Did Obama cross the line as a senator when he criticized the 'media', specifically, Imus?

[bigtree]

here's the context of his remarks, from June 2007:

"Obama criticizes Imus but does not flat out say he should be fired. He told NBC's "Hardball" he would not employ Imus. He told CNN's Wolf Blitzer "I believe that NBC should not be having hosts like Don Imus who are making derogatory statements toward women and minorities. I’ve got two young daughters who I hope will be athletes and the notion that somehow they would be degraded and insulted and that that would pass as humor and that NBC would be running that over the public airwaves, I think, is atrocious.''

http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2007/04/sweet_blog_special_obama_on_cn.html


Isn't this similar to the comments Hillary Clinton made in defense of her daughter against remarks by another NBC media figure, Schuster?


from the WP blog: http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/02/09/clinton_calls_shuster_comment.html

"There has been a troubling pattern of comments and behaviors that has to be held accountable," Clinton said after a rally.

[Kermitt Gribble]

1. Absolutely not.

Just like Hillary did not cross the line criticizing Schuster's remarks.

[bigtree]

6. thank you

I agree

[Occam Bandage]

2. Why would that be line-crossing? Did I miss some outrage that this is in reference to?

[bigtree]

5. I edited the Op and put it in context

refresh

[Occam Bandage]

8. Well, I think there the difference is

that Clinton was attacking an individual media figure directly for an attack on a Clinton. I'm not offended--I'd like to see the Democrats start bullying the media around--but it's a different animal.

[bigtree]

10. that's not credible at all

certainly there are differences between the two incidents.

But the fact that the incident was personal, in that it affected Sen. Clinton's family member, doesn't detract from the point that, Obama was publicly calling for the removal of a media figure and specifically telling NBC they shouldn't have this individual in their employ. That goes far beyond Sen. Clinton's statements that many Obama supporters have so opportunistically used to accuse her of 'using her office to interfere with the media'.

[Occam Bandage]

11. "That's not credible. Certainly there are differences."

:eyes:

All I was doing was pointing out there are differences, bigtree. Obama was attacking an offensive figure. Clinton was attacking a figure for attacking a Clinton. I said I'm not offended by Democratic media-bullying, so post your defenses elsewhere.

[bigtree]

12. you completely dodged the point of the post. You play this forum like a video game.

The difference that you posted, as I say, doesn't detract from the point of the OP, which is that there is a predictable hypocrisy from this line of attack from the Obama camp. One post with this line of attack against Clinton, from an Obama supporter, is on the greatest page, with over 50 votes cheering it on as it compares Hillary Clinton to Nixon in her criticisms of NBC.

Sorry if all of that blew past you as you hit and ran.

[Occam Bandage]

13. Bigtree, I don't think that repeated replies constitute a "hit and run."

That said, you admit that there are differences, and the difference is, frankly, enormous. Obama's is attacking an offensive figure; Clinton's is attacking someone who attacked a Clinton. The first is done for the public good, the second is done for the Clinton good (which I'm fine with, since I want the Dems to fight for the Dems). And you acknowledge that difference--but still claim that others finding that difference offensive is "hypocrisy."

[bigtree]

14. She was addressing a 'public good', especially since the comment didn't mention her daughter

"There has been a troubling pattern of comments and behaviors that has to be held accountable," Clinton said after a rally.

The 'public good' is in her (mild) rebuke of NBC for continuing the pattern of misogynistic statements from it's hosts which they promised to address themselves after the Imus incident.

Your distinction between the two doesn't hold up.

[stellanoir]

3. Sounds as though he was speaking more as a parent than a Senator.

no prob there

[bigtree]

15. none at all, in representing his children

against the deliberate (or mindless) misogyny of these hosts

[ProSense]

4. Obama didn't demand that Imus be fired! Shuster apologized twice, and was suspended.

Not good enough for Hillary!

[chimpymustgo]

7. NoSense, why do you keep lying about this? Hillary called on MSNBC to look at its pattern of

hateful, sexist commentary. That's been pointed out in numerous threads. Guess being hit by the BAM! causes the brain to freeze and cease functioning.

[ProSense]

9. Josh Marshall wrote something to specifically address this desperate claim:

Not Fired?

02.09.08
By Josh Marshall

A number of readers have written in to question, or much more than question, our latest headline on the Clinton/Shuster story -- namely that Hillary Clinton is demanding that Shuster be fired.

First of all, some have criticized Greg Sargent's reporting. But let me make this crystal clear. I personally signed off on the post and I wrote the front page headline myself.

Some have said that Clinton's letter to NBC wasn't written clearly or that she was saying that suspensions and apologies were not enough, that what was needed was a broader reevaluation on the network's part of its attitude to women and Hillary Clinton in particular.

Simply read the key passage ...

Nothing justifies the kind of debasing language that David Shuster used and no temporary suspension or half-hearted apology is sufficient.

I would urge you to look at the pattern of behavior on your network that seems to repeatedly lead to this sort of degrading language.

Some readers seem to believe that Clinton is saying that it's not about suspensions or apologies. It's about MSNBC's need to reevaluate its pattern of behavior.

But there's a fatal flaw with this strained interpretation. Look at the actual words. If that's the case, why does she qualify 'suspension' with the adjective 'temporary'? That tells the tale right there. The alternative to a temporary suspension is a permanent one, which is clear English we call 'firing'.

I give the Clinton campaign the respect of knowing that they're no slouches with the written word. And the words in this letter were clearly chosen with great care. The point of that passage was that merely suspending Shuster was insufficient -- that he needs to be fired. That's what they meant. And I have little doubt that Shuster and the MSNBC execs understood the meaning the moment they read it. I think it would be wrong to shy away from making that clear.

[Tatiana]

16. Good catch.

And if this is the case, then Hillary too is scapegoating while the elephant in the room (Tweety) continues to trumpet his bile.

[bigtree]

17. I love the way *he parses Obama's words here. What a crock.

He's clearly calling for Imus to be fired. He clearly went farther than Clinton's statements, And Imus was certainly fired, although Obama had no more to do with that decision than Hillary. Obama folks are always accused of excusing behavior in him that they condemn others for. These deflections from Obama's own words shows the dishonesty in these petty defenses behind these desperate, GOP-like attacks on Hillary Clinton.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

18. Imus is a different case. Schuster is a news media reporter who is supposed to be serious

[bigtree]

19. That's so weak

Both have prominent speaking platforms on the network and Schuster, in this incident, was speaking as a pundit, just like Imus. This excuse follows the pattern of supporters making excuses for Obama's behavior while condemning his opponent for the same act. Why does it matter WHO is given the elevated media platform to spew this hatred? The fact is that NBC is STILL allowing this filth after they promised to clean up their act behind Imus.