RECENT POSTS
- White House State Dinner Party Crashers
- Obama to Lay Out Emissions Goals in Copenhagen
- Free Bird
- The "Good" War
- The Presidential Planner
- Under the Stars, Obama Toasts India’s Prime Minister
- White House State Dinner – Who Made the Exclusive Guest List?
- Admiral Mike Mullen To Geneva for START Talks
- VP Biden to Indian Prime Minister: “You’re the Hottest Ticket in Town”
- FLOTUS on the State Dinner: Like a Swan, "Calm and Serene Above Water, But We're Paddling Like Mad, Going Crazy Underneath"
MONTHLY ARCHIVES
« Previous | Main | Next »
St. Democrat?
December 04, 2006 11:12 AM
Is there nothing negative to say about the presidential aspirations of Sens. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, and Barack Obama, D-IL?
From following recent media coverage, you'd hardly know that many leading Democrats have SERIOUS CONCERNS that Clinton is unelectable, opposed as she is out of the gate by 4 in 10 Americans, according to polls.
Or that Barack Obama has admitted trying marijuana and cocaine in his youth (acknowledged in his beautifully-written autobiography DREAMS FROM MY FATHER, and has a scant two years in the Senate to his name, with little to claim credit for legislatively.
Indeed, compare coverage of the questions as to whether President Bush ever tooted nose candy, with Obama's admission that he has.
At this point in the presidential race, we in the media tend to not harp on the negatives too much -- the thinking beig that there will be time for that during the ugly primaries and caucuses, many of the candidates are relatively unknown so broader biographical information consumes much of the coverage, and the horse race aspect of it all -- who's in, who's out -- remains the focus.
But that doesn't mean some of the coverage of Obama and Clinton specifically seems to confirm some of the conservative media criticism that we have unrepentant biases.
Yes, a Madame President or President Obama would be ground-breaking.
And yes, there are many fine things to say about both politicians.
And triple yes, we in the media (and I was certainly GUILTY OF THIS) likewise gave occasionally glowing coverage to conservative Republican Sen.John McCain of Arizona. (Though that was when he was an underdog; we shall see how his 2008 coverage as frontrunner compares.)
I think we all in the media need to not let our personal enthusiams for Clinton/Obama, should they exist, get the better of our reports.
-- jt
December 4, 2006 | Permalink | Share | User Comments (8)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
About my off topic prediction above...
Boy was I wrong. Dodged a bullet with Edwards/Obama pick
Posted by: Marisol Gold | Sep 11, 2008 6:23:04 PM
Lucky, you have a very good point, and one I'm ashamed not to have considered! Sen. Obama has been on the national stage for two years, which is two years longer than Texas Gov. G. W. Bush had when he decided to run for president. Sen. Obama has also had lots of experience in the Illinois state legislature. I think national experience certainly helps a candidate, but it shouldn't be considered as a factor to disqualify him or her.
Posted by: chuck | Dec 5, 2006 12:54:55 PM
It never ceases to amaze me when Obama's "mere 2 years in the Senate" is made a disqualifier. Does no one remember that A.Lincoln only served a mere 2 years in the House, and lost his bid for the Senate, before his election as President?
Posted by: lucky | Dec 4, 2006 5:42:01 PM
An off topic prediction
John Edwards / Barack Obama 2008!!!!
a winning ticket
Posted by: Marisol Gold | Dec 4, 2006 5:26:18 PM
It's a courtship, as it should be. You're in the honeymoon phase, like the rest of us. Don't rush it jake. There's plenty of time yet for consternation, criticism and acrimony.
Posted by: cordelia525 | Dec 4, 2006 1:00:25 PM
No question that your personal enthusiams should not color your coverage, but at the same time, you should focus only on issues that matter (i.e., Obama's legislative record; Clinton's fundraising) and not those things that don't (Obama's drug dalliance during the Carter (Nixon? Ford?) administration; the condition of Clinton's marriage). Are we all agreed, now?
Posted by: DKNY | Dec 4, 2006 12:02:56 PM
It IS very important for reporters not to get caught up in the hoopla as each candidate announces the run for President, no matter how favorable that candidate might appear to the reporter. I believe it would be worthwhile to empahsize a sort of career "mini-perspective" of both good and bad things which that candidate brings to the table, epecially necessary since many candidates (such as Tom Vilsack and Sam Brownback) are not well-known. For example, Senator Obama has used his empathy and charisma to speak out as a leader in the fight against AIDS, but has been a US senator for only a couple of years, hasn't sponsored any major legislation, and has recently had real-estate dealings with a questionable character in Chicago. No matter what, reporters must certainly avoid the perception of appearing to "annoint" the candidate they're reporting about.
Posted by: chuck | Dec 4, 2006 11:50:34 AM
Four out of ten ain't bad. A bare majority is needed; not even one in some cases.
Posted by: reyonthehill | Dec 4, 2006 11:46:18 AM
Post a comment
