Belated good morning to all. Because my daughter had to finish up homework she didn’t finish last night, (which meant I had to drive her to school) I haven’t been scouring the internets while downing my usual coffee laced milky beverage, searching for something to write my usual morning post about. Instead, because my daughter was using my computer to finish up her Latin essay, I was afforded the rare (and generally unwanted) opportunity to listen to the morning cable news programs. Normally I would have watched Sports Center, but there were some primary elections last night (you may have heard something about this, I suppose), so I was curious as to what the early buzz would be from all the usual suspects in Infotainment Land.
I began by watching MsNBC, and their coverage was allocated roughly 75% to the Obama v. Clinton race, and 25% to John McCain’s slow slog to the GOP nomination. And it was fascinating to watch, in the same way a train wreck is fascinating.
When I turned on the TV, MsNBC had Andrea Mitchell on being interviewed by the generic blonde female anchor person (sorry but I didn’t catch her name), and I have never seen such a long face from Mrs. Alan Greenspan before, as she described how grim things are looking for the Clinton campaign. Here’s the gist of her commentary: The Clinton campaign is being out raised in terms of money by Obama, they can’t contest any states prior to Texas and Ohio, the campaign staff shakeups are dispiriting, they’re spending all their time on the phone trying to keep their money people and Super delegates on board, yadda, yadda, yadda. You’d have thought someone had killed her pet dog the way she stared into the camera, very dispirited, very sad in that grim stereotypical way reporters project when they are commenting on a school shooting, a terrorist attack, a dead white girl or some other inexplicable tragic loss of life. It was really quite something. Normally she is bright and upbeat and always very very focused, but this morning she looked like I do before my second cup of coffee (and my antidepressant drugs) kick in.
Next up was Tim “Pumpkinhead” Russert, who looked like he hadn’t slept all night. Seriously, he looked like hell, though maybe that was his makeup sliding off his face. He gave it the old college try for Hillary, claiming she still had a core of support among women, Latinos, poor whites (he said blue collar voters, but we all know what that codes for) and people over 65. It really was amazing watching him try to spin Clinton’s truly spectacularly crappy results from last night into something positive. He kept claiming he had looked “deep into the numbers” (which means he examined the exit polls I presume) and that there was still enough there to suggest that Clinton can still win the nomination, as long as she takes Texas and Ohio by “comfortable margins” (whatever that means). It was a little like watching a drunk meander down the street after closing time at the local bar talking to himself insisting he knows where his car is, and he can still drive himself home.
It was so bad that even Joe “I did not kill that woman” Scarborough, dedicated conservative that he is actually responded with deep, dripping scorn and condescension to Russert, pointing out that these aren’t just losses Hillary is suffering these are 30 percentage point losses or more in state after state. He ran down the primary votes from Washington, Louisiana, Virginia, Maryland, Maine, and on and on, citing the large margin of victory for Obama in each one as if he had memorized them (and maybe he had). You could tell he thought Russert was full of it, and by the time he was done Russert had that deer in the headlights look, one that said “I can’t believe I’ve just been called on my bullshit by one of my own colleagues, and a second rate one at that!” He mumbled something in response but really had nothing to rebut Scarborogh’s take on the Obama surge.
The most interesting comments actually came from Chris Matthews, who also apparently had pulled an all nighter, but must have a better makeup person, because he didn’t look quite as bedraggled as Timmeh did. And the fact that Mr. “It’s all about me and my misogyny” may have been exhausted perhaps contributed to his insight this morning. Because rather than his usual bombast and bluster and general nastiness, he actually sounded like he had a rational thought in his head for once. He said that Hillary had made a strategic mistake at the very beginning of her campaign, because her message has concentrated solely on her experience and competence, her “readiness” for the job of being our next Commander-in-Chief.
In effect, Matthews said Senator Clinton has been running for George Bush’s job, albeit as a more competent, more intelligent manager of the political status quo. Obama on the other hand has been running to be the opposite of Bush, and Matthews claimed that Obama’s message was more in line with what the American people wanted right now. They don’t want to elect a more competent, intelligent Bush as President (i.e., a rerun of husband Bill’s presidency), they want someone fundamentally different, and that is why Obama’s message of “hope” and “change” is being received so well, and why he is attracting such a wide swath of voters from across the political spectrum, despite the fact that he often seems long on rhetoric and short on specifics. And Matthews just may be right. Voters may not know what exactly they want from their next President, but they damn sure don’t want a continuation of politics as usual. To many of them, I think Hillary represents more of the same, more of what we’ve been seeing since the Reagan era, and fairly or unfairly, that image of her is a detriment right now. She represents to people the politics of the past, a past that has led to where we are today, up to our eyeballs in war, debt, bankruptcy, infrastructure decay, educational failures and an economy that is good only if you are a millionaire.
Next it was Pat “I’m not a racist though I play one on TV” Buchanan. And he said what you would expect him to say. Obama has a message that appeals to more people than Clinton, especially independents and some moderate Republicans. Essentially he felt that Clinton’s time had passed, though he did get a small gleam in his eye when he spoke about the possibility of a brokered convention. As for McCain, Buchanan kept going on about McCain’s trouble with the conservative base of the GOP. Same old standard stuff. McCain is inevitable, but will he get the diehard Bushbots to vote for him in November. He also said that if the race is Obama vs. McCain, it will essentially be all about the war, since that is the one issue on which they are most in conflict. He said that the only strengths (such as they are) the Republicans have are the terrorism and war issues, so he expects the McCain campaign to focus on that issue more than any other.
That was pretty much it for MsNBC’s coverage. No one on their panel of talking heads by the way could in any way be construed as a liberal. Everyone was either a clearly defined conservative, or a pundit like Matthews and Russert who have enabled Republicans and slammed Democrats over the last god knows how many years. Par for the course.
The I switched to CNN and CNN headline news. They were much less focused on analysis, and seemed dedicated to just reporting on the election results and the delegate counts. They also did not stick exclusively with the presidential campaign, but quickly left to go to other stories, such as the weather (it sucks) and Roger Clemens (the famed baseball star accused of steroid use) testifying on Capitol Hill again, and whether he perjured himself or not in his previous testimony. In fact, they covered the Clemens story to a far greater extent than anything else. You’d have thought from all the attention they paid to this story the greatest crisis facing our country right now was whether athletes have been using performance enhancing drugs (they have) and then lying about it (they did). Needless to say, not a word was mentioned about Iraq or Afghanistan (and that applied to to MsNBC as well).
As for Fox and Friends? Sorry, but nothing on earth could get me to watch those idiots. Use your imagination. And just for the record, it will be a very long time before I subject myself to this sort of mindless blather again.
Before I read the rest of your blog, I just want to say that I salute your daughter for taking Latin. I was the last kid in my high school to take four years of Latin (then took another semester in college). Since I’m not Catholic and didn’t go into the priesthood, I never used the language except for reading plaques in the lobbies of federal buildings, but I usually do better than my girlfriend when watching Jeopardy!
They almost axed the Latin curriculum, but enough parents insisted they keep it that they re-hired the district’s Latin teachers, at least for a few more years.
I took Latin back in the 60s in a small public high school in NJ. The program shut down the year after I graduated. The only phrase I can toss out off the top of my head is “Puer agricola est.”
My son chose Latin as his foreign language in high school. After a string of horrible Spanish teachers, that language was definately out. The only reason he took any foreign language is that he was forced to. He choose Latin because he wants to major in science and thought it would be useful. Now he’s a big fan of Latin and wants to continue with it after High School.
Back in the awful days of the SF Giants back in the 80s, if you stayed to the end of an extra-inning night game (cold, howling winds off the Bay) you were awarded a Croix de Candlestick, which had “veni, vidi, vixi” on the bottom of it. “I came, I saw, I survived.”
Those are collectors’ items now.
The blond anchor on MSNBC was likely to be Mika Bzrezhinski, daughter of Zbigniew Brzezinski (Carter Administration).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mika_Brzezinski
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zbigniew_Brzezinski
Hmm, and her brother is an advisor to the Obama campaign.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Brzezinski
No, isn’t it McCain Campaign?
Wikipedia says that the son is working for Obama, and that the father has endorsed Obama….
I listen often, and would have sworn she said her brother was Republican (more than once.) Now I’ll probably have to watch when Joe returns. (I’m fine with the show when he’s far, far away.)
Wikipedia is wrong.
That could explain the funereal behavior. Mitchell and Matthews have always taken some psychotic joy in being downright and unnecessarily mean to Sen. Clinton and they can’t do that anymore lest she “shun” the channel, like that’s gonna happen. Her supporters are fucking crybabies who think that even when straight facts about Clinton are given, it’s negative spin. They’ve gone over to Ron Paul world, except that all the Paul supporters have a case.
But remember when Clinton dismissed black voters? It seems that MSNBC, in addition to giving her free air time, and running her ads for free on their website are also using her spin:
Allow that to marinate.
Black people are no longer part of “traditional Democratic base voters”. Since when? Since we stopped voting for Clinton?
Right here.
Can I just say how very much I hate “working class whites”? So, Obama’s white base doesn’t work because they’re independently wealthy? As a pink American I have to say that I personally do not know any other pink Americans who don’t work for a living.
The problem is that it’s code for “racist white liberals” when we can all see racist white liberals who make a lot of money, on some of those other liberal blogs. It’s an insult to working class whites who aren’t racists, too.
I can’t think of any ways that they sub-categorize blacks. Black voters are just black. They don’t ever say “working class blacks” or “black soccer moms”. I guess I’ve heard them say “upper class blacks” which I guess means uppity blacks that have overcome their blackness and can now use other criteria to choose whom they vote for? Maybe I’m all wet, but I can’t recall..
If I had to hazard a guess, I’d say that they don’t believe we exist. There’s either “exceptional” Blacks or stereotypical ones. Either Colin Powell/Michael Jordan/Oprah Winfrey or gang member/drug dealer/baby daddy.
Too many media types dismiss working class blacks, or Mocha Moms (a black SAHM group) or professional blacks; we exist, but they’re clueless. Perhaps it’s because they don’t have any real relationships with any segment of the community except what they see on teevee.
Just assume that all Latinos are either illegal immigrants sending money back to Mexico (?) or they’re crossovers like Bill Richardson.
I KNOW!!!
I just love how folks assume that any Latina or Latino “just got here” when many folks have more generations here than many whites who are assumed to have a relative that came on the Mayflower. And then there are the other distinctions. It’s just ignorance, a lack of any real history and a stunning resistance to learning it.
Wouldn’t want to ruin the narrative.
Mr. AP is gonna have to step it up! Besides, this is the second Valentine’s gift I’ve received today!
Thank you.
But I was just stating facts. It’s annoying to me. It’s almost like they act like they don’t work with Latinos. Hell, some of the hosts on CNN are Latino and they still say that crap. If I worked there, I’d have to superglue some drawers shut or something.
And as a cafe au lait/olive, I’d like to find the pool of money that enables one to not be “working class.”
I think they are sad because they fear they won’t have Hillary or Bill to endless slam and snark about if she loses. Lot easier to make sexist and demeaning remarks about the Clintons than it is to attack Obama, who for the moment seems to be the Teflon candidate (unless of course you’re using that phrase as a reference to John McCain’s face).
That is such an ignorant ‘analysis’ of voters….so ‘blacks’ can’t be young, independent or affluent?…but are instead just ‘black’?
And yeah fabooj, since when did the traditional bedrock base of black voters for the dem party somehow become not traditional voters? Reading stupidity like this really does give me a headache.
Are old, poor automatons who apparently vote GOP. I read it on MSNBC so it must be true.
talking about the old “blue collar” democrats of rural Ohio now calls them “lunch bucket democrats”. Ok, who the fuck takes a bucket to work with them for lunch except for maybe miners who are going to be stuck a mile underground at lunch time? I was reminded of the Seven Dwarfs whistling their way into the woods to do whatever it is that dwarfs do in the woods.
Pundits are always analyzing the last war. They are trying to fit Obama’s support into their little boxes and it’s not working. They are really being exposed for the frauds they are during this election.
you don’t want to know what dwarfs do in the woods.
Hint: the eighth Disney dwarf (cut from the script at the last minute) was “Frothy”.
Ewww.
I hear Frothy was on steroids, too. Senator Specter is on his trail.
It’s easier to say than “people who are being left behind by the post-industrial economy the same way farmers were left behind by the industrial economy.”
Would former “lunch bucket Dems” now be “Taco Bell Dems” or “McDonalds Dems”?
I think what you did this morning is actually a pretty valuable excersise. It shows how the Traditional Media have a huge vested interest (Ratings are up! Must keep ratings up! Why are ratings up? It’s Clinton vs. Obama! People love this shit! Yowza – ratings are up!) in keeping this story going. Thus, Clinton’s losses are downplayed by the like of Russert and he’s probably thinking to himself – ‘Shut up Joe, I need people to tune into my show this weekend where I’ll be talking even more about Clinton vs Obama, please for the everlovin’ love of God don’t tell folks the truth, Joe’.
Thus, Mrs. Clinton lives to see another day. I wonder how they will spin the Texas / Ohio results in March if they don’t go her way – ‘Um, yes guys, I said last month that she needed to win big here, but, um, things may have changed and if I squint my eyes, stand on my head, and look at these results at an angle that is just so, she actually might have some momentum going into PA. Stay tuned this week for my show and I’ll explain more!’.
Ratings. When it helped their ratings to dump all over her, they did it without hesitation. Now they need her to stick around longer, and thus 30-point losses are spun as a minor flesh wound.
Cheerio!
PS – You and the proprietor of this establishment have been doing great work lately. Thanks – this site has been ‘must reading’ for me for weeks. I appreciate it.
I am sure they will come up with something funny..
Trolls? Maybe too many of the polls were located under bridges.
Some interesting analysis about Clinton’s waffling on an Ohio debate she had originally agreed to.
When he takes a vacation, he’s so afraid of Mika and little Willy that he has to get up early and stick his face on the Telly. Of course, if he didn’t get to use the word “I” or “me” he’d be out on the street with that other “Only my opinion counts” guy, Tucker.
Today they all got the Hillary memo that said: “Obama hasn’t had any tough questions yet because he’s black…” Duh?
Where’s Edwards and his endorsement?
If it’s legacy he’s trying to preserve, waiting out for a VP slot has to be too much of a gamble.
So I guess the question becomes not where but when.
here’s an endorsement that will bring Clinton a wall of hurt:
AP
Bill Clinton campaign chief backs Obama
Well, damn. That’s gotta hurt.
While I’d never count them out, I’d imagine that folks may be beginning to encourage them to find a graceful way to bow out.
Not that they’d take it, of course. But an endorsement like this? Wow. I don’t think it will be the last, either.
His win in the Potomac Primary has likely changed a lot of minds. The CW thought she’d do better in VA (and I’ve written just how stupid I thought that was previously) but it didn’t bear out at all. He’s winning overwhelmingly. Obama cut into her base. E.g., in MD, he won the senior vote (based on exit polls).
No one’s buying the excuses anymore.
This is going to be like water torture (Chinese, not American). Drip, drip. People that they thought they could count on start to abandon them, one by one..
graceful, gracious and “it definitely ‘Is’ so” – won’t be found in the Clintons’ vocabulary. ‘Depending’ yes.
Imho, this jump the ship – (what else to call it)- may give cover for Al Gore, John Edwards and Bill Richardson to endorse Obama?
Note the guy is also a super-delegate.
And if they think there’s any chance for her doing very well in Wisconsin, they’re really fooling themselves. I used to live in Northern Minnesota and after seeing Minnesota, North Dakota, Iowa and Illinois all swing heavily to Obama, there’s no chance for her in Wisconsin. These people are all one big family. Dairy farmers, Iron miners, hunters, etc. They may not know many black people up there in frozen country but they’re certainly not racists. They’re nice, polite, trusting folks for the most part and they don’t appreciate politicians lashing out at others, like Hillary will no doubt do with Obama.
The only reason she even shows up doing okay in old polls in WI is because no one had campaigned there yet and she’s the only one who had any name recognition.
Wisconsin is going to love Obama. Michigan would have as well, if he were allowed to campaign there. In fact, if he had left his name on the ballot like she did, he probably would have won Michigan without campaigning.
It’s a dirty job, but somebody has to do it. Thanks for taking a turn on watching and reporting on the network news so we don’t have to. I only heard the NPR summary this morning with a similar description of the groups that support Billary and Obama, but little analysis.