto something when he pointed out that the media “borders on mental illness” in their lopsided criticism towards Clinton’s campaign. After all, it’s hard to escape the suspicion that the media’s instigating a Clinton apocalypse by “playing” race card ad nauseam.
(more…)

Perhaps it’s the embarrassment of “Dewey defeats Truman”, the media collectively seems to indulge in a sweeping soul-searching after they scraped the egg off their faces today.

While they begrudge “losing” skepticism over the polls, what’s rarely mentioned is the complicit role they play in the euphoric message of “change” and the giddy anticipation of coronating the messenger. Only after NH voters defied conventional wisdom do pundits come out in droves cautioning against reading too much into it. What happened to the bombardment of bounce?

As to the “phenomenon”, well, it seems even pundits are not sure what to make of it. Some liken the second-year senator from Illinois to Bobby Kennedy, some less given to idealistic rush compare him to Jimmy Carter, while others project hopes of Regan or Clinton - depending on the partisan views - incarnate onto him.
(more…)

It’s interesting to note that the pundits are proven to be wrong about NH primaries. But it’s hard to miss the specious thread that seems to have emerged amid the post-mortems: making the connection that Obama’s loss is “somehow representative of racism and typical for black candidates at any level”.

However, those making snap judgment would do well to heed the minutiae of the polls. A University of New Hampshire poll on the eve of the vote showed 20% of voters “undecided” and another 24% only “leaning” towards one candidate. As happened before, it may well be that polls “overstate the degree of commitment voters have to their vote”. But if today’s media chorus is any guide, that does not seem to dampen the cacophony of accusations of shoddy polling methodologies.
(more…)

GuardianFilms does a great public service by documenting the “paranoia factor” inside the Obama Campaign in NH. Guardian US correspondent Suzanne Goldenberg examines the surge in support for Barack Obama, and the orchestrations of his controlling campaign staff.

What she finds? Well, in a nutshell, they just “want enthusiasm, not discussion (about Obama’s candidacy)”. She was repeatedly rebuffed by Obama volunteers when trying to talk to people at the campaign events. Above all, Goldenberg realizes that for what it’s worth, Sen. Clinton’s perceived style of “secrecy” seems to be the dynamics at Obama camp.

It’s ironic, is it not, that for all the media brouhaha over Obama, the unconventional, uh, “change”, candidate is running a rather conventional campaign after all. “It’s time to turn the page”, but not to ask questions?
(more…)

What kind of progressive John Edwards is if he “pounced on the opportunity to question Clinton’s ability to endure the stresses of the presidency”? The opportunity being Sen. Clinton’s moment of vulnerability yesterday on the campaign trail in NH. Having choked up himself before, how can a “passionate” champion of people be so cruel, let alone patronizing/sexist, towards a female rival?

At any rate, it’s another $400 haircut moment for the self-proclaimed fighter for progressive causes, anti-sexism chiefly among them. The contemptuousness of the quality of his woman rival is less alarming about his blatant opportunism than the man’s character.

The Guardian sums it best: “John Edwards, for his part, can likely be counted on to continue to find opportunity in the perceived weaknesses of others. Reports of Hillary Clinton’s alleged frailty revealed Edwards in all his glory.”
(more…)

It seems what’s missing in the chorus of media singing invariably the praise of a race-blind Iowa is the fact that the state “has never elected a woman in a congressional or gubernatorial election.” How, in this day and age, is it political correct to debate racism but not sexism? Why is it that Sen. Clinton represents Hate in what seemingly super-sour MoDo (ill)defined as a battle between love and hate?

Not to mention the media onslaught on Clinton, as Rachel Maddow, a non-Clinton partisan, said today on MSNBC’s Dan Abrams program that she felt compelled to defend Clinton against the “scrum”. Abrams deserves credit for at least observing, if not taking on, the media hysteria against Clinton. And the British liberal newspaper the Guardian calls out the “cult of Obama”.

What transpired in the last few days says as much about the Right (vast right wing conspiracy, anyone?) that doesn’t love a smart, competent woman as the MSM and its glaring double standard or even sexism. Having watched most of the televised debates, it’d be downright disingenuous if we do not agree with FT’s Clive Crook: “there’s no question that Obama has been given an easy ride.” When Obama made a complete fool of himself over driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants, he got away with it, whereas Clinton was hammered by the press.
(more…)

If the frenzied commentary is to be believed, “change” is all the rage in the running up to New Hampshire primaries. There’s a sudden - and rare - bipartisan embrace of the platitudinous rhetoric. Last night’s ABC/Facebook debate was nothing if not “featured an increasingly silly battle over this magical word.”

After proclaiming he loves “change”, Bill Richardson couldn’t help asking “is experience a leper?” His rhetorical question was arguably the moment of clarity in the debate. Since when has experience become an anathema in the presidential contest? Amid the deafening drumbeat of “the fierce urgency of now”, the true meaning of “change”, to the more level-headed, alas, has been obscured, if not altogether lost, in what some call the “demagoguery of hope”.
(more…)

When it comes to primary politics, the media seems to wallow in a semi-permanent schizoid mood. Few expected, months ago, that an African-American could ever even come close to winning in a 95% white state like Iowa. Meanwhile, Obama has been a favorite of the media for months in their visceral hopes for excitement (of the transcending-race kind) if nothing else.

Lionel Barber, editor of the FT, perhaps best sums up the Obama victory in Iowa: he “fought a great campaign, tactically”. In fact, Obama has “more field offices and - prior to a wave of late arrivals over the past month for Clinton - he had more staff on Iowan ground than any other candidate.” Specifically, Obama “targeted young people” including independents, and defended them vigorously against media “crusade”, albeit brief, against “non-native students at Iowa universities participating”. His mettle apparently reaped dividends last night.
(more…)