Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Obama's BFFs With Press Passes

By Joel Achenbach

Obama-mania has been ripe for parody, and sure enough, "Saturday Night Live" returned from the writers' strike with a skewering of reporters sycophantic in their coverage of Sen. Barack Obama. See it here.

Here's my unofficial transcript of a key part of the skit, when an actor portraying a journalist poses a question to the actor playing Obama:

"Senator Obama -- my God, I'm so nervous. I still can't believe I'm actually talking to you.

"Okay, as you know, uh, Senator, as I explained in the letter that I duct-taped to your front door, and I'm sorry that it went on so long, I just, uh, I really really really really really want you to be the next president, and not just because you're a fantastic human being and the only person that can turn this nation around. But also because, deep down, I really and truly believe that it is destiny that one day you and I will be together. You will become a part of me and I a part of you, joined as one. Does that make sense?

"So my question is, Are you mad at me? I was afraid you might be mad at me because, you know, all the shilling for you in my campaign coverage has been so obvious and because I spend every night sitting in front of your house in a parked car."

Funny stuff. This could be a new, dominant meme of the campaign: Obama mesmerizing the media.

There's no doubt that Obama has had favorable coverage. Some would call it a free ride. The Post's media critic Howard Kurtz wrote last week, "Obama has defied the laws of journalistic gravity, somehow avoiding the usual scrutiny applied to front-runners."

But to some extent the media are reporting what they are seeing. Obama has run a strong campaign, and has a knack for luring 12,000, or 15,000, or 20,000 people to arenas, where they cheer his every utterance. The only person unimpressed with the speeches and big rallies is Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Some reporters have written of their discomfort with what ABC's Jake Tapper called the "cult-ish" quality of some of Obama's support. In a blog item earlier this month headlined "And Obama Wept," Tapper wrote: "The Holy Season of Lent is upon us. Can Obama worshippers try to give up their Helter-Skelter cult-ish qualities for a few weeks?"

Joe Klein of Time also criticized what he called the vague message and "mass messianism" of the Obama campaign: "Rather than focusing on any specific issue or cause -- other than an amorphous desire for change -- the message is becoming dangerously self-referential. The Obama campaign all too often is about how wonderful the Obama campaign is."

And Leon Wieseltier warned last month in the New Republic, "Inspiration without content is a prelude to alienation."

Back to "Saturday Night Live": Mike Huckabee made a cameo appearance in a skit in which he pretended not to get the hint that it was time for him to leave the stage. Prompting even more Internet buzz today was the commentary by Tina Fey, sitting at the Weekend Update desk. It was a mock mini-newscast of "Women's News," which culminated in a full-throated, strident endorsement of Clinton and a defense of women slapped with the b-word label. "It's not too late, Texas and Ohio! Get on board! Bitch is the new black!" Fey said.

"Jeralyn" at the blog TalkLeft writes: "At Fey's first sentence, mentioning that Hillary was running for President, the audience started clapping. They laughed and clapped throughout. Who would have thought, an SNL audience that is not loudly pro-Obama. Maybe there's hope yet."

By Post Editor  |  February 24, 2008; 3:26 PM ET
Categories:  Joel's Two Cents  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Democrats Plan to Complain to FEC About McCain
Next: In R.I., Clinton Adopts a Mocking Tone

Comments

I thought it was just me and a few others who saw the media bias and the unrelenting chorus of dillusional Obama supporters. He and his handlers are brilliant and that's unfortunate for the country because there is a strong chance he will win and with his win will come the same diviseness that we have had since Bush took office. He has played the race card brilliantly appearing to stay above the fray and blaming others for doing so. It is a fact that many Black Democrats will vote for him strictly based on his race even though he is half Caucasian. Hillary on the other hand has proven that she can bring the different parties together for when needed. For those ignorant persons who never understood the supposed "Vote for War" on Iraq. It wasn't a vote to invade or to violate the soveriegnty of another nation at will, it was a vote to give the president of the United States the authority to do so only after everything else has been exhausted and only to protect and defend this country. Of course the reports given to Congress and the senate were misleading but I know for a fact that Mr. Obama, who spoke stridently against the war, given the same circumstances would've voted for this authority given that he voted to keep it going. It is beyond idiotic to believe otherwise and a pundit said it best the other when talking about those who are turning away from Clinton and towards Obama, and this pundit was a supporter of Obama's. She said that people were turning away from Hillary because they wanted to be with whoever is winning. If that's the case then there is no integrity or honor and that is in full display from people like John Kerrey and Ted kennedy who recieved support throughout their careers from the Clinton's and they have benefited from the Clintons.

Posted by: artcamacho | March 1, 2008 10:36 PM | Report abuse

Obama's efforts to connect to the Republican Party, specifically Bush, and Dick Chaney, of the Halliburton Company, dates back to the Presidents Grandfather, Prescott Bush, and indeed Chaney was once an executive officer of Halliburton.

The American military pounds Iraq with Artillary, bombs, and the like, destroying large sections of cities, and infra-structures, then Halliburton comes in to rebuild. Halliburton and Halliburton associated companies have raked in ten's of billions.

Obama is just like the BIG HALIBURTAN. Haliburton has contracted to build detention centers in the U.S. similiar to the one in Quantanammo Bay, Cuba. Halliburton does nothing to earn the Two Dollars for each meal an American Serviceman in Iraq eats.

http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/

Halliburton was scheduled to take control of the Dubai Ports in The United Arab Emiirate. The deal was canceled when Bush was unable to affect the transfer of the American Ports.

Now we see what some might suspect as similiar financial escapading from the Democrats.

Two years ago, Iraq's Ministry of Electricity gave a $50 million contract to a start-up security company - Companion- owned by now-indicted businessman (TONY REZKO) Tony Rezko and a onetime Chicago cop, Daniel T. Frawley, to train Iraqi power-plant guards in the United States. An Iraqi leadership change left the deal in limbo. Now the company, Companion Security, is working to revive its contract.
Involved along with Antoin "Tony" Rezco, long time friend and neighbor of Democratic Presidential hopeful Barack Obama, and former cop Daniel T. Frawley, is Aiham Alsammarae. Alsammarae was accused of financial corruption by Iraqi authorities and jailed in Iraq last year before escaping and returning here.

LIKE FATHER LIKE SON --
Obama should be vetted and disclose his connection to the criminal money generating underworld. Besides, his connections to the REZCO MAFIA types, his up-coming tax fraud charges -- Obama needs to disclose why he is a MUSLIM "PATWANG-FWEEE" and stop suppoting our intervention in IRAQ. It's time to introduce this false, fake Xerox - X box Obama and invite the self-indicting thief plagiarizing pipsqueke "GLORK" Xerox - X box to meet the Buffalo "GAZOWNT-GAZIKKA" Police Department Buffalo Creek. He is MAD!!! --

OBAM YOUR NO JFK --
"GLORK" Obama looks like Alfred E. Newman: "Tales Calculated To Drive You." He is a MUSLIM "Glork" He's MAD!!! Alfred E. Neuman is the fictional mascot of Mad. The face had drifted through American pictography for decades before being claimed by Mad editor Harvey Kurtzman after he spotted it on the bulletin board in the office of Ballantine Books editor Bernard Shir-Cliff, later a contributor to various magazines created by Kurtzman.
Obama needs to disclose why he is a MUSLIM "PATWANG-FWEEE" and stop suppoting our intervention in IRAQ. It's time to introduce this false, fake "GLORK" Xerox - X box Obama and invite the self-indicting thief plagiarizing pipsqueke Xerox - X box to meet the Buffalo "GAZOWNT-GAZIKKA" Police Department Buffalo Creek.

Posted by: jreno | February 26, 2008 2:51 AM | Report abuse


Yes now Nader comes in and he will do what he does best. Run to spoil a victory for democrats. I think Nader has good ideas and he should maybe be in the next government and running a ministry for consumer and environmental protection.
Nader will make Obama looses the nomination. Nader has never questioned the nature of the system which if he wants to get a chance to win should be a French proportional multiparty system. So I think he must be paid by republicans to spoil the race for democrats. That is the only purpose I believe.

Posted by: peaceforgod | February 25, 2008 10:17 AM | Report abuse

There's a fine line between more civility in politics and stifling dissent.
There's a fine line between more civility in politics and stifling dissent.
There's a fine line between more civility in politics and stifling dissent.
There's a fine line between more civility in politics and stifling dissent.
There's a fine line between more civility in politics and stifling dissent.

Posted by: doeadeer3 | February 25, 2008 8:39 AM | Report abuse

I see some anti-Obama posts here that must be from GOP's pretending to be Hillary fans. They hope to dump so much garbage on Obama that he will start losing. But since I don't want McCain to win, I will take the bait and stand up for Barack Obama. I believe in Obama, he has integrity, and he was right on target when he proclaimed (at a time when most were for the war) that war against Iraq would require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. He said that this would only serve to strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda. He had the wisdom, understood foreign policy, and accurately predicted the grim outcome of the mistake that has been so costly in so many ways.
Support for Hillary is eroding, and I think more people are starting to realize that it would be a huge mistake to let the Clintons back in the W/H. There is too much covertness regarding the donors to their two charities, and the Clinton Library. Makes one wonder, since Bill has done some "dealing" with foreign nations on his trips abroad. I believe this really is sufficient reason to call that a conflict of interest. Hillary can't escape this by claiming that Bill's name is not on the ballot. Hillary names her W/H years as experience, uses the name to her advantage. It could also be a liability if she got the Dem nomination. Count on the GOP to proclaim conflict of interest, undue influence, along with all of both Clinton's documented wrongdoings. The GOP must have an enormous collection by now: much more than sufficient evidence to keep the Clintons from taking one more stab at the W/H.
So far, the media has been hushed, but once the Clintons lose their hold over the media, it could be a Clinton catastrophe. It may not be too long before the media follows Hillary around and plies her with questions. I'm sure that there are many of us out here in the real UNBIASED world that would like to hear the media ask Hillary why she did not use her influence to get Bill to REALLY focus on capturing Osama bin Laden. He'd been running around since 1993....bin Laden I mean....oh well, never mind...

Posted by: Cali-Gram | February 25, 2008 4:30 AM | Report abuse

This whole "mass messianism" and "obama worshippers" crap is not only untrue, but EXTREMELY INSULTING to those of us whom support Obama. I have been to one of his rallies, and i worked as a volunteer. In both instances i was surrounded by hardworking people who support Obama based on his policies, record, and proven judgement.

This "messiah" ridiculousness has been manufactured by rumors within the media. I am disgusted by the condescending attitude of those whom have chosen not to support Obama. Support whomever you want, but stop trying to define me, and others like me, as brainless groupies. Obama has earned his support because he is the best candidate, has the best record, and is the democrat who can beat McCain in November. The criticism that Obama receives from dolts wondering "what has obama done? he's just words." are spoken by people too lazy or unwilling to do any research real. In addition to having the courage and intelligence to speak out against the Iraq war, Obama has been a lawmaker for 11 years, and has a firm record to stand on.

Posted by: julieds | February 25, 2008 3:24 AM | Report abuse

Nader is the best and here is why:

Over the past few months, we've heard a lot of rhetoric about change, hope, courage and experience from Barack Obama and John McCain.

But what about the facts on the ground?

Take a moment to test your civics knowledge in this election year.

Of the following Presidential candidates - Ralph Nader, Barak Obama and John McCain - which one supports a single payer, Canadian style, free choice, Medicare for all health care system?

Answer: Ralph Nader

Which one supports solar energy and would take nuclear power off the table?

Answer: Ralph Nader

Which one would cut the huge bloated wasteful military budget?

Answer: Ralph Nader

Which one would reverse U.S. Middle East policy in Israel/Palestine, Iraq and Iran?

Answer: Ralph Nader

Which one would launch an aggressive crackdown on corporate crime and corporate welfare?

Answer: Ralph Nader

Who has consistently supported the Palestinian right to nationhood and peaceful settlement?

Answer: Ralph Nader
(Obama has flip-flopped and has now been bought off by the Israel lobby)

Who has never been in cahoots with the likes of Exelon corp. or Rezko?

Answer: Ralph Nader

Who has spent his entire life working for the common people like you and me and has written books to advance the rights of consumers?

Answer: Ralph Nader
(Obama wrote his books about himself while Nader was looking out for us.)

Who has been direct about proclaiming that Bush is a war criminal?

Answer: Ralph Nader

Which candidate has opposed all wars, every time?

Answer: Ralph Nader
(Obama supports bombing Pakistan and war against Afghanistan)

Some claim that having a racial minority as president would send a positive message to the world. So which candidate would be best suited to address the troubed areas in the world?

Answer: Once again, Ralph Nader, an Arab-American
(Who better to quell the anti-American sentiment in Arab world than an Arab-American)

Can you guess the others?

What's off the table for Ralph?

The empty rhetoric.

The empty gesture.

The empty politics.

What's on the table?

Taking these issues seriously - all the way to action.

Challenging the corporate domination of our democracy.

Organizing young and old alike, 1,000 in every Congressional district in the country, half a million strong, to take back the country from the corporations.

If Obama or McCain and their parties had seriously and effectively addressed these and other necessities vital to the American people, there would be no need for Ralph Nader to run for President.

Ralph Nader would be happily out of business.

But we've waited so very long - and still - not a blip on the political radar screen on any of these issues.

So in this pivotal election year, ask yourself this fundamental question:

Which side are you on?

The corporate criminals, the big banks, Wall Street, the credit card companies, the nuclear power industry, the war profiteers, the agribusiness giants, the health insurance industry, the polluters, the drug companies, the unionbusters, Big Oil, the corporate Democrats and corporate Republicans?

Or with people fighting back?

Vote Nader!

Posted by: bhatttt | February 25, 2008 2:37 AM | Report abuse

For those of you asking about Chelsie it is a little ridiculous. We have an all voluntary force for a reason. If we started to use the draft again, well I would then expect that if you number got called, you would go. I would also expect that both men and women would have to register.

Posted by: nytecoldawn | February 24, 2008 8:33 PM | Report abuse

Ask about Chelsie all you want, but what about the two Bush girls? Surely Dubya and Laura can spare one of them.

Posted by: catspajamas55 | February 24, 2008 8:21 PM | Report abuse

And for those of you who are counting, the MSM wrote off Obama early in the campaign cycle. They didn't really start paying attention to him until he started to win. When he won, they all jumped on him only to jump off when he lost the next two elections. Then they started getting back on again when he won SC, and made an impressive showing of super Tuesday. Super Tuesday of course was the day many pundits had determined that Hillary would wrap the nomination up. He pulled off an upset on Super Tuesday by staying alive, winning the popular vote, and winning more states. That is he did exactly what he set out to do and that is keep the race close. He then started a devastating series of wins that have rocked the Clinton Campaign.

Yes, he was expected to do well after Super Tuesday, this is true, but they didn't expect how well he did in areas like Wisconsin or Virginia or Maine. They expected the vote totals to be much closer in those three states, and when they were as wide as they were, they were caught off guard. Even the Hillary camp, who was expecting the losses, were surprised by the margins.

Posted by: nytecoldawn | February 24, 2008 8:11 PM | Report abuse


A cowboy named Bud was overseeing his herd in a remote mountainous pasture in California when suddenly a brand-new BMW advanced out of a dust cloud towards him.

The driver, a young man in a Brioni suit, Gucci shoes, RayBan sunglasses and a YSL tie, leans out the window and asks the cowboy, 'If I tell you exactly how many cows and calves you have in your herd, will you give me a calf?'

Bud looks at the man, obviously a yuppie, then looks at his peacefully grazing herd and calmly answers, 'Sure, Why not?'

The yuppie parks his car, whips out his Dell notebook computer, connects it to his Cingular BLUETOOTH cell phone, and surfs to a NASA page on the Internet, where he calls up a GPS satellite to get an exact fix on his location which he then feeds to another NASA satellite that scans the area in an ultra-high-resolution photo.

The young man then opens the digital photo in Adobe Photoshop and exports it to an image processing facility in Hamburg, Germany.

Within seconds, he receives an email on his Palm Pilot that the image has been processed and the data stored. He then accesses a MS-SQL database through an ODBC connected Excel spreadsheet with email on his Blackberry and, after a few minutes, receives a response.

Finally, he prints out a full-color, 150-page report on his hi- tech, miniaturized HP LaserJet printer and finally turns to the cowboy and says, 'You have exactly 1,586 cows and calves.'

'That's right. Well, I guess you can take one of my calves,' says Bud.

He watches the young man select one of the animals and looks on amused as the young man stuffs it into the trunk of his car.

Then the Bud says to the young man, 'Hey, if I can tell you exactly what your business is, will you give me back my calf?'

The young man thinks about it for a second and then says, 'Okay, why not?'

'You're a Congressman for the U.S.Government', says Bud.

'Wow! That's correct,' says the yuppie, 'but how did you guess that?'

'No guessing required.' answered the cowboy. 'You showed up here even though nobody called you; you want to get paid for an answer I already knew, to a question I never asked. You tried to show me how much smarter than me you are; and you don't know a thing about cows...this is a herd of sheep. . . .


Now give me back my dog.

Posted by: ajironworks | February 24, 2008 8:04 PM | Report abuse

The media may or may not like Obama. It really depends who you pay attention to in the media. Honestly, I would say that Obama has had it fairly easy so far. I would attribute that mostly to very little is known about him. He has been remarkably consistent for a politician, and they have had a hard time pointing out inconsistencies. Some do exist, as he is not perfect, but he has handled those very well.

As for the media reporting the "truth" and unbiased opinions, this makes me laugh a bit. The media in America is no longer capable for telling just the facts. The facts are not flashy enough. They have to take positions on the news to sale their stories and sale their advertisers. Some of them are quite literally making up the news. I am sorry, but if you are just figuring this out, you have been living under a bridge. It has been this way my entire life. The news has opinions now and they will share them with you.

I also think that people sale Obama short when they say the media has given him a free ride. He has run a very clean and well organized campaign. He ran his campaign this way before the media got a hold of him and after it. There really is no difference in how he has run the campaign. The MSM follow him because he generates news, and people right now have a desire to hear what it is that he has said.

As for the speeches, it is not that hard to find them online. A lot of his supporters post them online. Again, they are remarkably consistent. Hillary Clinton is not know for her consistency. This has been know for a while, and evidence of this can be found repeatedly in her record.

As for his record, the analysis is a pro Hillary and leaves out some of his accomplishments. I am sorry, but complaining about media bias, and then providing a link to media bias is hypocritical and undermines your point.

I am not arguing that media bias does not exist. I see it in every story. The goal should be to avoid this problem, but American media sources refuse to do so. The MSM has become in its own right, a form of entertainment.

Posted by: nytecoldawn | February 24, 2008 8:00 PM | Report abuse

A QUESTION FOR HILLARY:

WHY ISN'T CHELSEA FIGHTING IN IRAQ?

Why is Chelsea campaigning for her mother, going to Hawaii...if she supports her mother, why isn't she fighting in Iraq?

A SERIOUS QUESTION

People like the Clintons thinks it's fine to vote for wars, but alway expect other parents' children to die in them.

WHY ISN'T CHELSEA IN IRAQ?????

Posted by: kevinlarmee | February 24, 2008 03:42 PM

Needed repeating.

Posted by: hinamanu | February 24, 2008 7:43 PM | Report abuse

Joel's "two cents" is worth about that much, as far as I can see.

Senator Barack Obama's campaign speaks for itself. The fact that Hillary Clinton, with her supposed 35 years of superior experience cannot manipulate the system, the media, and the people to give her what she and Bill wants is just all the more reason to see who the empty suit really is.

Posted by: TonyMC1 | February 24, 2008 7:40 PM | Report abuse

where is the free ride? Will the media allow Obama to continue his campaign if he lost 10 in a row? Will the media allow Obama to continue his campaign if he came out lashing against Queen Hillary (a la shame on you Obama, meet me in Ohio and let us debate your dirty tactics)?

Gimme a break

Posted by: kwakuazar | February 24, 2008 7:40 PM | Report abuse

TomJx: ABC News has a habit of deleting my comments as well. Sometimes it relates to me filling in the URL field on their form or using the screen name I'm using here. But, they've deleted comments I left with no link and with no URL-related name. Needless to say, those comments were calling out Tapper and their other "reporters" for their misleading or incomplete statements.

As for Achenbach's claim that "the only person unimpressed with the speeches and big rallies is Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton", that's obviously false. I've met enough fakes to know a fake when I see one, and no doubt many others who've been around the block a few times realize that Obama is basically just a pitchman.

And, the supposed job of the media should be to point out lies and misleading statements and hold the candidates responsible for their statements. Yet, the media has completely failed in that for every candidate (except those it wanted to sink).

The solution is for regular citizens to go to Obama's appearances and videotape his response to the the types of questions the MSM is too corrupt and too besotted to ask, then upload his responses to video sharing sites.

Posted by: LonewackoDotCom | February 24, 2008 6:29 PM | Report abuse

And exactly what has Barack done besides make speeches against the war? Oh, that's right, he wasn't a US senator when basically the entire Senate voted to support the resolution. Oh, that's right, he had the same voting record as Hillary on Iraq in his 2 short years in office. It's very easy to criticize your opponent's record WHEN YOU HAVE NO RECORD OF YOUR OWN.

My daughter will be a commissioned officer in the US Army in 4 years. I know first-hand the fear of a parent whose child may be put in harm's way. To those of you making cracks about Chelsea or whomever fighting in Iraq, if you are not walking the talk, I would appreciate a little sensitivity.

Posted by: redhiker | February 24, 2008 6:21 PM | Report abuse

A CrabbyGolightly.com/Oprahama.html headline:
'Oprahama: Does It Take One Messiah To Make Another?'
THE BOYS ON THE BLOGS ARE SUDDENLY EXPRESSING UNEASE AT THE "MASS MESSIANISM,'' as Time's Joe Klein puts it, at the grass roots campaign of Senator Barack Obama's presidential campaign. Crabby wonders if Obama's been getting lessons in crowd control from The First Lady of TV, Oprah Winfrey, one of his not-so-secret weapons in his battle for the White House. Any close observer of Oprah recognizes the same pattern of repetition that both Obama and Oprah use in their prepared banter, the same emphasis on ''you." A quick look at Oprah's website will give a brief lesson on the technique. CrabbyGolightly.com. Taking a dim view of celebrity, media and power.
posted 02/11/2008 at 15:12:28

Posted by: crabbygolightly | February 24, 2008 6:01 PM | Report abuse

To wbrigittepj:

I agree with Kevin and I am a republican

who voted for Reagan. I used to love

Hillary before she voted for the war.

One should not send our young men in

uniform unless it is to defend our nation.

So I repeat the same post:

"People like the Clintons thinks it's fine to vote for wars, but alway expect other parents' children to die in them".

WHY ISN'T CHELSEA IN IRAQ?????

Anne

Posted by: peaceforgod | February 24, 2008 5:59 PM | Report abuse

Hey Kevin.

Why aren't you fighting in Iraq instead of spamming the same thing on every article at this site?
_____________

The media loves Barack, but the honeymoon may soon be coming to an end.

Posted by: brigittepj | February 24, 2008 5:20 PM | Report abuse

I've been a supporter of Barack Obama since before his announcement in Springfield, IL. I have two points to make about this post.

First, supporting Obama through the summer was so anxiety ridden that many of us wanted Obama to take Hillary on hard. He said (trough David Axelrod) that we should be patient, he needed to introduce himself to Iowa voters first. Sen. Clinton was racking up endorsements and money: She was enevitable. We said 'Ok, we'll see'.

After Obama's speech at the Jefferson/Jackson dinner, we didn't realize at the time, that it was Obama's first shot over Clinton's bow, but it soon became known. He said "We don't need more heat, we need more light" Yes! Then he won Iowa. We were exuberant.

But, he lost NH. Clinton was again touted in the press as the dem. nominee.

Then Bill Clinton stepped in SC, we were angry. But the voters were angry, too. Obama won SC.

Since Super Tuesday, Obama supporters have been fully engaged, willing to take wins and losses as they come. Never taking our eyes off the prize. We don't care what meme the press is using, we are just counting delegates.

Secondly, the press will follow any 'story' like jackels. Clinton is great, Clinton is a mess. Obama is an empty suit, Obama is the new messiah. In the context of a year long campaign, we've seen it all. When the election of 2008 is over, there will be so much to analyse. Political scientists will write so many books, it will be rediculous.

One thing that is evident: Obama HAS run a different kind of campaign, one that started with Howard Dean's in 2004 and is now comming into fullfillment, whether the press know it or not. Small donors are taking back their democracy. Obama has been able to be 'cool' in the face of attacks, he has filled arenas, he has ignited hope in the young, he has masterfully stood strong, because he only has to be true to his own values and the people who support him. This has been his strength and his responsibility. We know it.

The press should take a look at the increased turnout in the primaries. It is not so much Obama or Clinton. It is the giddy awareness that the Bush Administration is almost over. It is the affirmation that, in America, democracy is messy, but our values can be renewed every four years. Without bloodshed, without a war. I have hope. Yes. We. Can.

Posted by: ellenhamm | February 24, 2008 5:03 PM | Report abuse

It is sad to say it but democrats have an aversion to Charisma they want their leaders to be bland like John F Kerry and Al Gore and Carter.

They are treating Obama as they treated Ronald Reagan which look at the supporters and say that they are only stars. Well just remember how Bill was back in 1992 was he also not popular with the ladies and the young folks.

Posted by: jama201 | February 24, 2008 4:31 PM | Report abuse

The media are definitely changing their tune when it comes to Obama, see the post commented here. UK's Guardian is pointing it out. It is a good thing, Barack Obama gets more scrutiny, because a cult is never a good political solution. (Using Helter Skelter as an analogy is outrageous, however!)

I fully expect Senator Obama to be able to stand the scrutiny, Senator Clinton didn't, if I may mention the war.

For more on how some European newspapers cover your election primaries, read:

http://tpzoo.wordpress.com/2008/02/24/good-morning-from-europe-the-sunday-papers/

Posted by: old_europe | February 24, 2008 4:28 PM | Report abuse

I was surprised to see Jake Tapper deleted several of my posts on his blog - I guess they weren't pro-Clinton enough. Odd, I haven't had posts deleted in other US or UK media. I don't do rants, I don't do off-topic, I don't do insults. Apparnetly rational posts pointing out problems with Clinton and her campaign aren't welcome. So yes, I think there's media bias all right and Jake could start by looking in the mirror.

Posted by: TomJx | February 24, 2008 4:19 PM | Report abuse

It is so nice to see that media hype isn't in my imagination. It has been very frustrating to get the media to share a true, unbiased report of the candidates.

It was awesome to see Tina's endorsment. Hillary has a clear vision, knows what ti will take to get it done, and has the experience to know how tomake it happen.

I am not looking for a celebrity as my next president - I want real solutions that will make my life better.

Posted by: MAB2 | February 24, 2008 3:57 PM | Report abuse

I think the media has played things the way they always do. Nothing new here. What is new, is the grass-roots support Obama seems to be getting:

Barack vs Hillary Analysis- the home stretch:
http://newsusa.myfeedportal.com/viewarticle.php?articleid=53

Posted by: davidmwe | February 24, 2008 3:51 PM | Report abuse

One of my colleagues has looked at Obama's votes in the U.S. Senate and during his time as state senator in Illinois. He did not find that he was a particular advocate of change. Indeed, my colleague writes that the more appropriate slogan for Obama's campaign would be "The audacity of hype" (http://www.reflectivepundit.com/reflectivepundit/

With few exceptions, the media have mightily contributed, if not created a mass response to this presidential candidate that would be more appropriate for a pop star.

Posted by: bn1123 | February 24, 2008 3:46 PM | Report abuse

A QUESTION FOR HILLARY:

WHY ISN'T CHELSEA FIGHTING IN IRAQ?

Why is Chelsea campaigning for her mother, going to Hawaii...if she supports her mother, why isn't she fighting in Iraq?

A SERIOUS QUESTION

People like the Clintons thinks it's fine to vote for wars, but alway expect other parents' children to die in them.

WHY ISN'T CHELSEA IN IRAQ?????

Posted by: kevinlarmee | February 24, 2008 3:42 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company