Suddenly, four negative articles about Obama appear --

[DeepModem Mom]

NYT/AP, Nedra Pickler: Is Obama All Style and Little Substance?
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Obama-Substance.html

WP, Richard Cohen: Obama's Back Story
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/26/AR2007032601583.html

LAT, Ron Brownstein: Obama and blue collars: Do they fit?
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-op-brownstein25mar25,0,4552286.column?track=mostemailedlink

THE POLITICO, Mike Allen: Rookie Mistakes Plague Obama
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0307/3304.html

"Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's aides portray her as more skilled in controlling her words and public image than either Gore or Kerry and more deft in fighting back against Republican attacks. It is this surplus of political experience, her team believes, that could also prove decisive against Obama."


Democratic Presidential hopeful Barack Obama shakes hands with supporters following a speech at the Farmer's Public Market Building in Oklahoma City, Monday, March 19, 2007. (AP Photo/The Oklahoman, John Clanton)

[AX10]

1. And look at who wrote those stories.

They are currently working on Giuliani/McCain/Romney puff pieces as we speak.

[annabanana]

2. correcto. . .n/t

[ChairmanAgnostic]

3. politico - what a joke.

the anti-experts on predicting events. I believe that they are batting 100% wrong at the moment. Even among rarified branches of leafless, ignorant, DC pundi-trees, that is amazing.

[MonkeyFunk]

8. Yep!

and yet people will somehow pin this on Clinton.

[Vinca]

4. You can judge a candidate's chance of winning the White House

by the number of smear campaigns ongoing at any one time.

[papau]

6. LOL - Guess that means Hillary's been a lock for the job for last 10 years! :-)

Indeed those articles will be water on a ducks back as far as Obama is concerned.

If that is as negative as it gets for Obama, he will have a rather positive image at the end of the day.

I have only seen a couple of negative stories that could have become "problems" - the Ill. Senate rehash and the special land sale to him from the lobbyist (and that one is too complicated for the media smarts that are out there and the reader smarts that might read it as it involves the decrease in resale value of a next door piece of land caused by the lobbyist selling at pro-rated fair market value the side of the property adjoining Obama's land - greatly increasing the value of his land. He got a "deal" but it was a small one. And since the sale was at pro-rated fair market value based on amount of land sold compared to original size of land - Obama can easily end the media research. The Chi Trib pushed those stories but the rest of the media ignored - much like the media ignored Bush AWOL (A MUCH MORE REAL PROBLEM TO BE SURE) in the Boston Globe in 2000.

The media likes Obama - an impressive attribute to have! :-)

[karynnj]

11. This really is true

"The media likes Obama - an impressive attribute to have!" If Obama can keep that attribute, which Bill Clinton had in 1992 - it is important.

It is unfair in some underlying way - but it is reality. Imagine 2000, if the media liked Gore - the first debate would have been the way many of us saw it - a strong Gore win rather than an idiotic story of Gore sighing. (I watched a channel that didn't do reaction shots - which was the "rules", there was at least 1 question where Bush was like a high school kid trying to BS an essay question on a book he never read). No discussion of "Earth Tones". Real coverage of Bush's life from 20 to 40 - no one gets to extend adolesence to 40. Instead, they could speak of how he was the most useful VP in history and that he had an incredible resume - versus a man who trashed several oil companies before becoming a part owner of a baseball team - likely because his last name helped the team.

Imagine 2004. The media would have blown the SBVT away on day 1, pointing out the Navy records and Richard Nixon's administration both agreed Kerry was a war hero. They would then have blasted Bush for all the connections including sharing a lawyer. As importantly, they would have told the truth on Iraq.

They would have talked of how Kerry's alternative energy/environment ideas were were true to the American Spirit - optimistic in saying that American ingenuity and entreprenuerial values would allow us to invent our way to a better world. They would have used Kerry's Small Business committee work to show that he was not an ideologue, but someone who looked for pragmatic ideas that worked. His programs, often worked on with Snowe, have helped the poor, minorities and woman develop successful businesses. The media pushing this would have made him the choice of a large percent of liberal and moderate Republicans and Independents.

I agree with you - being a favorite of the media is a very good thing.

[MaineDem]

5. Let all the negative stuff come out now

It gives the campaign time to respond to it - either overtly or covertly.

[Learn2Swim]

15. exactly.

And don't think there wont be articles worse than all of these, pointed at all 3 of the leading Dem candidates. Get used to it, bc there will be more of the same coming down the pipeline. As for Obama, I think he'll be alright. ;)

[nolabels]

18. Please tell how one needs to substantiate this fluff exactly

Seems like to me the more people ignore the fraud of corporate media, the more outrageous corporate wants to become. They are becoming illogical in their attempts to regain audience. There seems to be a parallel. The things in other foreign countries when the government collapses or reject multinational corporate rule seem much the same

The video shown here is kind of microcosm of such things

The Revolution will not be Televised
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3119073

[karynnj]

7. What do you expect HRC's aides to say?

It would be kind of dumb, if they said -

"you know, Al Gore had a long political career and had already ran as the VP twice and for President in 1988, so he really had a lot more experience being the candidate than HRC did."

or
"You know, John Kerry had some tough elections to get to the point of being the nominee, in spite of never really having a mentor. He beat an incredibly popular governor largely on the basis of his solid record and his ability to debate."

Only time will tell, but here are two questions on the actual subject:

- Will the media amplify the RW smears as they did for Kerry and Gore, while giving the candidate few opportunities to respond? Is the media less opposed to a Hillary Presidency than they were to a Gore or Kerry one? What about Edwards, Obama, Dodd, Richardson, Biden ....

- Will Hillary, knowing how the media played along when Kerry was viciously smeared, have a gameplan for how to deal with this. (Bill Clinton spoke of knowing that the media has changed since 1992, so they clearly know the problem. )

There is also a question to Politico - It seems to me that Hillary has hurt her image by striking back way out of proportion at Edwards and Obama. Obama has not been error free, but the Clintons have had their gaffes too. They posit - as an assumption - that Hillary is more skilled - but they provide little backup.

I've seen Politico twice this week before this - with their disgraceful rush to put out the story that Edwards was withdrawing from the race. They were wrong, but even had they been right, letting the Edwards control that announcement was the ONLY decent thing to do.

The other was a surprisingly positive review of the Kerrys' book. (From the review, they love the book, but not Kerry.) They do though question Kerry's accuracy on saying the EPA moved backwards on mercury under Bush after Clinton raised standards in 2000. They called the EPA which said Kerry was wrong. They ignore the fact that Kerry and the Bush administration have a long history of disagreeing on fact - which has led to a huge number of "Kerry was right" posts. They also ignore that the Bush administration is not known for telling the truth.

Is this a new publication/blog?

[Bitwit1234]

9. The press does not post a lot of negative stories about Obama

In the Health Insurance Summit they had recently, every one of the reporters said that Obama was totally unprepared and did not have any plan. That was it. Nothing about it. Most of them posted about the rest of the candidates and ignored Hillary Clinton. That is all except one.

The poster said that she was not exactly a fan of Hillary Clinton, but if you wanted to see a person who knew what they were talking about, had a workable plan that could be funded and would help more people Hillary was your guy...BUT where is all the press about the Health Plan. Nowhere. That's the problem, because of the 15 years of slurring, slamming and smearing by the republicans because they were jealous of a man who was a real president, especially since they have the worst president in the world. Hillary does not stand a chance. She is just wasting her money. The men in this country will never vote for her. Not like the men in the rest of the world you are secure in their manhood, it seems the men in this country just can't get over the fact that a woman should be tied down in the kitchen and the bedroom.

[flpoljunkie]

10. How predictable! And right before the end of the first crucial fundraising quarter--March 31st!

The feckless media and the Democratic establishment is working hard to make Hillary Clinton our nominee.

As Molly Ivins wrote...

Not. Backing. Hillary.

Equivocation in Democratic party has gone on far too long -- time for real leadership

AUSTIN, Texas — I'd like to make it clear to the people who run the Democratic Party that I will not support Hillary Clinton for president.

Enough. Enough triangulation, calculation and equivocation. Enough clever straddling, enough not offending anyone. This is not a Dick Morris election. Sen. Clinton is apparently incapable of taking a clear stand on the war in Iraq, and that alone is enough to disqualify her. Her failure to speak out on Terri Schiavo, not to mention that gross pandering on flag-burning, are just contemptible little dodges.

<>Do it all, go long, go for public campaign financing for Congress. I'm serious as a stroke about this — that is the only reform that will work, and you know it, as well as everyone else who's ever studied this. Do all the goo-goo stuff everybody has made fun of all these years: embrace redistricting reform, electoral reform, House rules changes, the whole package. Put up, or shut up. Own this issue, or let Jack Abramoff politics continue to run your town.

<>Do not sit there cowering and pretending the only way to win is as Republican-lite. If the Washington-based party can't get up and fight, we'll find someone who can.

http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?ItemID=20250

And as David Geffin, Hollywood producer and former Bill Clinton pal recently put it, no more royal dynasties--Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton.

It is time for a change in this country. Hillary Cinton is not that change.

Time to make that last donation to Barack Obama before the approaching March 31st deadline.

[Ninja Jordan]

12. At the same time Edwards is surging a bit; who is the true #2?

[SaveElmer]

13. Only four?

He should thank his lucky stars!

[Adelante]

14. The Brownstein column isn't a hit piece

It's a pretty interesting discussion about the white collar and blue collar segments of the party and how they might respond to the Clinton-style or Obama-style messages.

[Nedsdag]

17. Bronstein's article is interesting

because he brings up three previous candidates (Hart, McCarthy, Bradley).

What Bronstein fails to mention is the year those candidates ran, the Republicans won the White House or in the case of Bush "won."

Is he predicting another GOP win if Hillary wins the nomination?

[gratuitous]

16. At least two of those were rip-and-read jobs off of Drudge

Matt Drudge, as detailed at Eschaton, has become the de facto assignment editor for many writers in the media, and the Cohen and Politico articles at least were taken directly from posts at the Drudge Report. See Atrios' blog for further details -- I'd rather give him the hits than Drudge.

[Alhena]

19. Meanwhile, +50% of voters say they won't vote for Hillary

which means, of course, that we are virtually certain to nominate her. It's like watching a car accident in slow motion.

Voters will LIKE Fred Thompson or Rudy Giuliani more than they like Hillary. That's why we need a candidate who is both competent and likeable. Someone like Obama.

But we will no doubt nominate Hillary and lose and spend another four years wondering about what might have been as we engage in gunboat diplomacy and right-wingers gain further dominance over our judiciary. It's enough to make me want to puke.

[Dr Fate]

20. I've never seen Hillary fighting back against attacks much, at least not since the 90's.

When the far-right & media was attacking the anti-war movement (AKA the folks who were 100% RIGHT), she didnt fight them back- she mostly agreed with-or pretended to agree with the GOP/media manufactured perceptions..

When the media tried to sink DEMS in '06 with the "Kerry hates the troops" meme, she didnt fight back- she joined Rove in repeating the lie- either agreeing with it or pretending to agree with it.

I'm open minded, but "fighting back" against Republican attacks and media attacks on DEMS is just something I havent noticed much in Hillary.

[ecstatic]

21. Don't forget, he's also a "Magic Negro!!!11"

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-ehrenstein19mar19,0,5335087.story?coll=la-opinion-center

:eyes:

[Dr Fate]

23. So is the author of that article!!!

He's black.

I am unware of his background.

He helps White people like me see that I am racist, since I only like Obama because of some movies I've never seen before. Sounds like magic by definition to me.

I'm going to take the author's advice and go around determining which Negros are "magical" or not. I decree that the author of the article is CERTAINLY a Magical Negro.

[ShortnFiery]

22. The DLC folks with the big bucks and the power want HRC to win the Democratic Primary ...

So that ANY Republican Candidate can once again win The Presidency for the Military Industrial Complex. As long as their corporate masters are satisfied, both corporate Dems and Reps WIN. :puke:

[Larkspur]

24. Hillary was a Goldwater Girl, so she is a true Repuke in Dems clothing

The corporatists can live with her as Prez just as well as any Republican.

[flpoljunkie]

25. From Salon's Joan Walsh on this piling on of Obama this week and how RNC spread it around

The Drudge controversy aside, I found Allen's piece "Rookie Mistakes Plague Obama" shallow and unconvincing. And I found it, literally, not via Drudge's prominent link (which used the same headline), but in an e-mail from the Republican National Committee, headlined simply "The Rookie." The RNC hit piece on Obama leads with Richard Cohen's nasty column in the Washington Post today, but follows up with several quotes from Allen's story, as well as the Chicago Tribune piece on Obama's background that both Allen and Cohen quote liberally. It's when you read the RNC talking points that you understand the rage of the liberal blogosphere against the so-called MSM: It is as if Cohen, Allen, the Tribune reporters and the RNC all got on a conference call and said, "Here's how we're hitting Obama this week."

http://www.salon.com/opinion/walsh/

[DFW]

26. I think the best indications of whom the far right fears most are.......

..to be found in the dirt that they try to throw.

Remember December 2003? No Swift Boat Farts then--it was all anti-Dean propaganda.
They were terrified of him. They only "found" John Kerry when it clear he was going
to be the nominee and not Dean.

All the anti-Hillary stuff and anti-Barack stuff can be used not for facts, but for
an accurate barometer as to whom the radical right fears most as an opponent. They
didn't have a wall of hate literature about Obama during the 2004 convention, or after
he was elected Senator by over a 70% margin(OK, it helped that he had Huckleberry
Hound as an opponent, but still).

No, only when there is a shot of someone being president does the hate machine crank into
high gear, and if it's anti-Hillary or anti-Obama this week, you can bet that is who
the Rovians fear most at press time. It matters not to them if what they publish is true
or not--only that it gets widely distributed and has an effect.

What matters is who is our nominee in about a year from now, and anyone who thinks it's
clear who that will be at this point is either clairvoyant or using controlled substances.