Obama and his Media Campaign = FUCKING Brilliant!

[FrenchieCat]

Sorry for the expletive in my headline, but there was not another word that I could think of to give that extra oomph to my point.

There are many reasons why this campaign will be studied for years to come regardless of the outcome, and the handling of the media by this campaign, will be one of them.

But, it is important to put the entire situation in clear perspective when reviewing this campaign marvel and its obvious effectiveness.



Starting back last year, January 2007:
Hillary Clinton and her 20 year old machine; the Grande Dame of the Democratic party establishment with contacts, money and favors to call on, had been rumored as the unannounced candidate for a couple of years already (in fact, they were talking about her candidacy even as John Kerry was still running against Bush).

She started at the top of the heap, or at the very least, the 50 yard line of a 100 yard field. Name recognition at 100% and a former President as her biggest endorser who had left office with a 60%+ approval rating. She was constantly discussed by the pundits on every political show as the presumptive nominee for the Democrats. Her poll numbers were consistently sky high!

The press was so positive that many of us who were exposed to it month after month just resigned ourself to her inevitability even while supporting other candidates. Other candidates were somewhat mentioned, but they were all on the periphery. Obama only started receiving press when he beat Hillary in her fund raising, but only because the press could not rationalize why they wouldn't take an interest in that. In addition, back in early and mid 2007, Obama was drawing crowds in the thousand everywhere he went, but still couldn't get the same heavy national exposure for it in the manner that Hillary was being covered, simply because she was Hillary. He got the "side" national media which was nice and polite.

Starting back on the night of the Iowa Caucuses, January 3rd:
Barack Obama and his brand new organization; as the most neophyte of the Democratic candidate slate, without contact, money or favors to call on, i.e., started at the bottom of the heap, or at the -20 yard line of a 100 yard field. Obama had not much name recognition (and his was a "funny name" not seen as conducive to national politics) but from those who watched the Democratic National Convention in 2004. Voters had little knowledge of who this guy was or what he had done, and no big "names" lining up behind him. The press made it clear that if he didn't have the money, they wouldn't pay attention to him. And so, he raised it. Oprah endorsed him, and then the National press did look at this guy and say, uh? But they knew that Oprah's endorsement couldn't win a presidential race, and so they covered it (almost to a point where it was starting to backfire on Obama). But then, the press made it clear that if he didn't win a state, he would be a goner. So Barack Obama came in first in Iowa, and won it clearly by 8 points. Hillary, by contrast came in 3rd place. In the press world, that meant she had come in last.

Controlling the media -
Barack Obama has controlled the media in a way that, in an age of national media monopoly, one must take note. He did not rely on the established national media to get to where he'd gotten to on the day of the Iowa caucus. In fact, many of us were genuinely surprised that Obama came in first in Iowa. Many supporters of other campaigns simply didn't even have a clue.

The reason for his success in Iowa, as well as to this point is that Obama had been working the media in quite a different way than people have imagined.

These days, the national press calls Sen. Obama "aloof" and hard to reach. Now, this doesn't mean that he is not nice to the media, simply that he doesn't go out of his way to either alienate them or to kiss their ass. He basically treats them no different from the way that he deals with his very own supporters. That is to say, he doesn't panders to them (they are granted no special access at his rallies than his supporters) nor does he goes out of his way to manipulate them.

Instead, Barack has gone by way of the Print media, the local media, and most importantly of all, the Internet media. He has been doing this since he announced. Whether it was getting on the covers of Men's Vogue, Vibe Magazine, and an assortment of others, it was one way of getting his face and his name out to those who don't follow politics, the exact voters that would normally vote for Hillary Clinton without knowing any better. In addition, Barack started cultivating the tech media, i.e., facebook, youtube, etc. This media is cheap and easy and links to a generation of voters who, again, didn't really follow politics much.

In going around the National Media, Obama was able to shield himself from the national press controlling him or his message. Rather than them critiquing his every move, the media made not many comments and chose not to take him that seriously. By the time Obama had won Iowa, the media had been caught off guard, and they now had no choice but to cover him, and to cover him big.

I'm here to tell you that this national media, understanding what Obama had been able to accomplish although he had started out with so little, were somewhat in awe of him; deservingly so, IMO.

Here they were, scratching their collective asses, trying to figure out how this had happened!
It was Edwards who was supposed to come in first in Iowa, and Hillary was supposed to easly win New Hampshire instead, and go on to Nevada to blow Edwards out of the water before they could get to North Carolina. Super Tuesday was going to be the end of it. and that was that.

And so it goes, that the National Media are now at a disadvantage in controlling Obama's "image", because Obama keeps doing things that the press doesn't plan on. What you need to know is that the national media, just like Hillary, never counted on having to report so much Obama News:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fZHou18Cdk

and

http://disembedded.wordpress.com/2008/02/24/texas-students-forced-to-march-seven-miles-to-vote-for-obama/

and

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4842460

and

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4842783

The point is that beyond superb organization and having made provision for plan A & B & C in the primaries, Obama has been able to control his media to his benefit a great deal.

Contrast that to Hillary making no plans other than half assing her way through Iowa, depending on New Hampshire and Nevada, and then sweeping Super Tuesday no matter what might happen in South Carolina.

Now, Hillary Clinton her campaign and her supporters are calling media foul, because as far as she's concerned, she gotten the short end of the stick on the coverage end of things.....only because the media is reporting the truth of the matter that Hillary got hosed by a neophyte (and that should be the damn news).

Conveniently, what she fails to remember is that, she's only gotten that short drift since Iowa....because before Iowa, it was all about Hillary Clinton, and everyone else was just an accessory to provide her with a bit of competition.

But make no mistake, the media is not against Hillary Clinton, it is just that they had not planned to encounter a political phenomenon that they aren't used to dealing with. In other words, they are not quite sure what to do to stop the train, that apart for some earned praise here and there, they really had no real hand in creating. It's harder to tear down what you didn't make.

[AtomicKitten]

1. Obama as it turns out is a brilliant tactical strategist.

He deserves all his success because he has put his nose to the grindstone and worked for it. He planned from his early 20s how to get sh*t done on a grassroots level. He knows precisely what he is doing.

K&R :)

[Riley133]

44. Let's not forget his campaign manager! nt

[niceypoo]

72. I beg to differ...

He hasn't done anything and instead has the media doing his dirty work for him. Obama supporters, and the media, are doing to Hillary what the Bush campaign did to Kerry and Gore in 2000 and 2004. Bush claimed to be, 'above the fray,' while endless misery was heaped on his rivals by his supporters and the media, all in his name. Obama supporters in the media have taken the baton of Clinton hating from the Repubicans of the 1990s and ran with it, all in Obamas name. It is turning the Democratic party into a sewer as Obama supporters and the media join republicans in a blanket party on Hillary and her family.

Obama supporters have a pack mentality, all this hope talk is a bunch of nonsense, actions speak louder than words.

[AtomicKitten]

83. Your sniveling is distracting you from reality.

[mattclearing]

2. Agreed.

Nice to see that you've not followed the good General to the Clinton camp. I actually think Clark, or failing him, Webb, would make excellent VP choices for Obama. He definitely needs to close the national security gap with his running mate.

[FrenchieCat]

4. Love the General......Hillary, not so much.

I do think that Obama will need that shield against McCain, but Hillary is the one that has the real problem against McCain....because her message of experience no longer applies. That's a bigger problem than Democrats focused on the primaries and who are supporting Hillary will admit. And again, I don't know if the Hillary campaign even know how to deal with the huge problem of Hillary having been molded in McCain's image in terms of "experience" and "CIC from day one" mantel. This is dangerous for us Democrats. Why vote for the CIC lite, when you can vote for the CIC hero?

Even Hillary's Telephone ad was a direct rip off from McCain's campaign.

See McCain's Telephone ad made earlier last year: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPadP7eAO9Y&eurl=http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/leslie_savan/2008/02/daisy_chain.html

[BringBigDogBack]

5. well said.

Thanks for the post as usual, FC. :thumbsup:

[FrenchieCat]

10. Welcome......

Talking about plagiarism.......she's got her irony! :mad:

[MindMatter]

34. Clark as VP does become an interesting proposition

Clearly Clark has long-standing loyalties to Bill Clinton, so right now, it makes an awkward question. My hope is for a clear blowout on Tuesday so that the Clintons will end this thing now. Once that is done, a Clark VP could be a very real possibility after a suitably brief mourning period.

Clark's positives are very high. He is handsome and smart. He has extensive experience in the military and on the world stage politically. The knock on him before was that he didn't have adequate political experience to be President. I think almost everybody would be comfortable with him as VP, and if circumstances forced him to step into the Presidency, most people would be OK with that. He is young enough that he could be a viable successor to Obama in 2016.

I don't want to get the cart before the horse. I'm just saying this could be a great move, and one that would quickly unite the party.

[my2sense]

3. Excellent Analysis! n/t

[quantass]

6. Great Writeup FrenchieCat! -- Obama is a genuine one-of-a-kind!

[FrenchieCat]

11. Which is why I'm wondering why, if Hillary was right, and the media was against her

like she likes to say over and over again....why they are not asking what exactly is in her 35 years of experience that makes her be able to answer the phone and be ready from "Day One".

If you notice, that just accept that at face value....which is why her whining is nothing but propaganda.

[quantass]

55. K&R

[ellisonz]

7. O-BAM-A!

[Skidmore]

8. You nailed it, Frenchiecat. I'd just add that it's especially

rich that now Obama's the candidate with the money, and the media gravitates to where the money is because they believe it to be their due. I'm loving that he puts his money into ground operations before it goes to the media markets.

[riverwalker]

9. You hit the nail on the head.

"By the time Obama had won Iowa, the media had been caught off guard, and they now had no choice but to cover him, and to cover him big.

I'm here to tell you that this national media, understanding what Obama had been able to accomplish although he had started out with so little, did put them somewhat in awe of him; deservingly so, IMO. Here they were, scratching their asses, trying to figure out how this had happened."

[still_one]

12. Absolutely right, and that is what it is going to take to win the general election /nt

[Window]

13. K/R.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[caseycoon]

15. K&R Great post FrenchieCat! n/t

[Carolina]

16. Hey Frenchie, your OP and follow-up posts

are absolutely brilliant and true!

Ready one day one has proven to be anything but and I too have been wondering when the big bad media was going to challenge her on what exactly comprised those 35 years (20 as First Lady).

Also, what of her alleged fighting spirit and leadership? Seems more like wimpazoid Bush followship these past 7 years. I mean seriously she can get her knickers in a knot over some campaign literature but NEVER showed such outrage about Bush, the war, Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, Patriot Acts I & II,
loss of habeas corpus...

I truly can't stand her and had tuned out of politics at first precisely because the media had annointed HER. But I got energized when I realized that we the people were thumbing our noses at Ms. BushLite and the media. I am a later convert to the Obama train and thrilled about it

His tactical success and the manner in which he has run his campaign and responded to the attacks from Shrillary, McInsane and Shrub speak volumes about his ability to run the nation!

[MindMatter]

17. I'm not sure "control" is the word

I agree with your basic premise that Obama's success was created in the new media world. I don't see him controlling most of that. I believe he has been successful in positioning the WHOLE establishment, including the old media fortress, as being fundamentally against the average American's interests.

It is a grass roots message at a time when the new media (youtube, facebook, blogs, etc) was reaching a critical mass that is seriously pushing the old media aside. The old media (Tim Russert et al) is fighting heroically to try to appear relevant, but we should observe that just about every piece of the old media these days cites from the new media. Whether that is CNN featuring the latest blog posts or O'Reilly railing about something that appeared on Koz or Huffingtonpost. They are struggling to try to remain relevant -- and losing the battle.

That is really what is happening here, I think. It is a case of perfect timing on Obama's part. He didn't create the circumstances, but he has used them brilliantly.

It also helped that he is black. I know that may seem an odd thing to say. But this whole thing has been about getting big momentum at the right time -- momentum so big that the old media cannot ignore it. Black folks have been cut out of the system for so long that there was huge pent-up demand for this moment. Nowadays those stadiums of 20,000 people may represent a good cross section of America, but the early push was largely from the black community.

However it happened, Obama was able to create the aura of "The train is moving, y'all get aboard." If the old media was waiting for some ass kissing and a place in the first class cabin, they figured out that wasn't going to happen, which led to a stampede to try to jump on the moving train -- again so that they could still maintain the appearance that they remain relevant.

I don't see how any of this was unfair to Clinton. If she had filled up a few stadiums with 20,000 supporters, the old media would have been more than happy to carry on with their story line that she was inevitable. They were much happier with that story. It is right in their comfort zone -- and no running to catch moving trains necessary.

[FrenchieCat]

58. You are right......

Obama's positioning.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

18. His Campaign Has Been Quite Impressive. I've Been Pleasantly Surprised Throughout.

I had my doubts at first, but now I'm pretty solidly convinced that he can more than handle the RW attack machine in the GE, if he's our nominee.

[Evergreen Emerald]

19. The media is attacking Clinton at every turn and swooning over Obama

It is not HIS tactic that is winning. It is the propaganda machine.

[indimuse]

20. "The media is attacking Clinton at every turn and swooning over Obama"..

until they don't...MSM has already decide when this charade stops and starts to attack the same "One" they built up.

[MindMatter]

25. I believe that is a fundamental misunderstanding

These guys are followers. Of course GE, Murdoch, and Fox have an agenda. But most of the old media is just trying to look like they are still relevant to something.

Used to be that the media established relevance by investigating stories and truly educating the public. They haven't done that for 30 years in any significant way. Today, the only way they can appear relevant is to be close to the interests they see as winning.

Obama's campaign is a grass roots thing. We all have to work hard over the next 8 months to make sure the grass roots energy is so obvious to the MSM that they don't dare ignore it. And if they do, it really may not matter this time. The Obama campaign may very well prove to be the tipping point that makes it clear to all that the old media just doesn't matter much anymore.

A question for anybody here? When was the last time you sat down and watched a half hour 6PM daily news program on one of the major networks. I know I haven't watched any of those things for 15 years. Are they even aired anymore? I honestly don't know.

[MindMatter]

21. Nonsense. They are all followers.

The old media doesn't set any agendas anymore, if they ever did. They are not in front of any trends. They never raised a peep about Bush during his first 4 years of insanity after 9-11. They still give Hillary plenty of running room to make her fear mongering case.

Show me one example where anybody in the old media has challenged her claims of leadership experience. That's whit she is building her whole campaign around. It is about 98% bogus and has gone completely unchallenged by the old media.

I'd say they have given her more than a fair shot. But in the end, they simply cannot ignore 11 wins in a row and arena after arena filled with 20,000 supporters. They tried to ignore it, but it got away from them.

[Evergreen Emerald]

23. you have to have your head in the sand not to see the bias

The followers are the ones who still, despite the years of lies, take what the media says at face value. The followers are the ones who, knowing that they are propaganda, cheer when they attack a democrat because it favors their candidate.

There was a time when we refused to support the MSM because of the obvious media bias.

One example? Look at the last debate and the treatment Clinton received. Look at the way the stories are written with bias in what they choose to run, the context, and what they choose to remain silent about.

[MindMatter]

27. I don't see a strong bias

In the debate they ambushed Obama with the Farrakhan endorsement thing. They gave Hillary 15 minutes to try to make some point about health care. They never challenged any of her inflated claims of leadership superiority. They never forced her to address her position on the Iraq war or to explain why we didn't hear a peep out of her on that subject for the first 4 years of the way.

I just don't see where she has any complaints. For the most part, they tossed softballs to both of them.

When one candidate has one 11 contests in a row, filling stadiums with 20,000 people in city after city, and raising $50,000,000 a month from a base of 1,000,000 donors, don't expect the press to go against that. They are genetically programmed to end up on the winning side. Maybe that is wrong, but that's what has become of our MSM the past 30 years, so don't blame Obama for that. Hillary benefited from those same genetics for 2 years while they ordained her as the inevitable candidate.

[Evergreen Emerald]

30. They did not allow her to finish a sentence without argument

The form of the Farrakhan question was a softball. Look closer MindMatter. They helped Obama shout "Racism!" to win SC when there was no racism. They attacked Bill Clinton and shut him up. They constantly give Obama a leg up.

They suggest that Clinton is "negative" while hiding the stuff that Obama does. His is the most negative campaign of all.

Anything done in, around, or near the Clinton campaign, even if the source is the drunk in the alley will be front page news. Obama can call Clinton a liar and suggest that she killed Bhutto and he gets a free pass.

[Joshua N]

81. There was racism in South Carolina.

[Chisox08]

74. The media is so anti-Hillary

And at the debates they absolutly fell in love with Obama. They only asked Clinton the tough questons and only asked if Obama wants a pillow, was he comfortable and would he like more water.

:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:

[Avalux]

24. Clinton's campaign is to blame for the media coverage.

They aren't quick to get information to the reporters covering the campaign because they're not well-organized. Obama's on the other hand, is constantly feeding information to reporters.

It's all about who's running the better campaign.

[Recursion]

26. That's silly. The media only FINALLY stopped giving Clinton a pass this weekend...

...when a reporter finally asked, "exactly what experience with foreign crises do you have?", which apparently was a question the campaign did not even have an answer for, because there was a long pause and some fumbling about being on different senate committees.

I'll note also that by my count, none of the threads today asking that same question ("What crises has Clinton actually managed?") have had any responses giving examples (except for one facetious reply of "Bill").

Face it: the media have given your candidate an incredible free ride for the past year or so by absolutely refusing (until this weekend) to ask the very basic question: "ok, what is all this experience you're talking about? What have you really done?" It's been asked once, now, and the campaign didn't respond. I do hope the media will continue in this direction and actually ask some substantive questions of Senator Clinton rather than simply typing up the latest press releases her campaign puts out.

[Evergreen Emerald]

28. ohmygod. To believe that Clinton has not had it tough with the media

you would have to have your head in the sand.

The slant of the stories, what is chosen to hightlight and what is chosen to hide all play a part in the propaganda. The fact is that those on DU, who before this election all agreed that the media was propaganda and unfair to democrats now sing the praises of the media--only because they give Obama a free pass.

Amazing.

[Recursion]

29. Well a lot of us feel she got a free ride for a year

Obama had to do an end-run around the national press all last fall. And the media, since the beginning, has taken Senator Clinton's absurd "35 years of experience" claim at face value and until this weekend never once probed for what substance may or may not be behind that facade.

[Evergreen Emerald]

32. Face value?

They attacked her relentlessly! Don't you recall that first Russert Debate? She was attacked non-stop. And it was justified because Russert said she was the front runner and should be able to take the hits...so she did.

But, the last Russert debate, they again softballed Obama--and he is the front runner.

Double standard.

[Recursion]

33. I don't recall any attacks

I want you to take a moment and read that again, because this is a fundamental disconnect here, and I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt about your sincerity so I'd like you to give me the same.

I've heard for 2 months now, over and over again, that Clinton was "attacked" in the debates. I didn't see it. I thought she didn't handle questions very well and in a larger sense never came up with a coherent narrative for her campaign to frame those answers in.

What sorts of questions were you considering "attacks"?

[Evergreen Emerald]

37. I suggest that you look at the first debate hosted by Russert

It was obvious that his goal was to take her down. The questions, if not to her, were about her.

I understand that many hate clinton and therefore love it when the media attacks. But, it is obvious that she is not getting a fair shake in the media. There is no level playing field.

And what is astonishing, is that despite the constant negative treatment, she is neck and neck with obama who has been given a leg-up constantly.

[Recursion]

38. Please, give me examples. I saw that debate

What sort of questions are you considering attacks?

[Evergreen Emerald]

40. The whole debate. The WHOLE debate

save for a few moments, was centered on attacking Clinton. Remember, even Richardson said it. Edwards and Obama were given Clinton on a silver platter.

You have to go review it. The tone, the questions, the constant attacks. Under the guise of "front runner status."

And yet, the last debate who was the front runner? Not given the same treatment.

I do not have the debate in front of me, but if you truly want to know, go review it.

[Recursion]

41. You're the one making the claim

Hell, give me any question from any debate that was an attack on Clinton. I've seen mostly softball questions to everybody and Clinton not answering them very well.

[Evergreen Emerald]

43. You and I must be talking about a different debate

CAuse the one I saw was so ugly. That was when I knew that Clinton did not have a shot, because she was running against the propaganda machine that has been attacking her and her husband for a decade.

A shame that people refuse to recognize it. The fundament of democracy is a free press. And if we have nothing but propaganda, we are doomed. That is how Bush got to where he is, and that is how Obama will be elected.

[Yael]

45. The disconnect here is that dmesg is talking about the actual debate

and you are superimposing the SNL skit over it.

Apples and oranges.

:P

[Evergreen Emerald]

49. No. I am talking about the FIRST debate with Russert. Not the LAST

one. I am talking about the one where he handed Clinton on a silver platter to Edwards and Obama who were ugly. It was a pile-on.

[FrenchieCat]

51. What is amazing is that you ignore 1/2 of my op.....

Hillary started out with a clear advantage and it was pounded in the heads of the Democratic Electorate from DAY ONE that Hillary would be our nominee; this was the MSM's message to us for a very long time.

For you to believe that Obama should be the one that gets negative coverage for what he has been able to achieve makes me wonder just how you analyze media bias. It is as though it would have been OK for the media to have trashed Obama and not recognize his amazing feats. While at the same time you don't seem to see that the media still hasn't gone after Clinton much more than the obvious rope that she hung herself with. They still haven't asked the big questions of Hillary that are sure to come if she were the nominee; chiefly, what's all of this experience you keep referring to?

Until the media asks this question of Hillary, then you cannot, with a straight face, holler Media Bias against Hillary Clinton.

[Evergreen Emerald]

54. suggesting that Hillary is the front runner and then attacking her relentlessly is not

giving her a clear advantage--no matter how you twist it.

[cameozalaznick]

64. Answer me this Evergreen

If the situation were reversed and Obama had lost 11 contests in a row... ELEVEN! What would the press be saying about his? According to Chuck Todd over on MSNBC, "he'd be toast." What do you think?

[Recursion]

56. Please tell me what you're talking about

What did they ask that gets you so riled up? I mostly saw pretty fluffy and softball questions to everybody. I agree with the complaint that the media have for the most part not asked Obama for concrete specifics but I also feel the same way about Clinton; nobody has asked her in what actual way her past has prepared her to be President. It's simply been put forward, unquestioned, that it has. That's why I think there's a media bias towards her.

[goclark]

39. Whatever

His message was clear to us from day one ~

We're Fired Up and Ready to Go! :bounce:

[BumRushDaShow]

22. Kick...

:kick:

[ElsewheresDaughter]

31. ~ * ~

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77XqG8p6-GE

[TheDoorbellRang]

35. I can tell you why HOPE reasonates with me as a middle-aged white woman

So many of us had become cynics during these past Bush years, and with good reason. One of the turning points for me was the whole gay marriage debacle. I remember when the RW foamers first started going on about the "gay agenda" ad nauseum I was puzzled. I really thought that Americans were better than that. Why shouldn't LGBT folks have the same legal rights as anyone else? So I was a little amused at first that anyone thought this could even be an issue. Let me just add that I personally had no stake in this battle, so I felt I was looking at the whole issue as just your average rural American (I lived in Missouri at the time) and thought my average rural neighbors would be just as shoulder-shrugging as I in the attempt to deny rights to this segment of our citizenry. Boy was I wrong. When the so-called marriage amendment started passing in state after state I was dumbfounded, then disappointed, then depressed that such bigotry could prevail. It became just another milestone on the road to cynicism I've been on.

Last year I waited for Gore to get in the race. When he didn't, I looked at Biden and Dodd, completely skipping the "top tier" in my first appraisal: Clinton has never demonstrated anything like political courage in her sojourn at the senate, and her fundraiser with Murdoch last year and Bill's coziness with Bush, Sr. were huge red flags to me. She has been the LAST person on my list of candidates. Edwards and Obama both struck me as political lightweights. I foresaw a Carter redux with Edwards; even if he was sincere (which I doubted), how could he even begin to get any policies enacted with the hostile RWers fighting him every step of the way. Almost the same problem with Obama, except I never doubted his sincerity, AND he was African American. Nice he was running, I thought, but a snowball's chance in hell of winning in THIS country as we now know it.

Then Iowa happened. Now, I lived in Dubuque several years ago, at a time when folks there joked about being like ivory soap -- 99.9% pure. Ha Ha. :eyes: So when Iowa chose Obama over the other candidates, you could have knocked me over with a feather. Was this the same America that had thrown LGBT people under the bus? What was going on here?

I researched Obama's record and was impressed -- he's been very good getting good legislation enacted that benefits everyone, right or left. It's like he said the other night in the debate when they threw the "most liberal senator" tag at him. Why would ethics reform be considered a liberal trait, he answered. That is something that everyone in America wants. Then he started with the campaign that had previously been invisible in the media but now was blowing Hillary's machine out of the water. It's been a thing of beauty to watch these past two months.

Obama has a unique ability to get Americans to look at the problems facing us without standing on different sides of a political fence. Just look at the difference in how he and Hillary present themselves: Hillary emphasizes how awesome it would be to have a woman as president. If anything, Obama merely notes that he is of mixed ethnicity -- he doesn't go on about how awesome it would be to have the first black president. Thus, Hillary's approach automatically embraces women while subconciously excluding men; Obama sends the message that we're all in this together.

Obama's not perfect in my eyes, but by golly I've got HOPE again for the first time in a long time that this canny, intelligent, ethical dude can get America back on track.

Just sayin' :hi:

[FrenchieCat]

47. Thank you for that post.

lotsa of great insight in your words.

[TheDoorbellRang]

50. Thanks, FrenchieCat

It's been quite the wild ride here in GDP since January. I've really enjoyed your posts with all the info on Obama. Right now I'm looking forward to some resolution by March 5th and joining forces against McCain et al. :toast:

[gristy]

48. kick

:hi:

[Scurrilous]

36. K & R

:thumbsup:

[Riley133]

42. You're right. This article on lobbyists and special interests money

was fascinating to me in the regard that you posted.

"Contributions made by the various industry sectors tell the real story in a presidential race."

http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/obamas_lobbyist_line.php

[bigbrother05]

46. Excellent post and some excellent responses

[iilana X]

52. You are right. Obama has handled the media quite well thus far.

Right now the media wants nothing more than a bloody fight. They don't care who wins just as long as the blood photographs very red.

McCain isn't very exciting he's hardly a debater. The media is going to try to liven things up a bit in the general so it's good that Obama has the media saavy. He's going to need it.

[Major Hogwash]

53. Sneaking one of his writers onto the staff of SNL was a real coup.

It goes without saying, first they whine, and they whine on SNL.

LoL

[FrenchieCat]

57. Tell me more about this. I am unaware.

[loyalsister]

59. Not to mention....

I have been reminded Howard Dean's campaign quite a bit.
Small donations over the net, grassroots campaigning, strong 50 state strategy.

It almost seems like he has run the kind of campaign Dean would have run if he had it to do over.

One big media lesson learned as per your post leads to-- No "Dean scream" or "uncontrolled angry outbursts" etc. because the microphones are just not in proximity.

He seems to be using those lessons about the power of the internet and how to work the media.
The perfect candidate with Dean's strategy?
Turning the page......

[Cha]

60. I knew from a while now that for

one of the real people to win our presidencey they would have to go around our M$$$m.

Obama and his crew have learned from the past rabid m$$m campaigns against Gore and Kerry.

People who learn from mistakes..their's and in general..what a concept!

[kwenu]

61. I absolutely agree. However, don't underestimate Hillary's overestimation.

Hillary's campaign has been...horrible. They assumed, like the media, that she was the presumptive nominee and ran around acting like all she had to do was show up to accept victory. She forgot about the fact that she had to convince...the people. Her machine politics are not strong enough to overcome bottom up solid support and so now for the last month and half her sluggish campaign has been trying to jump on Obama's bandwagon after the fact. The result is the appearance of being fake,insincere and unnatural.

Not having realized that the electorate has finally decided that it doesn't want the same old garbage tactics, Hillary continues to ply with the usual and known dirty tricks out of desperation. It's all her old-hand campaign insiders and experts know how to do.

Here's a message for the Hillary campaign, when you want innovation, go with the young and hungry instead of the "Yes men", self-declared experts who are drunk on the smell of their own ego.

[Az_lefty]

62. Obama has run a brilliant campaign..

which is a testimony to his leadership skills and organizational abilities. Not much can be said the Hillary's attempts at being a leader.

[trevjr]

63. What is her record?

Someone said it earlier 'what has she done'? I did go look at the 2 two records and Obama has passed some really major bills with and without Republican co sponsorship. His first year in the U.S. Senate, he authored 152 bills and co-sponsored another 427. These included **the Coburn-Obama Government Transparency Act of 2006 - became law, **The Lugar-Obama Nuclear Non-proliferation and Conventional Weapons Threat Reduction Act, - became law, **The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act, passed the Senate, **The 2007 Government Ethics Bill, - became law, **The Protection Against Excessive Executive Compensation Bill, In committee, and many more.

Senator Clinton, who has served only one full term - 6yrs. - and another year campaigning, has managed to author and pass into law - 20 - twenty pieces of legislation in her first six years.
These bills can be found on the website of the Library of Congress www.thomas.loc.gov

1. Establish the Kate Mullany National Historic Site.
2. Support the goals and ideals of Better Hearing and Speech Month.
3. Recognize the Ellis Island Medal of Honor.
4. Name courthouse after Thurgood Marshall.
5. Name courthouse after James L. Watson.
6. Name post office after Jonn A. O'Shea.
7. Designate Aug. 7, 2003, as National Purple Heart Recognition Day.
8. Support the goals and ideals of National Purple Heart Recognition Day.
9. Honor the life and legacy of Alexander Hamilton on the bicentennial of his death.
10. Congratulate the Syracuse Univ. Orange Men's Lacrosse Team on winning the championship.
11. Congratulate the Le Moyne College Dolphins Men's Lacrosse Team on winning the championship.
12. Establish the 225th Anniversary of the American Revolution Commemorative Program.
13. Name post office after Sergeant Riayan A. Tejeda.
14. Honor Shirley Chisholm for her service to the nation and express condolences on her death.
15. Honor John J. Downing, Brian Fahey, and Harry Ford, firefighters who lost their lives on duty. Only five of Clinton 's bills are, more substantive. 16. Extend period of unemployment assistance to victims of 9/11.
17. Pay for city projects in response to 9/11 18. Assist landmine victims in other countries.
19. Assist family caregivers in accessing affordable respite care.
20. Designate part of the National Forest System in Puerto Rico as protected in the wilderness preservation system.

[leftrightwingnut]

75. Ouch!

Ow! Yikes!

That's one breathtaking sword, you've got there, trevjr.

[cameozalaznick]

65. I've been amazed by how quickly Obama's campaign responds to attacks

The other night on Hardball, Chris Matthews ran Hillary's "red phone" commercial and said something about "I'm sure Obama will answer soon." Before the feakin' show was even over, I kid you not, Chris ran the Obama response ad. I heard that they turned it around in something like 8 hours! Unbelievable!

[FrenchieCat]

67. I think that was 2 hours......

not eight.

It was done in the same news cycle.

8 hours would have been slow in political time.

[CaliforniaDreaming]

66. I love Barack Obama.

I know he's not perfect. But I still love him.

[nolabels]

68. Could partly also be because some people HATE having these so called leaders.......

being chose for them. Surely there are many factors but whatever they or it is, it sure is sweet :D

[rainbow4321]

69. His supporters have done 1 million+ phone calls in TX

New goal is 1.5 mil by Tuesday:

http://trailblazers.beloblog.com/archives/2008/03/virtual-phonebanking.html


Remember when I told you last week about the Obama Campaign's goal to make 1 million phone calls before the March 4 primary?

Well, they evidently blew through that goal over the weekend according to a campaign email sent out today:

We reached our goal of one million calls much faster than expected, so we're setting a new goal: 1,500,000 calls to voters by Tuesday.

The campaign directs the email recipient to a web site that is "easy and fun to use" and gives the caller a choice of which state to call, a (purportedly) unique list of 20 names to call, a suggested script and off they go.

<snip>

Use our online phonebanking tool and start making calls right now:

http://my.barackobama.com/call

[proud2BlibKansan]

71. How many calls has Hillary's campaign made?

Or are they waiting for US to call THEM?

[rainbow4321]

80. She makes all of her's at 3 am......

Best time of day for her, I hear.

[Oilwellian]

70. Great post

Indeed, the "internets" make for a new day in political campaigns. The old farts still haven't figured it out. :D (and I'm no spring chick.)

I would bet the farm Obama's VP choice will NOT be a DLC'er. This campaign has been all about who will have the power within the Dem party. Fortunately, the DLC is on its way of becoming dethroned. Nancy, Harry, Steny, Rahm, ya hear that train a comin? Toot toot!

[List left]

73. Thank You

I am more hopeful about our country than i have been for a long time.

[David Zephyr]

76. And won't it be great to have that discipline and talent in the GE?

Enjoyed reading your OP.

[leftrightwingnut]

77. HRC has been about MSM manipulation since her Murdoch deal.

From the beginning, the articles were all about her inevitability and hurdles to overcome to get there.

On the day I heard about the Murdoch deal, I declared that she would be president. And everything that I saw in the MSM seemed to bear this out.

I was astounded that lately, MSM wasn't pushing her stuff so hard and that Obama was getting so much attention.

Thanks for the explanation, FrenchieCat. I would agree that young people ignore the MSM; they've got their own media.

Could it also be that many older people have figured out how the MSM attempts to manipulate and simply don't buy it anymore?

[FrenchieCat]

78. Well, some are waking up to her current manipulations......and they ain't just me!

Hillary Clinton has convinced the media that it is biased against her, one of the great (and rare) successes of her presidential campaign, akin to her creation of the vast right-wing conspiracy responsible for conceiving a string of sexual and other disgraces in her husband's White House.
With classic chutzpah, Clinton would have us believe that in a campaign in which she has escaped the most basic scrutiny of her finances, her husband's business relationships and her claims of experience, she is hurting because of the media's favorable treatment of Barack Obama.

On the race itself, the media has time and again let itself be manipulated by a Clinton campaign deftly managing expectations, albeit in increasingly surreal ways. Only two weeks ago the consensus was that Clinton had to win Texas or Ohio by 20 point margins to have a shot at the nomination (at the time these margins still seemed plausible). In recent days, her campaign has put out the word that if Obama doesn't win all four contests this Tuesday, it will be a sign of trouble for him. Of course journalists, no matter how lazy or gullible, know this is stupid, but nonetheless, maybe in a failed effort at fairness, they now seem to accept that Clinton needs to win either Texas and Ohio by any margin. Suddenly gone is the original assessment that Clinton has to win big on March 4, despite the fact that it is mathematically verifiable that there will be too few contests after Tuesday for her to make up the delegate count if she doesn't put a big dent in Obama's lead now. This judgment has become more accurate daily as Clinton's superdelegate lead melts away.

Losing eleven contests in a row, mostly by far wider margins than anyone had anticipated, would doom any campaign (in fact, can anyone think of one major primary contender who has survived such a string of defeats?). Yet the media continue to portray Clinton as strongly viable, if not quite the frontrunner. Again, this is a remarkable feat by her campaign, and an utter failure by most journalists to accurately portray the state of the race.

Clinton has been able to twist these expectations because so many are still in awe of her and her husband, attributing near-mystical powers to their ability to come back from the dead (the latest example, we are told, was her narrow New Hampshire win two months ago). At the same time, she has set up the media as sexist and easily wooed by Obama. This may be true, but, if anything, this has lead the guilt-ridden mainstream press to soften its negative coverage of the Clintons. Nowhere is this more visible than in the complete lack of recent interest in the couple's finances: far more has been written about Obama and Rezko, despite the relative benignity of the charge, than about how Bill and Hillary have amassed the tens of millions of dollars that make up their fortune, starting with her Arkansas cattle futures deal and ending with his Kazakhstan connections. There is a rich vein of potential conflict of interest, corruption and misuse of power that the media should relish covering in great detail, but much of the discussion has been relegated to a few bloggers. A particularly opportune time for coverage should have been when Clinton pulled out $5 million seemingly out of nowhere, to finance her campaign, but we're still left to wonder how these long-time public servants have instant access to such sums, especially since no tax returns are available.

In the meanwhile, journalists have been covering the cackle, the misty eyes and the pantsuit; Clinton should be eternally grateful for this, as it has distracted us from far bigger sins, made her look like a victim of the predominantly male political media's sexism, and rendered journalists insecure about their ability to cover her campaign objectively...

more http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-jenkins/clinton-and-the-vast-medi_b_89465.html

[leftrightwingnut]

79. Be prepared. Delegate switches will suddenly become an acceptable alternative for her.

I'm sure that there will be a lot of MSM support for it. And the grass-roots reaction will be ugly.

[MethuenProgressive]

82. Obama's Swiftboating the Clintons on race = FUCKING disgusting!

Sorry for the expletive in my OP, but there was not another word that I could think of to give that extra oomph to my point.

:puke: