Media Conventional Wisdom Shifting Towards Belief Clinton Could Defeat Obama?
There are signs of what could be a shift in the news media conventional wisdom: for the first time in months, some key pundits are hinting and even saying that Senator Barack Obama could lose the Democratic nomination to what has long been described as a seemingly-impossibly behind Senator Hillary Clinton.
These kinds of cracks in the conventional wisdom often signal the beginning of a major shift, totally negating what earlier conventional wisdom steadfastly suggested “had” to be true.
The catalyst: Clinton’s win over Obama in Pennsylvania. Even though it was expected, the recent bad publicity surrounding Obama on several fronts, his campaign being on the defensive, the unrelenting push by Clinton on several fronts, and the realities of how American politics works in the 21st century have started to change some media thinking.
Newsweek’s Eleanor Clift is exceedingly blunt:
I’m beginning to think Hillary Clinton might pull this off and wrestle the nomination away from Barack Obama. If she does, a lot of folks—including a huge chunk of the media—will join Bill Richardson (a.k.a. Judas) in the Deep Freeze. If the Clintons get back into the White House, it will be retribution time, like the Corleone family consolidating power in “The Godfather,” where the watchword is, “It’s business, not personal.”
Not that anyone will be sleeping with the fishes with Hillary in the White House, but with the Clintons it’s business and it’s personal. Just think of all the scores to settle, the grievances to indulge.
Clift details how the Clintons were often at odds with Washington officialdom, which never liked them anyway. She notes how now some conservatives are cheering for her…and not only because they think they can defeat her. She is winning some fans due to her all-encompassing push to win no matter what. She writes:
Now the burden is on Obama to win the next round of primaries on May 6. He has said publicly that Indiana could be the tiebreaker, a prediction he could come to regret. If Clinton can win Indiana, hold Obama to single digits in North Carolina, and then run up a big margin in Kentucky on May 20, where she’s leading in the polls, she could overtake Obama in the popular vote. “We have to win big and lose small,” says an aide. Obama may yet discover his inner Rocky and recast himself now that the media is turning on him. It’s hard to be the next new thing for 15 months, which is how long he’s been running. And it’s time enough for Hillary to win ugly, if that’s what winning takes.
The New York Times’ Bob Herbert is more subtle but he hints at the same inkling of an idea:
Barack Obama is winning, so why does it look like Hillary Clinton is having all the fun?
Senator Obama has been thrown completely off his game by a combination of political attacks (some fair, some foul), a toxic eruption (the volcanic Jeremiah Wright was a gift from the gods to the Clintons and the G.O.P.), and some pretty serious self-inflicted wounds.
You can almost feel the air seeping out of the Obama phenomenon. The candidate and his aides are brainstorming ways to counter the Clinton death-ray machine and regain the momentum. They need to generate some new excitement and enthusiasm, and they need to do it soon.
Despite all the new voters who have been brought into the process, Democrats are filled with anxiety about their prospects in November. A nervous operative told me on Friday: “If we lose this election, it would be like Johnson losing to Goldwater.”
Herbert notes that part of what’s going on is the polarizing nature of the campaign, anger among Democrats but there is a constant:
Their message varies, depending on whether it’s in public or behind the scenes. But the mantra is roughly as follows: Obama won’t win! He can’t win whites. Jeremiah Wright! He can’t win women. He can’t win Hispanics. He’ll lose Jewish voters. Farrakhan! We’ll nuke Iran.
The share of Clinton voters who have been telling exit pollsters that they will not vote for Senator Obama if he wins the nomination is inching toward the red zone. At the same time, there is growing resentment of the Clintons’ tactics among Obama partisans, especially the young and African-Americans.
While he doesn’t say Clinton could well win, the hint is there:
Hillary Clinton may be behind, and she may lose. But she is now widely seen as the tougher of the two candidates, the one who is more resolute, who will fight harder and longer (and, yes, more unscrupulously) to achieve her desired ends.
An edge in toughness is hardly a good quality to cede to your opponent.
….Some Democratic officials who were worried about having Senator Clinton at the top of the ticket in November are now expressing concern about Mr. Obama. Mrs. Clinton’s bar-brawl tactics have raised her negatives sharply, but they’ve also raised doubts about Mr. Obama. Is he a fighter? Is he tough enough to take on the G.O.P.?
One of Senator Obama’s favorite phrases is “the fierce urgency of now.” There is nothing more fiercely urgent for him right now than to reassure voters and superdelegates that an Obama candidacy will not lead to a Democratic debacle in November.
Some Democrats and Obama supporters in general are likely to dismiss Clift’s and Herbert’s columns as them taking the Clinton and/or Republican themes hook, line and sinker. That’s the modus operandi for partisans on both sides: question the motives of those who dare criticize your candidate.
But that’s clearly NOT what is happening here.
What’s happening is that Obama has long said he wants to change the political culture, a goal that many independent voters as well as many Democrats and Republicans would find highly laudable. But you can’t hope to change the political culture unless you’re in a position to change the political culture.
It’s sort of a Catch 22. Obama is going to have to show — and show soon — that his campaign in ideas, tactics, and energy can function in America’s polity — the polity as is. Not the polity as he and others might wish it to be. That means being more nimble, making the case for his candidacy, countering any Clinton charges, effectively answering lingering reservations that constituencies he is having problems with may have about him.
The bottom line reality that he’s facing is that just as Hillary Clinton is not entitled to the Presidency because she’s a Senator and a former first lady, Obama is not entitled to the nomination because his message is hope and change. Even when you do an job interview you have to aggressively overcome lingering objections.
Obama has to do that — and quickly. Because these two writers are now writing sentiment that is lingering “out there” and may increasingly be out there. If it goes “out there” enough so Superdelegates are concerned at a time when Obama doesn’t perform as well as he hopes in upcoming primaries we’ll see what we have seen so much when Campaign 2008 began last year:
The conventional wisdom will be revealed to be not so much conventional wisdom as to have been flavor of the day wisdom — a flavor that could change totally a day later.
And that would be delicious for Hillary Clinton.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
19 Responses to “Media Conventional Wisdom Shifting Towards Belief Clinton Could Defeat Obama?”
[...] Joe Gandelman has an extensive media roundup on the same theme. I still think it’s Obama’s to lose, but… Share and Enjoy: These icons link to [...]
[...] on the media nonsense here. Unless the mainstream media are all super-delegates, this is just silliness. Sure, they want the [...]
Obama's won. It is almost guaranteed he will get around 50% of the remaining pledged delegates, which means Hillary would need over 80% of the uncommitted super delegates to back her. There is no way that is going to happen.
Especially since Obama is building up his own grassroots organization for the general election, and one that Congressional delegates are going to be able to directly tap in to. By the time the last primary rolls around he will have the most important political network for the democrats, as it will contain huge numbers of independents and Republicans that would probably never engage with the DNC directly.
Right now the most important thing is that he shows he is strong enough to keep on going, but do it in a way that doesn't turn off his supporters that are typically apolitical.
dear Joe
I think you are correct here, and I would say that this is another post that should be cross-referenced “Scorched Earth”. The Clinton's are excellent at triangulating; they have split the Democratic voters into pro and anti-Hillary factions, and most Republicans loathe her. In a three way race, The Clinton's usually “win”.
I say “win”, because Bill lost both Houses of Congress, made himself and Hillary and some fairly innocent women into national jokes, and he was impeached.
But he had a Three-way race in bothe election years. Can Hillary really beat a stand-alone candidate? Bill was/is the popular Clinton and he never got anywhere near 50% of the vote.
I would rather take a chance with Obama if I were a Super Delegate. Who wants four more years of Carville and revenge and silly fights and White House Sleepovers for rich people and questionable deals with Bill's Library friends and the diet of daily lies, even if Hillary DOES win?
What a joke… both Eleanor Clift and this website are big time pro Clinton.
Right/Left, at this stage in the game, everyone is telling you how you need to think.
This is nothing but more partisan propaganda.
[...] The Moderate Voice – Domestic and international news analysis, irreverent comments, original reporti… wrote an interesting post today on Media Conventional Wisdom Shifting Towards Belief Clinton Could Defeat Obama?Here’s a quick excerptMedia Conventional Wisdom Shifting Towards Belief Clinton Could Defeat Obama? April 26th, 2008 by JOE GANDELMAN, Editor-In-Chief There are signs of what could be a shift in the news media conventional wisdom: for the first time in months, some key pundits are hinting and even saying that Senator Barack Obama could lose the Democratic nomination to what has long been described as a seemingly-impossibly behind Senator Hillary Clinton. These kinds of cracks in the conventional wisdom often sig [...]
I find it horrifying to watch how the media define and shape political contests and political issues.
They are, in fact, nonstop political ads, swinging in every irresponsible direction.
I don't buy the suggestion that the Internet counters the influence of taditiional media. Blogs regurgitate what the older media folks say, and even criticism or counter arguments just serve to keep the story line reverberating and reverberating.
Politics may be for the morally corrupttable, but the armies of analyst,s, experts and strategists contribute massively to the corruption.
[...] Corrente | Boldly shrill … wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptMedia Conventional Wisdom Shifting Towards Belief Clinton Could Defeat Obama? April 26th, 2008 by JOE GANDELMAN, Editor-In-Chief There are signs of what could be a shift in the news media conventional wisdom: for the first time in months, some key pundits are hinting and even saying that Senator Barack Obama could lose the Democratic nomination to what has long been described as a seemingly-impossibly behind Senator Hillary Clinton. These kinds of cracks in the conventional wisdom often sig [...]
Dear Dave: I just LOVE it when you dismiss the post I took all that time writing as party propagand. You clearly are not a regular reader of TMV. We have various people posting who support some candidates and then people such as myself…i'm all over the place and an independent voter. We have lost readers who support Hillary Clinton due to some of our posts highly critical of them. I've been extremely criticla (and AM) of Bill Clinton. This post was about the conventional wisdom and is not just written off the top of my head…in case you didn't notice I quoted two journalists profusely and noted that this is a shift. There have not been many articles that have said recently that Clinton can win. Your response is quite typical of the response Clinton, Obama and McCain supporters often do: they go after the writer or an entire website if it DARES to print something they do not agree with. Rather than dismiss TMV as a pro-Clinton website (which will be news to many of the pro-Clinton bloggers who emailed me angry over some of our posts critical of the Clintons) the best approach in comments is to stand back and give all of us your take on why Clift and Herbert are wrong. if you think these two articles don't represent what I said they do, then say it. But you did make my day by dismissing this website as just a Clinton propaganda site. i will make sure to copy your comment and send it to Clinton backers and pro-Clinton partisan bloggers who email me in the future.
Go ahead, keep over-analyzing yourselves, hyperventilating, and self-destructing, ideally in the November general election, too. What could be better after Gore's self-destruction in 2000 (Kerry never had a chance to win; that was just stupid anti-war far-left lunacy in 2004) than more Dim self-destruction this November and making McCain repeat his Winner By Default “performance” among the GOP candidates and waddle into the White House with that big grin (a bigger smirk than Dubya has ever shown) on his face? It would be perfectly befitting you kids.
Contrary to what DaveMartin7s says, I thought y'all were in the tank for Obama!
McCain is the default human in this campaign. I'm actually admiring Hillary's Scorpio “It's Alive” resurrection & believe Rush's Operation Chaos might have been the nudge that started a slo-mo avalanche. Whatever, BO just seems to have run out of gas. Happens to all of us.
But Hillary is that energizer bunny who quaffs boilermakers & doesn't stop at any exaggeration—sorta reminds me of her spouse/hubby/Bubba.
Every once in a blue moon, I admire total over-the-top political zaniness like the Clintons exhibit when they're cornered.
Though your article is spot on and excellent, I would say that this was shifting before Pennsylvania.
They were complaining about Obama but, did not have much of anything to go after him with. But, the excuses for Hillary were pumping upwards.
Then, that blogger on Huffpo wrote that piece, which should have been a one day story and they twisted to sound like he was putting people down and went full bore.
They never let it go.
We all know obama was not going to win Pennsylvania but, suddenly the storyline is the comeback kid.
What I do find the worse offense is that this storyline is prolonging belief in Clinton supporters that she actually has a chance. I find that cruel. She cannot win this and most in congress regard Obama as the likely nominee.
This deluding and lying to her supporters to create conflict and drama and to try to make the race go on all summer is irresponsible and exactly why the media no longer works.
She's still raising money and her campaign still owes her five million bucks.
Of course the pundits are making the case for Hillary staying in the race.
They don't want anyone to take their nice, shiny toy away. It's much more fun talking aout Hillary versus Obama than it is talking about … oh, Iraq, or the falling dollar, or the growing dissatisfaction with the economy. Those are HARD to cover, and you might actually make a mistake if you aren't paying close enough attention to the data.
But in covering the primaries – you can make crap up, and they'll and pick you up early Sunday morning so you can get into the studio and sit around the table on Sunday morning with all the other people making things up that they'll never be held accountable for. What a deal!
[...] Now comes the sliding poll numbers, the refusal to debate, the statement by Howard Dean, and the nervousness of the superdelegates regarding electability in [...]
Hillary looks like an amateur at triangulating, when you take a look at Obama 's slippery moves, without the Kool-Aid-colored glasses.
We Illinois progressives sent Obama to the U.S. Senate, where he promptly joined the Joe Lieberman wing of the Democratic Party.
http://progressivepunch.yvod.com/members.jsp?me…
He’s not a progressive.
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?Ite…
But he’s a master at pretending to be one.
http://www.blackagendareport.com/index.php?opti…
“Obama is a company man.”
http://www.blackagendareport.com/index.php?opti…
“Barack Obama Inc.: The birth of a Washington machine”
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2006/11/0081275
Friend of Exelon
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/02/03/america/…
His economic advisers are very conservative, from the University of Chicago-Milton Friedman school of economics.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080211/fraser
His voting record is pro-business.
http://zmagsite.zmag.org/Feb2007/street0207.html
His voting record is pro-war.
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?Ite…
He glorifies American imperialism.
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?Ite…
He flip-flopped on the Palestinians and Israel, and now is AIPAC-approved.
http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/columns/2…
He has shown repeatedly what good friends he is with anti-gay African American preachers.
http://direland.typepad.com/direland/2007/11/ob…
His chief political adviser is the Daley machine’s chief strategist.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/01/magazine/01ax…
Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com
And here I was thinking that Obama is entitled the nomination because he won the primaries.
Sorry, but I don't buy the “sky is falling for Obama” line. Consider a couple things here:
1. A vote for Clinton is not necessarily a vote against Obama. Most – in fact, I bet over 90% – of Clinton voters will go to Obama in November. They won't all say that right now because they're emotionally vested in their candidate, but when Clinton supporters start to see what kinds of thugs line up behind McCain and the GOP, they'll remember the stakes: judges, Iraq, the economy. I hated John Kerry in the primary and even voted for Edwards in Illinois long after the primary was settled. But it didn't take long for me to be reminded of the stakes in the general election. Despite McCain's “maverick” image, expect the familiar partisan lines emerge again, with perhaps a wider gray area this time on the edge. Most of these “Clinton or McCain” voters are not in that gray area.
2. This race has been over since Super Tuesday. Clinton keeps on running because she hasn't been mathematically eliminated yet. That's her right. But as she runs, she loses more and more of her base (more in some demographics than others) and Obama retains his. The math is impossible for Hillary: she needs 74% of remaining superdelegates and victories in the remaining primaries far beyond what any polling has shown (which includes a 35-point victory in KY).
3. The media is driving this more than anything else. They ran out of ideas to talk about and since Clinton is ruthless about getting the nomination she is playing culture war crap to keep working class white from flocking to the inevitable Democratic nominee. The media, of course, is feeding this.
4. Obama HAS hit a rough patch. But it's only partly because of Wright or Bittergate or PA. Where I see it his oft-repeated stump speech. He needs new material, not just to energize voters at rallies (who act as if they've never heard the stump speech), but to liven things among You Tube watchers. In January and February he rolled off a stunning array of inspirational speeches. Ironically, his best of all was his Philadelphia race speech, which was in response to the Wright controversy. But since then, he hasn't really come up with new material. That may be because of his Bob Casey-style strategy of talking bread and butter to voters and not high rhetoric. But he needs to intersperse his two styles. When in KY, for example, give a top-notch piece of rhetoric at the University of Kentucky, but when in Paducah talk nuts and bolts about the economy. Either way, it's the speeches that have gotten a bit stale more than anything else.
5. While most Democratic voters will rally behind the nominee, there will still be some serious base-consolidation to do. For Obama, it means two major groups: older white working class women and Latinos. I won't mention Clinton because if she were to steal the nomination through superdelegate coup she would lose the black and young vote and get crushed in all those swing states that she seems to forget have a whole lot of black voters in.
So let's put all this media talk in context. They love a horse race. And they're amazed at Hillary Clinton's mastery of passive aggressiveness – playing the victim and then driving in the dagger whenever possible.
[...] [...]