There are some dynamics going on here that, frankly, I'm not sure I've heard many people bring up or discuss with regard to who the media likes (Obama), who they are unfair to (Clinton), et al.
First, Barack Obama.
1) When was the last time there was a Presidential campaign featuring a fresh new face from the "outside"? Answer: 1992, when Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton burst onto the scene, and captured the Presidency in the three-way dance with Bush 41 and Ross Perot.
2) Was that campaign (Clinton '92) fairly covered? I was in the media for that election year, and it was painfully obvious that, first, Clinton was able to run against, frankly, a tired-looking President. The Ross Perot phenomenon in the Spring and early Summer caused Clinton to lose face time, much to his campaign's chagrin. But once his 15 minutes of fame passed by, Clinton returned to the spotlight.
3) So when was Clinton the media darling in 1992? Well, early on, thanks to the "60 Minutes---Stand By Your Man" opportunity, he became the "Comeback Kid" by finishing second (?) in New Hampshire. Then, the "man from Hope" got the royal treatment right here in Richmond at the Presidential debate best known for President Bush looking at his watch and the question from the pony-tailed guy....
From the debate transcript....
SIMPSON: May I--I talked to this audience before you gentlemen came and I asked them about how they felt about the tenor of the campaign. Would you like to let them know what you thought about that, when I said are you pleased with how the campaign's been going? (Audience: "No.")
SIMPSON: Who wants to say why you don't like the way the campaign is going? We have a gentleman back here.
AUDIENCE PARTICIPANT: And forgive the notes here but I'm shy on camera. The focus of my work as a domestic mediator is meeting the needs of the children that I work with, by way of their parents, and not the wants of their parents. And I ask the three of you, how can we, as symbolically the children of the future president, expect the two of you, the three of you to meet our needs, the needs in housing and in crime and you name it, as opposed to the wants of your political spin doctors and your political parties?
SIMPSON: So your question is?
AUDIENCE PARTICIPANT: Can we focus on the issues and not the personalities and the mud? I think there's a need, if we could take a poll here with the folks from Gallup perhaps, I think there's a real need here to focus at this point on the needs.
SIMPSON: How do you respond? How do you gentlemen respond to--
GOVERNOR CLINTON: I agree with him.
PRESIDENT BUSH: Let's do it.
SIMPSON: President Bush?
PRESIDENT BUSH: Let's do it. Let's talk about programs for children.
AUDIENCE PARTICIPANT: Could we cross our hearts? It sounds silly here but could we make a commitment? You know, we're not under oath at this point but could you make a commitment to the citizens of the United States to meet our needs, and we have many, and not yours again? I repeat that. It's a real need, I think, that we all have.
----------------------------
"Meet our needs". Meet our needs??? Government is supposed to do that? That's called SOCIALISM.
Anyway, Clinton thrived in those situations, not to mention moderator Carole Simpson, (then of ABC News), was so into Clinton it wasn't funny.
So, lesson? Sometimes the media give you a lighter treatment.
Is the media's coverage of Barack Obama been as tough as it has been for Hillary Clinton? No way! But it's NOT really because, suddenly, everybody with a microphone, a videophone, all pundits and bloggers, voted to turn on her en masse.
In 2008, Barack Obama is the fresh face. He represents "new" at another point in history where "change" is being sought by the electorate. Go back and look at Clinton's 1992 campaign and see how the terms "hope" and "change" were utilized to his advantage. Deft political move in that kind of political climate.
Obama's doing the same thing. He's bringing people into the political process, and not just very young voters, that either had never participated or had walked away for a period of time.
Fresh face, candidate of hope and change, and, as his campaign revved up, it's become a phenomenon that the media has no choice but to cover it. And it's a positive story! It's reality, so the media MUST cover that.
So, dynamic of Obama's media coverage? New face, rallying new electorate groups, effective communicator, aligns with the individual, and has effectively made himself the poster boy for "change and hope".
Now...the dynamic of Hillary's media coverage. Establishment candidate. Her track record in the White House left at least 40 percent of the active electorate of, say, a year ago, against her. That makes it more difficult to be able to capture a general election. In spite of that, a year, six months, heck, four months ago, Hillary was THE presumed Democratic nominee!
Then she got pissed at Tim Russert over his questioning to her at an early debate (which was a poor move on her part....first, don't blame others; second, if you are the presumed front-runner, you should be able to answer questions that reporters won't spend time asking Dennis Kucinich, because we all know he's not going to win!
Then, as the Obama Phenomenon caught on, especially after his win (albeit by a small margin) over Edwards and Clinton in Iowa, the media went to the inevitable "Clinton Question".
What's wrong?
Tell ANYONE last August that she would finish third in Iowa and people would check your temperature.
Then, she triumphantly returns in New Hampshire and the game is on, again!
But then there's South Carolina....and Bill. Bill Clinton quickly becomes a liability with sound bites played everywhere. After all, he IS a former President! So, Hillary takes him out of sight for a season.
So as Obama is a rising star, his star is headed straight for, well, the Planet Clinton. Suddenly, she's not the only candidate in the stratosphere. Suddenly, she can't hold on to the money she wants to save until fall. She has to use it now!
One, two, three.....six, seven.....eleven races in a row for Obama and everything, EVERYTHING has changed.
Obama performs well in debates, is able to deflect most of her attacks and remain pretty much positive and "above the fray", which his constituents love (and rightly so).
Nothing is working for the Clinton campaign, and, suddenly, the inevitable Democratic nomination is starting to slip away from Hillary Clinton. And ever since, their chief architects seem to be either tearing each other down or living in "delusion-land".
ROB'S BOTTOM LINE:
Obama is getting more "positive" media treatment, at this time of the political campaign. Why? He's the Bill Clinton of 2008. New, fresh, with a message of hope and change. And, whereas the media gave Bill a "get away from Gennifer Free" card 16 years ago, they haven't had to do that with Obama. His entire campaign story is filled with positives. That does NOT, though, give the media "artistic license" to not ask him tougher questions and to not begin to dig into all of his past. There are dynamics to Obama 2008 that make the story of Clinton 1992 look very small in comparison.
And I never said anything about him being African-American.
Clinton? Yes, tougher questions. But going from an "inevitable" nominee to an even playing field, followed by an 11-state losing streak will certainly cause the tone of the media queries to be more "what is going on?" or "what is wrong?", or "what can your campaign do to stem the Obama tide?" It's like being a football coach.
Take New York Giants football coach Tom Loughlin. I'm a Giants fan. I was screaming for his head at the end of the 2006 season. They collapsed in the second half of that season both on and off the field and played one horrendous playoff game.
Now, Tom's getting peppered with tough questions as to why the collapse occurred, if there really is infighting in the locker room, are you still able to "reach" the team.
One year later....Coughlin's team wins an improbable Super Bowl title, is the toast of New York City, and, watching his press conference the next day, I didn't hear many "tough" questions. Why? Success!
We didn't hear "why are you so tough on me?" questions from Hillary and unfair accusations against the media by Bill, complete with his signature wagging-finger, last summer or fall.....when she was "head and shoulders" above the other 11 or 57 or 108 other candidates.
But we do now from a campaign that, I honestly believe, never, ever spent one minute discussing "what if?" strategy, just in case by some weird twist of fate, one of those "other guys" happens to get some traction and begins to become a clear cut second choice in polls and gathering steam.
------------------------------------------------------
What was Bill Clinton's blessing in 1992 has become Hillary Clinton's albatross in 2008. Also NOT helping her is her past. Remember "vote one get one free!" from Bill Clinton? How about Hillary heads the Health Care effort, though she doesn't hold elective office? And, to this day, we really don't know how many "Hillary Clintons" there really are. She hasn't thrown a lamp at David Gregory or Kate Snow yet.
She's probably saving it for her next one-on-one with Tim Russert.
Who she has been (in all her incarnations) now returns to haunt her.
And notice I never said a word about "first woman President".
------------------------------------------------------
TO CLOSE (promise!)
They asked Bill Belicheck, "what went wrong?" and Tom Coughlin "how does it feel?"
Bill B equals Hillary, Tom equals Obama.
No comments:
Post a Comment