Again I got busy yesterday and didn't post to this blog,
that said how about ABC New's 'Bushwacking' of Obama last night in Pennsylvania. The term 'bushwacking' is defined as: "bushwhacking guerrillas attacking from ambush" from the mid 19th century 'Kansas is burning pre-statehood border wars'. The Washington Post's summary is defined by their headline, The Clear Loser is ABC, when Tom Shales wrote:
When Barack Obama met Hillary Clinton for another televised Democratic candidates' debate last night, it was more than a step forward in the 2008 presidential election. It was another step downward for network news -- in particular ABC News, which hosted the debate from Philadelphia and whose usually dependable anchors, Charles Gibson and George Stepanopoulos turned in shoddy, despicable performances.
For the first 52 minutes of the two-hour, commercial-crammed show, Gibson and Stephanopoulos dwelled entirely on specious and gossipy trivia that already has been hashed and rehashed, in the hope of getting the candidates to claw at one another over disputes that are no longer news. Some were barely news to begin with.
Obama was right on the money when he complained about the campaign being bogged down in media-driven inanities and obsessiveness over any misstatement a candidate might make along the way, whether in a speech or while being eavesdropped upon by the opposition. The tactic has been to "take one statement and beat it to death," he said.
This seems to be a pattern of self destruction by the establishment that now appears to be desperate in hanging on each of their power positions as it is evident that Obama indeed represents a Political Movement away from the politics of the past and into a new period. Political movements are revolutions, meaning turning over, these are necessary for all things to grow, be it turning over the soil or societies. America and its government, the people who control its institutions have become ineffectual and irrelevant, even destructive. You don't think the corporate influence of Disney and CAP Cities the media giant that owns ABC News had a influence on how they despicably carried out their opportunity to hold the Democratic debate? This is a big deal, and I am certain private conversations ran up the chain as to both see if they could gain a gotcha moment for their short-sided monetary agenda and two, gain one strategically to keep the establishment in power.
But WaPo was not alone in its assessment. In TPM Cafe I found this post by Reed Hundt who incidentally was the former FCC Chair during the Clinton Administration. Whew! What a miserable night for Citizen Charles and Citizen George. These are not dumb fellows, and they didn't fail to prepare for the debate. Obviously, they worked hard to develop such intensively emotional, biased, hostile questions, and they were very focussed on avoiding the important issues that will shape the future of the republic for the next generation.
So what gives? What were their motives? What did their bosses give them for a purpose? This is the central question for the mainstream media: why do good people provide such bad journalism from the perspective of the ideal electoral system?
Is it really true that ABC got and held a bigger audience by adopting such a crazy perspective on the debate? Is it really true that Gibson and George S have improved their personal brands by doing the Fox dance?
Not alone, Niall Strange a foreign born NY-based journalist for the Guardian wrote this:What is it about Philadelphia? The city last month hosted one of the most impressive moments of the presidential campaign to date: Barack Obama's forthright speech on race. But last night, the very same venue - the National Constitution Centre - witnessed one of the worst events: the dismal ABC News debate between the Democratic candidates.
The contrast could hardly have been starker. Obama's March 18 speech was sophisticated, honest and, above all, respectful of the intelligence of his audience. Last night's debate - or, more specifically, the performance of its moderators, Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos - was by turns superficial and disingenuous...
...About half the time set aside for the debate had elapsed - and seven flimsy or already-exhausted issues had been raised - before the first serious question of the night, about troop withdrawals from Iraq, was asked.
The relentless triviality was only one problem, however. The more serious failing was the willingness of Gibson and Stephanopoulos to volunteer as water-carriers for a conservative attack machine that, fearful of Obama's crossover appeal, is already working overtime to tarnish his reputation.
But there is more,
(I feel I am selling Oxi-clean or something), where Will Bunch writes an Open Letter to Gibson Stephanopoulos,It's hard to know where to begin with this, less than an hour after you signed off from your Democratic presidential debate here in my hometown of Philadelphia, a televised train wreck that my friend and colleague Greg Mitchell has already called, quite accurately, a shameful night for the US Media, It's hard because -- like many other Americans -- I am still angry at what I just witnessed, so angry that it's hard to even type accurately because my hands are shaking. Look, I know that "media criticism" -- especially when it's one journalist speaking to another -- tends to be a genteel, collegial thing, but there's no genteel way to say this.
With your performance tonight -- your focus on issues that were at best trivial wastes of valuable airtime and at worst restatements of right-wing falsehoods, punctuated by inane "issue" questions that in no way resembled the real world concerns of American voters -- you disgraced my profession of journalism, and, by association, me and a lot of hard-working colleagues who do still try to ferret out the truth, rather than worry about who can give us the best deal on our capital gains taxes. But it's even worse than that. By so badly botching arguably the most critical debate of such an important election, in a time of both war and economic misery, you disgraced the American voters, and in fact even disgraced democracy itself. Indeed, if I were a citizen of one of those nations where America is seeking to "export democracy," and I had watched the debate, I probably would have said, "no thank you." Because that was no way to promote democracy.
Make no mistake Obama indeed represents a revolutionary change in the political landscape far beyond the surface images of a bi-racial man, who was the son of a single mother who earned his way through academic scholarships to Columbia and Harvard. Obama, even though he is a genuine moderate, and even deliberate in most measures, is also almost honest to a fault for a politician in this post-modern cynical society. He is willing to push the envelope and bring out into open "politically incorrect" issues like race relations, economic and class bitterness, social and cultural stagnations and manipulations, and therefore he is a dangerous element for real change that anyone who is privileged or comfortable in the present establishment would be threatened, especially media driven corporations like Disney.The thing is Clinton's campaign and the mainstream media's obsession with the gaffe's and characterizations are not gaining any traction in the voters, in fact all the polling is showing a solid aversion to this old-school attack politics to Obama's gain. This bitter-sweet pill that currently is consuming the pundits in America's news machine is having a counter-intuitive effect as tough, possibly mortal medicine for Hillary Clinton's campaign. In short----IT IS NOT WORKING!Clinton's unfavorable polling has now grown to a whopping 54% in the recent Washington Post/ABC Poll. The poll also shows a continued 10% margin for Obama among Democrats leaving Clinton with little left but follow Mark Penn's former partner's, Douglas Schoen, public op-ed advice, to go even more negative!He now has a 2-to-1 edge on who is considered more electable in a general contest -- a major reversal from the last poll -- and has dramatically reduced a large Clinton lead on which of the two is the "stronger leader."
[T]he new poll, 54 percent said they have an unfavorable view of Sen. Clinton, up from 40 percent a few days after she won the New Hampshire primary.Her favorability rating has dropped among both Democrats and independents over the past three months, although her overall such rating among Democrats remains high. Nearly six in 10 independents now view her unfavorably.
Obama's favorability rating also has declined over the same period but remains, on balance, more positive than negative.
In a subsequent article the ABC/WaPo poll concluded:Clinton is viewed as "honest and trustworthy" by just 39 percent of Americans, compared with 52 percent in May 2006. Nearly six in 10 said in the new poll that she is not honest and trustworthy. And now, compared with Obama, Clinton has a deep trust deficit among Democrats, trailing him by 23 points as the more honest, an area on which she once led both Obama and John Edwards.
Among Democrats, 63 percent called her honest, down 18 points from 2006; among independents, her trust level has dropped 13 points, to 37 percent. Republicans held Clinton in low regard on this in the past (23 percent called her honest two years ago), but it is even lower now, at 16 percent. Majorities of men and women now say the phrase does not apply to Clinton; two years ago, narrow majorities of both did. Advisers argue that her positive ratings have dipped as she has been defined by her opponents -- a normal campaign occurrence -- and that her honesty problem reflects the pounding she took from Republicans in the 1990s. But the Bosnia incident and the way the campaign handled it have left advisers divided over what a candidate can do after such a steep drop in trust....
The new poll suggests that much of her problem is with men. Nearly two-thirds of men said Clinton is not honest and trustworthy (an increase of 19 points), compared with 53 percent of women (up 12 points). Democratic men, in particular, have shifted: About four in 10 now do not believe Clinton to be honest and trustworthy, nearly triple the percentage saying so in 2006.
The percentage calling Clinton honest has dropped steeply among whites with higher incomes and levels of education. And while majorities of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents across demographic lines said she is honest and trustworthy, the class divisions remain: The percentage of white Democrats without college degrees calling Clinton honest hardly budged in two years, while those with college degrees have dropped off significantly on the question (from 82 percent to 53 percent).
Bottom line is her attacks on Obama as to "elect-ability" are worse when looking at this data. The problem is that the Democratic Party must begin to reign in the Clintista's before they really do damage. My take is far more sophisticated than the pundits who spew their overly simplistic political analysis for the camera and TV viewership. Obama has developed the political identity that he has what Reagan had, a Teflon coating or better a Star Wars like force field. It is called sincerity, a sense that he is genuinely authentic when he speaks and not merely pandering for personal political gain. It the stuff that was perceived also with JFK, Truman, FDR, TR, Lincoln, Jackson, Monroe, Madison, Jefferson, Adams and Washington. These are probably the 12 greatest presidents in our history, of which it is safe to say that Washington, Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt were the greatest in that he possessed the qualities of sincerity and authenticity along with the exceptional capabilities of leadership and political capabilities to succeed during an extraordinary fateful period. I among others, perceive that Obama has this unique quality of political sincerity and authenticity, where this political campaign has actually been a positive for him, his supporters and the nation, for he has grown and learned to master, while the nation is appearing to also rise above the distractions and superficiality of the press and special interests the pundits are promoting. But this campaign must soon come to a stop.
Now Clinton's back is actually against the wall as for her to gain the nomination she must go full throttle negative, not that it is going to work, but it is her only option. Ironically Douglas Schoen, the former and estranged partner of Mark Penn, the Rasputin-like character that was Clinton's previous chief strategist penned an Op-Ed in the Washington Post on April 16th saying just that.Hillary Clinton took an important step Monday toward winning the Democratic nomination by launching an ad targeting Obama's recent comments about working-class voters clinging to "guns or religion." The ad is a marked change from her recent determination to use a positive message until the Democratic convention, but for Clinton to capture the nomination she needs to completely abandon her positive campaign and continue to hammer away at Obama.Clinton has provided a compelling case for her candidacy thus far. After all, the superdelegates have the power to end the Democratic contest now and have chosen to wait. At the very least, Clinton has created enough doubts about Obama and his electability to have earned a chance to compete in the next handful of primaries. But Clinton will almost certainly lose the pledged delegate count and the popular vote. To capture the nomination despite these facts she must convince the superdelegates that she is the only candidate who can win against John McCain in November....
As the underdog, Clinton's positive message will not work unless she is able to undermine Obama's candidacy. The Illinois Senator's success has been largely built upon his claims that he is a unifier who can work above partisan politics, that he will bring change to our government and that he will bring a new style of leadership to Washington. Without bringing a strong amount of skepticism to these claims, Clinton will not be able to make significant inroads in Obama's lead and cannot persuade the superdelegates to go against the will of the American people.
But there is an incorrect analysis, the superdelegates are speaking where as of yesterday and today, five more of them endorsed Obama. Five, yes a handful bringing Obama's hard count up to 228 (22 behind Clinton who is almost unmoved at 250). The gain is not lightening but it sure is consistent where as he was down over 75 in early February he is now below a couple dozen. Also not overlooked is that he has caught Clinton with 74 House of Representatives, leads with fellow Senators, 17-13 and Governors 13-10 (up 7 with the big kahoona elected superdelegates). Clinton hangs on with DNC members but even that is beginning to erode (Clinton 142-113) and DPL (Party Leaders) 10-3. Where Obama leads significantly is the Add-On's 8-1.
Yesterday two Representatives from North Carolina, Mel Watt and David Price, endorsed Obama, (being the two of the eight who are said to about to commit), and from Indiana Andre Carson formerly endorsed Obama. This morning DNC Add-On's, Reggie Whitten (OK) and Harry Thomas Jr. (DC) also committed. It is also noted that Aleita Huguenin (DNC-CA) has now formerly re-committed for Clinton, she seems to be unsteady though.
Coincidentally Robert Reich, a Bill Clinton cabinet appointee, and former roommate wrote a scathing blog post about bitterness, Meet the Press and Old Politics which he appears to passively aggressively slam the Clintons. You may want to read it, for like Richardson close allies might be distancing themselves for the old political family.Are Americans who have been left behind frustrated? Of course. And their frustrations, their anger and, yes, sometimes their bitterness, have been used since then -- by demagogues, by nationalists and xenophobes, by radical conservatives, by political nuts and fanatical fruitcakes – to blame immigrants and foreign traders, to blame blacks and the poor, to blame "liberal elites," to blame anyone and anything.
And lastly the PA polls are coming in.
Zogby is reporting a dead heat at 45%-44% with Obama overwhelmingly winning the Philadelphia area which would make the all important delegate count a break even. Other polls PPP has Obama up 3 points 45%-42%, while Rasmussen has Clinton up 50%-41%, LA Times/Bloomberg Clinton 46%-41%, while ARG and Survey USA has Clinton winning by wide margins. We have seen this before and it means that anything can happen and in all probability it will be close.
