The Media Loves Obama and Hates Clinton, They Both Earned It

For those of you who are not frequent readers of the Seattle PI, I’d like to introduce you to the world’s most brilliant editorial cartoonist: David Horsey.

Horsey recently launched a blog to go along with his cartoons, and his post from a few days ago entitled “Hillary’s Kool-Aid drinkers” caught my attention. In it, Horsey quotes Frank Rich’s devastating analysis of the Clinton campaign from Sunday’s New York Times:

In their view, their highly substantive candidate was unfairly undone by a lightweight showboat who got a free ride from an often misogynist press and from naïve young people who lap up messianic language as if it were Jim Jones’s Kool-Aid. Or as Mrs. Clinton frames it, Senator Obama is all about empty words while she is all about action and hard work.

But it’s the Clinton strategists, not the Obama voters, who drank the Kool-Aid. The Obama campaign is not a vaporous cult; it’s a lean and mean political machine that gets the job done. The Clinton camp has been the slacker in this race, more words than action, and its candidate’s message, for all its purported high-mindedness, was and is self-immolating.

Horsey comments:

During the primary season, supporters of Hillary Clinton have been especially contemptuous of Barack Obama’s adoring acolytes, seeing them as callow, unrealistic, swooning youngsters seduced by the man’s smooth tongue and cool style…

However, it can be argued that Hillary’s followers have been the ones with stars in their eyes…

The Obama campaign has been relentless, incredibly well organized and far more politically hard-headed than the Clinton operation… If Obama can run the country like he has run his campaign, worries about his lack of experience may be groundless.

The Clinton campaign would have you believe that all this apt analysis is just another example of a fawning and starstruck media “offering Senator Obama another pillow:”

And indeed, Senator Clinton has made no secret of her contempt for the intelligence of those who are impressed with the lanky Illinois Senator’s optimism. Here she is at a rally in Rhode Island:

With her outburst during Tuesday’s debate, Senator Clinton has added the nation’s media to the growing list of intelligent, thoughtful groups of people who she says have obviously been duped and taken in by a smooth talking, inexperienced, and unqualified kid.

Now, I won’t dispute for a minute that the media tends to prefer Obama to Clinton these days. Even Horsey aptly lampoons the preference in his most recent cartoon:

But insofar as the bias exists, it’s for a good reason.

Journalists are not generally capricious people. Newspaper owners may sometimes be, but journalism requires a certain thoughtfulness, fair-mindedness, and adherence to ethics. Yes, there have been dishonest reporters. But all in all, the members of our national news media are clever people. What’s more, they’ve given Senator Clinton more than a fair shake. After all, she was treated as the inevitable nominee for a very long time.

No, the media was most definitely Clinton’s to lose. And lose them she did, through her own incompetent and overconfident campaigning. Rich is very insightful when he writes that the downfall of Clinton’s campaign has “uncannily mimicked the disastrous Bush Iraq war plan. After promising a cakewalk to the nomination — “It will be me,” Mrs. Clinton told Katie Couric in November — she was routed by an insurgency.”

Meanwhile, Senator Obama has had to work very hard to earn the respect of the nation and the media. And as Senator Clinton has said so many times, it’s all about working hard.

Why Hillary Should Stay In The Race (Even If She Loses Ohio and Texas)

It seems like every leftward leaning pundit, politician, columnist, and blogger is suggesting that maybe it is time for Senator Clinton to withdraw from the race, lest she hurt Barack Obama’s chances for the general election. As a staunch Obama supporter, I have grown increasingly angry with the Clinton campaign for attacking Barack Obama, dragging out the race and potentially damaging his chances against John McCain.

But then I saw this: during the month of February, Clinton and Obama broke every fundraising record in the book, bringing in 80 million dollars (30 for Clinton, 50 for Obama) and a record-setting number of donors.

Every state these two battle in, people get excited. Both Clinton and Obama are getting people who didn’t even vote in 2000 and 2004 to not only vote, but actually donate their hard-earned cash. I don’t think I would have caucused in Washington State if the race had already been over. I know none of my students would have, and neither would many of my friends. The people in my precint told me they estimated turnout was several times higher than in any election they had ever seen.

Yes, Clinton is attacking Obama. So what? Clearly, none of these attacks are hurting him. He shrugs them off in the debates so coolly, so effortlessly, it makes the attacks appear petty and dishonest. In the meantime, people in Ohio and Texas are getting excited by these two candidates. Do you think Ohio Republicans are feeling the same excitement and enthusiasm as their Democratic Party counterparts?

Every night we see Obama and Clinton in the news. John McCain? He’s there, but not as often. And as far as fundraising goes? Both Obama and Clinton are raising several times more money than John McCain, who it is appears will be planning to rely on public financing.

So Hillary, keep on going. Let the voters in Pennsylania get excited. Fight for every pledged delegate. It makes us all care just a little bit more about politics. Just don’t overturn the popular vote if you lose.

The Role of Gender and Race Stereotypes in the Democratic Primary

I might be on a gender and race kick here. But that’s what I’m thinking about a lot these days. Via Feministing come two articles to fan the flames.

I’ve argued pretty vociferously in conversations on this blog that Hillary Clinton — despite my lack of support for her — has been the victim of some pretty nasty gender stereotyping. Despite the mainstream media’s reputation for misrepresenting and misreporting scientific research, I think this article does a pretty good job of explaining why.

In a nutshell, racial stereotypes and biases are much more easily extinguished than gender biases and stereotypes. Gender roles are much more entrenched in a cultural psyche. It appears that many people believe a woman can either be capable and accomplished or likable and good-natured, but never both.

The theory goes that Senator Clinton has spent so much of her time proving that she’s tough enough to be president that she’s disregarded the likability factor. As prominent evangelical Richard Land recently put it, “I really almost feel sorry for Senator Clinton. She’s trying to conduct a job interview and Obama’s on a date.”

It really reminds me of this hilarious video from Slate:

Obama has also been modeling behavior that defies stereotypes of both gender and race. As Martin Linsky recently noted in Newsweek:

[Obama] is pushing against conventional—and political party nominating convention—wisdom in five important ways, with approaches that are usually thought of as qualities and values that women bring to organizational life: a commitment to inclusiveness in problem solving, deep optimism, modesty about knowing all the answers, the courage to deliver uncomfortable news, not taking on all the work alone, and a willingness to air dirty linen. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, is taking a more traditional (and male?) authoritarian approach.

It’s almost as if Hillary Clinton is running a campaign from 16 years ago, when women still felt like they needed to act like men to get ahead. Nowadays, it’s not about modeling certain gender roles, it’s about going out there and doing the job. Research shows that gender stereotypes are stickier than racial ones, but they can still be extinguished with repeated positive modeling of likable women in command positions.

I think that’s a huge part of the generational disconnect when it comes to Senator Clinton. Younger people don’t feel any need to be loyal to feminist ideology that calls for a female president. We’d rather just move ahead with the task at hand: electing the best person for the job.

“Change You Can Xerox” Part II - “Does Barack Need Another Pillow?”

Despite Hillary’s “Change You Can Xerox” zinger being booed, she seemed to think last night that throwing down another zinger might be well received. After being asked to answer first on a question related to NAFTA, Hillary referenced a rather a recent SNL skit in which CNN anchors fawned over Barack Obama.

The skit, was somewhat funny, unless you compare it to previous SNL Presidential debate sketches.

The first one still makes me roll on the floor laughing. SNL used to be SO much better. But I disgress.

Hillary threw out the line, “If anybody saw Saturday Night Live, you know, maybe we should ask Barack if he’s comfortable and needs another pillow.”

I really don’t know what Hillary is thinking here. Aside from the fact that she appears grossly inauthentic whenever she makes a pop-culture reference (such as the “MyFace”), throwing an underhanded insult at Barack Obama and the press based on a relatively unfunny sketch by a declining comedy show is hardly going to give her the boost she needs to win Texas and Ohio.

As far as the rest of the debate goes, Hillary seemed agitated, overly aggressive, and uptight. Barack seemed mostly calm and patient, but at times appeared tired, bored, and annoyed. Substantively, they both differed so little that Obama appeared annoyed that they were even debating their differences to such a ridiculous degree, particularly when Hillary started “filibustering” on the health care issue. You can watch the debate below in its entirety. Or you read my summary below.

Hillary: “My health care plan is way better than yours. The media is unfair, Saturday Night Live said so. You keep attacking me even though I would never attack you.”

Obama: “You supported NAFTA, publicly. You voted for the Iraq War. Game, set, match.”

Hillary: “Liar.”

Obama: “Sigh.”

I Can Haz Seereez of Toobs?

I spend way too much time talking in lolcat speak (a.k.a. “kitty pidgin”) with my friend and colleague Jason Preston. We were goofing around yesterday when this idea popped into my head. I’m sure it’s unoriginal, but it’s funny nonetheless.

Obama’s Reaction to the Race Issue Speaks Volumes About His Ability to Lead

A commenter over at Jack and Jill Politics made a (mostly) fantastic argument contrasting Clinton’s use of her gender with Obama’s use of his race on the campaign trail. The money quote:

You know, I’d love to see the press give Obama as much room to be a stereotypical black man as they give Clinton to be a stereotypical woman. I’d love to see Obama get the opportunity to go straight up gangsta and show his a*s! But we all know that would never happen. The second he shows ANY aggression whatsoever, is the moment people see him as the “angry black man.” …

Tell me, what would happen if Obama went on a tirade against Hillary, like she’s done over the weekend??? What would happen if he (gasp) raised his voice to this white woman? What would happen if he spent all of his time talking about the “white man,” the way Hillary talks about the “boys club?”

My only objection to this statement  is the idea that the Obama would go “straight up gangsta and show[s] his a*s!” if it weren’t for the requirement that he “act white.”

Barack Obama is a person of mixed racial and experiential background. To expect that he would behave in a stereotypically “black” manner were he not held to some artificial standard of whiteness is just as racist as expecting “gangsta” behavior of any individual on the basis of his heritage alone.

Update: Also — as Bill Cosby has frequently pointed out — this “acting white” malarkey has seriously got to stop. Whoever came up with the idea that being articulate, level-headed, well-rounded, hardworking and brilliant was a white thing ought to be slapped upside the head. It’s a dangerous idea that hurts all youth — and especially youth with brown skin — as they develop the skills that will carry them through life.

That said, “b-serious” has a real point: Hillary Clinton can rail against “the boy’s club” all she wants, but if Barack Obama brings up our country’s racial divides, he’s an angry black man. He has been asked to do more than any reasonable human being should to hold his tongue while the foulest and most degrading racial smear campaigns are leveled at him.

It reminds me powerfully of a statement Malcolm X made in a speech to the London School of Economics on February 11, 1965:

You are trying to make the Black man the victim of every kind of unjust condition imaginable. Then when he explodes, you want him to explode politely!

And yet Obama has managed not to explode at all. His coolness and level-headedness in the face of bigotry is a true testament to the strength of his character. Should he be elected our nation’s 44th president, that strength of character and willingness to deal coolly with emotionally charged issues will be a boon to the American people and the world.

[Due props to my roommate Arjun for helping me to articulate the ideas in this post fully.]

Hillary Fails To Submit Full Delegate Slates

In yet another demonstration that Clinton’s campaign staff did not plan for life after Super Tuesday, it turns out that Hillary failed to submit a full delegate slate in Pennsylvia, despite a 10-day extension by the governor. While it seems unlikely that this may end up actually costing her delegates, in a fight where every delegate counts, this type of poor planning demonstrates to me that Hillary’s message of preparedness, solutions, and readiness lacks weight.

Additionally, if Obama wanted to, he might be able to block some of her delegates should she win a landslide in the state.

But Could Any of Them Deliver?

The Economist’s latest cover story is entitled, “But Could He Deliver?” It’s a very balanced piece that asks new questions of Obama the front runner that have not been asked of Obama the phenom:

The power of charisma should not be underrated, especially in the context of the American presidency which is, constitutionally, quite a weak office. The best presidents are like magnets below a piece of paper, invisibly aligning iron filings into a new pattern of their making. Anyone can get experts to produce policy papers. The trick is to forge consensus to get those policies enacted.

But what policies exactly? … If one lesson from the wasted Bush years is that needless division is bad, another is that incompetence is perhaps even worse. A man who has never run any public body of any note is a risk, even if his campaign has been a model of discipline.

“Can this person deliver?” is a fair question, and The Economist is right to ask it. But they need look no further for their answer than the fact they point out so prominently — the presidency is a constitutionally weak office. The president doesn’t set policy, he sets the tone. The nation wins when that tone is one of consensus building, compromise, and vigorous debate.

Obama is the candidate best able to set that tone, but not because of his charisma. It’s because he’s an able manager who is transparent in his actions, nuanced in his arguments, and logical in his defense of his positions. Unlike our current fearless leader, this is a man who is aware of his imperfections.

He will admit when he’s wrong. He will surround himself with the best advisors and he will listen to them. When we look back on his presidency eight years from now, it may not look anything like what any of us anticipate right now. We live in a dynamic world. We need a president who will respond to change by remaining accountable to the American people, rather than using it as an excuse to opacify his administration.

Barack Obama is no more or less able to deliver on the specifics of his policy platforms than any of the other candidates. The most potent difference between him and his opponents is not a matter of policy, it’s a matter of character. I trust the rigor of his intellect, the freshness of his perspective, and the decency of his person.

That is the promise of an Obama presidency — a promise I believe he can deliver on.

I’m Back. :-)

Sometimes, a girl just needs a break.

I owe you all an apology for my unannounced and unexplained absence from this blog over the past couple of weeks. I’ve been in serious need of a mini-retreat from the online world. During my time away, I read and thought. I meditated and did yoga and walked around Mercer Island. I even danced to music from my iPhone in public and didn’t care what anyone thought. In short, it was wonderful.

And now I’m back. And I have some more energy, which I will be bringing to this blog starting…now!

Ralph Nader’s Insanity

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Ralph Nader has ran for President four times already, without ever receiving more than 2 percent of the vote nationally. Even if he did miraculously win a plurality in a three-way race, the House of Representatives would ultimately determine the Presidency, a place where he has no party support and few friends.

Nader’s run in 2000 was directly responsible for George W. Bush’s presidency, and the idea that Bush and Gore would have ran similar environmental and consumer policies is laughable.

Yet, Ralph Nader has announced his 5th bid for the Presidency of the United States. At this point, anyone who is paying attention knows that there are significant differences between Obama (or Hillary) and McCain, and that any votes Nader receives will likely be siphoned off from Obama (or Hillary).

So why is Nader running, when his campaign has absolutely no chance of winning, and any “protest” votes he receives come from the party much more closely aligned with his values? Why not run for Congress or Senate, where he would be a shoe-in (or at least would have been before F-ing over Al Gore)? A man like Ralph Nader could have done some great things on the Senate Floor over the last 8 years, particularly with a man like Al Gore in the White House. The only conclusion I can draw from Ralph Nader’s continuing bids for the Presidency is that (and I say this with complete seriousness) he is certifiably insane (most likely narcissistic personality disorder), and needs psychiatric help.

For those Nader supporters out there (I used to be one before the 2000 election): no matter what you think of the leading candidates, it is an undeniable fact that Ralph Nader will not go from never even having held a public office to becoming President. If you want this man involved in our nation’s policy decisions, please urge him to run for a lower office, and work his way up, the same way EVERY SINGLE other President has.

Clinton Mocks Obama

John McCain has got to love watching Hillary Clinton mocking Barack Obama’s message of change, hope, and unity. I really don’t think that Hillary Clinton is concerned about the general election.

Huckabee Lingers On

Despite the fact that John McCain holds a larger lead over Mike Huckabee than Barack Obama holds over Dennis Kucinich, Mike Huckabee continues to battle on, often taking 30-40% in each state he fights for.

Normally, the whole Republican Party would be outraged that he continues to battle on, dampening McCain’s rise and hurting the party. But Huckabee is running such a fun, positive, hilarious campaign that no one seems to mind to much. Just watch his appearance on SNL last night.

“Change You Can Xerox”

After being loudly booed for calling Barack Obama’s message, “change you can xerox”, Hillary Clinton took her attacks on Obama up yet another step, calling his campaign literature outright lies and comparing him to George W. Bush.

“Shame on you, Barack Obama,” she said.

Speaking of plagarism, the “Shame On You” line sounds familiar.

It would be nice if Hillary Clinton left attacking Barack Obama to John McCain.

Also, both McCain and Clinton’s campaigns are not just broke, but deeply in debt. Obama on the other hand is flush in cash as he approaches 1,000,000 individual donors. Maybe that’s why many Clinton staffers have started hitting the bottle.

The American Leadership Projects - Hillary Clinton’s Swift Boat Veterans For Truth

As Barack Obama nears the one million mark for donations, Hillary Clinton’s campaign appears to be taking a much different turn, with the American Leadership Project. While the American Leadership Project, for legal and political reasons, cannot be linked to the Clinton campaign its creation appears to have a similar motive to that of Swift Boat Veterans For Truth.

The American Leadership Project is seeking 100 Clinton supporters to donate $100,000 each. It will then likely proceed to attack Barack Obama with the same lies and deceptions that Swift Boat Veterans used to take down John Kerry.

Urgent Message to Hillary Clinton: YOU ARE NOT GOING TO BE PRESIDENT IN 2009. You may, however, still have an opportunity in 2013 or 2017 if you finish this race with dignity, rather than seeing if you can damage Barack Obama enough so that no one wants to vote for either of you.

US Wins War On Drugs

And by win, I means lose. After spending over one trillion dollars and making 38 million arrests throughout the last 36 years, illegal drugs are not only easier to obtain, but drug use is flaunted throughout society. Not just “illicit” drugs, such as marijuana, coke, and heroin, but even prescription drugs and steroids are easier to purchase now than they were twenty, ten, or even five years ago.

It is public knowledge that pot, coke, prescription meds, and steroids are being used by celebrities such as Dave Chappelle, Denis Leary, Rush Limbaugh, and Roger Clemens, respectively, along with at least 30 more millions Americans. I am certain that Hillary Clinton and John McCain will continue to support the War on Drugs, appoint a Drug Czar, and waste billions of American taxpayer dollars fighting this war. My question is, will Barack Obama. I would imagine he would, since the only politicians who are willing to appear “soft on drugs” exist on sketches in Saturday Night Live and the Chappelle Show, or bad movies like “Man of the Year.” Still, I would be curious to see if he would be willing to admit to the America people that a War on Drugs will never work.

Obama Wins Hawaii

Ten victories in a row by double-digit margins. Obamania continues to sweep the nation.

Obama Wins Wisconsin

That makes nine in a row. The latest projections have him winning by a double-digit margin. Obama won among nearly all demographics except white senior citizens. Winconsin demographically was as good for Clinton as it gets. A primary in a state that is largely white, middle-class, with relatively low numbers of college graduates. I have no idea what Clinton’s excuse is for losing, although I watched part of her speak and heard no mention of the loss. No explanation. No congratulation.

Next Page »