Tribune exaggerating the "enthusiasm" Obama generates
The Chicago Tribune editorial board says Barack Obama should run for president in 2008, (hat tip to Rich Miller) because "after the divisive events of the last decade, the nation may be ready for a voice that celebrates our common values instead of exaggerating our differences." They may be right, but I take issue with their singling out Obama as singularly being able to bring "an approach that transcends party, ideology and geography" to the campaign.
A recent Gallop Poll shows that more "adults nationwide" would "like to see" John McCain (56%), Rudy Giuliani (55%), John Edwards (45%) and Hillary Clinton (44%) run for President than Obama (38%). So why is Obama being championed by the Trib as an "enthusiasm" generating "centrist" while Giuiliani is dismissed as "polarizing?"
I'm not saying that the Trib is wrong to promote Obama as a possible candidate. But their promotion of him as uniquely qualified to end the bitter partisanship of the last 10 years just don't hold up to scrutiny. In many ways, the Tribune (like other media outlets) is not promoting Obama's "transcending" appeal - they are helping to create and preserve it.
Would I be complaining if it was McCain or Giuliani benefiting from this sort of editorial fawning? Probably not. But at least I'd be able to help defend it up with some facts and figures, not just the journalistic puffery of the same outlets that are doing the editorializing.
Also posted at the Grand Old Partisan of Illinois
Poster's note: I didn’t want to do back-to-back Obama posts. Had I know that the Trib was going to release this editorial today, I would have held off on what I wrote yesterday for another time and finished one of the other essays I'm working on. (I don’t want to get a reputation for being “obsessed” with bringing down Obama here).
6 comments:
gop - you long ago had a rep for wanting to take down obama!
but seriously, i think you are right in that the tribune is making news instead of reporting it. i think it is a weakness of all forms of media the last few years. i personally blame the 24 hour news networks for causing such a shift in media reporting.
i dont know if your gallop poll is very indicative of the actual climate. i dont see ho wthe poll is related to which candidates are polarizers and which are centristizers. (yes i know those arent real words)
with more than 2 years away the people that are going to top thise lists are the most popular. not the most qualified for the job, not the most likely to be voted for, or anything else. simply name recognition.
I think it is of note that Obama has the 3rd lowest 'resentment rate.' there are really high numbers of people that dont want to see a lot of these candidates whereas obama is one of the most unknown.
sidenote, does anyone else remember september 10th 2001 when rudy guliani was basically an unliked mayor of new york?
I remember when Americans voted for Jimmy Carter's big heart. Obama reminds me a lot of Carter.
Barack Obama is a media generated candidate, not grass roots.
Imposed by the top down, not the bottom up. A media favorite with ridiculous and unanylitical let alone uncritical coverage.
Carter was smart too... Nuclear Scientist they told us.
Why try to bring down Obama? Why not publish his record, and the voters will decide themselves.
Obama is the one of the most partisan Senators (#4 at last count), right behind Dick Durbin. Any attempt to potray him as a unifier is pure PR.
JBP
Why try to bring down Obama? Why not publish his record,,,,
He doesn't have much of a record and is preachy. Who cares if he goes to Warren's Church and says this is my house too.
It's not my house for sure, and I'm pretty indifferent to which Church Obama or Warren call home.
I want some action from him. He hired Sam Powers to work on Africa and foregin affairs.
Run for Prez is fine, but I want to see Obama speaking to issues. Not preaching on issues.
Post a Comment