As for the “why,” I think a big part of the answer is Tina Fey and the other no-longer-striking writers at Saturday Night Live. The one-two-three punch of faux debate/”Bitch is the new Black“/faux debate #2 was not only excellent political commentary, it seems to have dramatically shifted the way the media covered the race — and the Clinton campaign played off it very well. It’s one thing for a campaign to question the media’s coverage; in the early going, the Clinton camp’s complaints generated a modest level of self-examination, but nothing to write home about. (Chris Matthews apologized, then went right back to it.) But the SNL skits, which I’m guessing every political reporter in the country watched, held up a big mirror to the coverage so far, and the media didn’t like what it saw. Suddenly the story about unfair coverage was everywhere; reporters were openly and repeatedly questioning whether they’d been fair to Clinton and overly kind to Obama; the Clinton campaign was having a field day; and the Obama camp was having to deal with a very different media environment from the one to which they had become accustomed.
Add to that the enormous gift that Team Obama handed Team Clinton in the form of GoolsbeeGate. It may not be much of a real “scandal,” but it was exactly what the Clinton campaign needed. The Globe reports that
Clinton, in what may be her first memorable phrase of the long campaign, accused Obama of giving voters the old “wink-wink” – promising something he didn’t intend to deliver. And Obama suddenly was on the defensive.
If she had been really gutsy, she would have said that this was an example of Obama himself engaging in the “okie-doke” — something of which he has accused others. Probably best that she didn’t actually go there. In any event, the damage was done; I’d venture that this is what killed any momentum Obama had been building up in Ohio.
Them’s the breaks. The writer’s strike ends and Tina Fey goes to bat for Hillary; an Obama aide commits a gaffe and can’t make it go away; the press reacts and starts covering things differently; and suddenly what seemed like unstoppable O-mentum vanishes, replaced by a Hillary surge. Gotta love politics.
So what next? Seems to me that an excellent example of how not to react is on view at Daily Kos. The site has gone into meltdown. People are wailing and gnashing their teeth. Look at this, for God’s sake, and there are plenty more like it. At least there’s one sensible Kossack:
I am embarrassed by this community – a note to Markos …
Daily Kos has been totally and completely taken over by a very vociferous (and probably, in the big scheme of things, small) group of loudmouth louts and insufferable assholes. And each of you know who you are.
For months, I’ve thought that things would settle down here. I’ve studiously avoided the candidate wars and flame fests, and stuck to discussing progressive issues.
But this place is in total chaos and complete nuclear meltdown tonight.
There was a time that I thought DKos was at least somewhat reflective of the true nature of progressive politics and values. Not after tonight.
He’s right. The way forward is not to lament the fact that other Democrats might prefer a different candidate. It is, rather, to revel in the facts that we have two excellent candidates, that turnout for Democratic primaries and caucuses is at record highs while Republican turnout has been anemic even when there was a race, and that when a nominee is finally chosen most (though, sadly, probably not all) of those who were with the non-winner will hop on board. There does remain a risk of superdelegates saying dumb things and behaving badly at the convention, but I am hopeful that that will sort itself out before then.
And don’t be afraid of an intense contest continuing on our side. John McCain became the Republican nominee last night, but nobody cared. He’s heading into a zone of darkness (as far as free media is concerned) for weeks, because he has no news value — unless he does something dumb. That’s a good thing.
Remember when Obama was 17 points behind in Ohio? And way behind in Texas?
<
p>Could it be the media made it seem like Obama was on the path to winning so they would have a good “come back” story for Hillary?
<
p>Last night on MSNBC they showed a chart that the Obama campaign made many months ago in which they predicted every victory and loss he has had to date including Ohio and Texas.
I’ve seen a lot of places where online commenters are saying things like “screw you, Ohio and Texas” or really nasty things about Hillary because Obama wasn’t anointed last night the way some people had hoped.
<
p>When I countered with an argument saying basically “If your candidate lost, perhaps you didn’t work hard enough to get that candidate more votes? Did you canvas, phonebank, or other GOTV activities?” As a result of basically saying that it’s more helpful to the Obama campaign to be proactive instead of reactive, that actual campaign work garners more votes then bitching on the internet, I was summarily flamed, lol.
<
p>It seems to me that some of the new blood that Obama has brought to the table doesn’t realize campaigns are won with real elbow grease and a solid ground game. That grassroots is more than just blog commenting and email forwards. And when stuff doesn’t go their way, they become whiney and resentful.
<
p>Now, I’m not criticizing people who are not politically active, as I’ve stated here before I do nothing in politics beyond vote every two years, talking with friends, and participating on BMG. But I also have no sense of entitlement that these particular vociferous on-line but do-nothing in real life people do, and I have no illusion that campaigns are won without a tireless ground game, meticulous organizing and honest sacrifice from a large swarth of people.
<
p>Yes, people checking back in seems to have translated into real votes for Obama, but I wonder how fragile his new coalition is if his supporters throw such tantrums after one bad night? I also wonder if there is a negative correlation with whininess and the amount of real effort put into a campaign – are the people who did the least to get Obama votes yesterday the loudest whiners?
Tina Fey hosted the first episode, but is otherwise no longer involved in SNL. Jim Downey wrote both debate sketches.
<
p>I hope that they’re able to find an impressionist who can do Obama as well as Amy Poehler does Clinton. They never did find an adequate GWB.
Jon Stewart on Crossfire?????
<
p>….without whom
<
p>
<
p>Might never have been shown the way……
I didn’t see nor hear of the Tina Fey episode, so can’t speak to the sea-change effect you think it had on national Presidential coverage (other than the fact that I didn’t hear of it). I’m sticking with the same story that saw us through New Hampshire:
<
p>Sleezy pollsters manufactured fictitious Obama gains, ignoring the fact that the voters of New Hampshire really did like Hillary;
<
p>…the same story that got us through California: (replace NH with CA)
<
p>…and which now works quite well with the results, exactly as you described them, from Texas and Ohio.
<
p>People actually like Hillary.
Sure, because nothing enhances a pollster’s credibility like being completely wrong.
You tell me which is more likely…”Clinton starts with a big lead, loses it all, then miraculously recovers it the day before the election,” or, she had the lead throughout, and the polls are garbage?
Two questions:
<
p>1. Who here thinks that the ’08 ticket for the Democrats is going to be Obama/Clinton??
<
p>2. Who here thinks that the ’08 ticket for Democrats is going to be Clinton/Obama???
<
p>’Nuff said.
Seriously, does anyone want to win smearing candidates with questionable or bogus “facts”?
It wasn’t bogus or Obama would have been able to defuse it. Clearly a “senior advisor” made a mistake (unless you believe the Canandian government is in the business of secretly moving political chess peices in the US).
<
p>By denying it the Obama campaign gave reporters (and the Clinton folks) a chance to dig deeper and they they found some dirt. Real dirt – no way but the preception of an issue was enough to create the problem for Obama.
<
p>Had Obama fired the guy from the campaign (remember Bill Sheehan in NH) it becomes a non-issue. My take – rookie mistake and it cost them but not bogus.
Clinton seem to have done exactly what she accused Obama of doing
John McCain does.
<
p>Do you want to be having another one of those “why did our candidate let the Republicans slap him around so much?” post-mortems the day after Election Day? This is presidential politics, not a hugging contest.
Maybe people want Hillary to be president!! Nah, that can’t be it…
Well of course if a bunch of comedians say that the media is biased against Hillary then it must be true. Tina Fey is of course the foremost political analyst of our times.
<
p>I’d probably agree that it had an impact on the craven media. Bush has brow beat them for years into weak coverage. So why not Clinton and her surrogates – like the all powerful Tina Fey.
<
p>And to the poster – your one purpose on this site of late seems to be to point out all the ways Obama folks are bad because we are really into this and get pissed about Clinton chicanery, or to just show that Obama is not all he’s hyped to be and Hillary is the real victim. I can’t think of a post from you lately where you didn’t point out some new example of Obama being human or something his campaign did that was negative – even if he has been about as positive a candidate as you can find. I know you endorsed Obama – but I have forgotten why because you seem to have forgotten as well.
<
p>We do have two excellent candidates but one is hellbent on ripping the other one down and that will hurt his chances in November. As an Obama supporter I just think we have to fight fire with fire – the Clintons will say anything to win, so we have to expose their junk and fire back.
for some reason the people who endorsed him too. When Clinton attacks Obama we get fired up. That seems to bug you real bad – like we should just sit on our hands and listen to that crap.
<
p>You seem to take perverse joy in seeing Obamans pissed. I don’t get it. Fine if that’s how you want to run your site. But, I really don’t get why from anything you post you have any inclination to support Obama.
<
p>And Texas was not a comfortable win by the way. It was 4 points and it looks like Obama took the delegates when including the caucuses.
only with his supporters. And after you posted about folks (of course only Obama folks) taking it to far on DKos you then write this immature crap. Way to live up to your own rhetoric.
<
p>And I figured after all the whining Clinton has done (which you have echoed at BMG) about unfair treatment in the media, her teary moment in New Hampshire, etc.. that you would be sympathetic to an “emotional” appeal for fairness on your own site. If I’m crying its only because that is what seems to work in politics these days.
<
p>I agree with your assessment of the Clinton campaigns ‘ripping the other one down.’
<
p>I don’t, however, agree that the Clintons will say anything to win. With the exception of denials of a liaision with Miss Lewinsky, I don’t think either of the Clintons have lied. They’ll say things that are harsh, perhaps even viscious, and definitely with some heavy topspin but not wholly untrue. I do think they’ll withdraw from that precipice. As I believe the same of Sen Obama. I think if they were willing to go past that line, they’d be in the other party.
<
p>Nor do I believe in ‘fighting fire with fire.’ The only thing that wins there… is the fire.
<
p>The Honorable Senator Obama ought to keep his eyes on the prize. The Honorable Senator Clinton ought to keep her eyes on the prize.