I was initially angry with Rachel Maddow re: her repeated assertion of a McSame win...

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

but now I thoroughly understand. Rachel Maddow is right!!

For a few weeks now Rachel Maddow has been inciting anger in me and many others for her defeatist attitude towards Barack Obama. For weeks, she has been suggesting that Obama will lose this election. I could not understand why she continued to make this assertion. I assumed that like many liberal "purists," she was upset with Obama regarding his FISA vote, his support for some faith-based initiatives, and the fact that he is in talks with Evan Bayh and Sam Nunn. For awhile I thought that perhaps she was projecting her anger onto Obama, predicting that his rightward stance on these issues would cost him the election. However, I was wrong. She makes perfect sense...

For the past few days I have been listening more intently to Rachel and now understand why she feels the way she does. Rachel is now considered a member of the mainstream media, and as such, she has firsthand knowledge about how things work. To her chagrin, she has had to deal with David Gregory and Pat Buchanan, including a host of so-called pundits who are much more interested in increasing ratings and keeping this race tight. Quite frankly, this entails ignoring McSame when he screws up and making light of every misstep that Obama has committed.

But the most convincing theory that Rachel puts forth is that the heightened focus on Obama by the media is good for McSame and bad for Obama. She explains that as long as the perception persists that Obama is somehow treated with "kid gloves," with all the focus on him, McSame benefits because all of his mistakes, gaffes, and outlandish lies are ignored by the M$M. McSame has always benefited from a mainstream press that will cover for him when he makes mistakes, as we've seen with the CBS fiasco, the despicable 'ape rape' joke, claiming credit for the GI bill, and co-optation of Obama's foreign policy regarding the Iraq timetable, unilateral diplomacy in N. Korea and Iran, and military actions in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Two other problems that Obama may confront: (1) Obama-fatigued and (2) the media-driven meme that American voters are simply not warming up to Obama, as evidenced by the close polls. Voters may simply get tired of hearing about Obama, creating a backlash. In addition, by focusing on tight polls and questioning why Obama can't close the gap, voters may begin to feel that Obama is unelectable and poses too much of a risk.

I have my own theory that builds on Rachel's: this media frenzy over Obama is by design. The media is purposefully covering Obama much more than it is covering McSame, not only to protect him from himself, but so that the scrutiny of Obama's every word and action shapes public opinion, diminishes his character, and renders him unelectable. The media attention is done *on purpose*.

The corporate media fully understands that Obama is reluctant to go on the offense, so they write and present the narrative for him. Democrats continue to suffer because they allow the M$M and the Repukes define who they are. Obama promised that he wouldn't be swiftboated. Well, that's exactly what is happening and he hasn't fought back forcibly enough. McSame and the Repukes are getting away with dirty politics because they know that the M$M will cover for him as they have always done.

I'm not sure what the Obama camp can do to control the media narrative because it is too powerful to overcome. Even Democrats, to this day, have bought into the notion that John Kerry was weak and a flip-flopper. But if the M$M isn't stopped, and if McSame is not completely vetted, Obama will lose this election.

Rachel Maddow is right. She is so right about this!!

[book_worm]

1. Well, she also said that Hillary was going to take it all the way to the convention.

[BeyondGeography]

14. Exactly; proves she is capable of talking out of her ass just like, well

everyone else at MSNBC.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

23. True, and I notice that she's not very quick with responding to Obama

smears in that setting. She does a lot better on Keith's show and her own show. But put her on Tweety's "Spitball" or Gregory's show and she fails miserably.

I'm still waiting for the Democrats to come to the aid of Obama and help him make the case. He can't do this alone. And that's where I depart from Rachel. She's putting the onus all on Obama, charging him with being too milquetoast and not going on the offense. Well, he cannot do it alone; where are the Democrats? Why aren't they making the case?

[butterfly77]

24. I have been saying this for weeks.

and now I see Ed Shultz is pushing for Hillary on the ticket...Seems to me they are letting the rightwing set up the talking points and they never make it plain they all seem to be talking in nuances I see very little fight in the Dems.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

28. What??!?!? That's incredibly surprising. He doesn't like Hillary.

I wonder who got to him. My theory? I know that he was upset that Tweety hasn't invited him on the show and doubly upset that CNN canceled his appearance. Someone got to him because he's no fan of Hillary Clinton and thought she ran a despicable campaign. He also knows and has repeated often that Hillary does nothing for Obama's ticket. Hillary is too polarizing and divisive; she will drive the Republican party to the polls and turn off most Independents who supported Obama.

My Republican friend told me last night that his entire family--life-long Republicans--are voting for Obama. If Obama chooses Hillary, they will vote for McSame. That's what Hillary does for Obama: galvanize a lackadaisical, unexcited Republican party.

[butterfly77]

30. That's what I have been wondering...

he is arguing for her now the same as he was when he was against her in the primaries. This reminds me of Pelosi..

[quakerboy]

38. I heard that today

what the crack was that about?

[my3boyz]

33. They probably threaten to not allow her to be on the show again if she does

not go along with their right wing talking points. I'm sure she has to tow the line on those shows. Then she can be free on Countdown.

[ErinBerin84]

2. I wish Rachel posted here.

Maybe she does...which one of you is it? ;)

Though she was wrong about Clinton taking it to the convention, I share some of the same worries. Never underestimate the gullibility of the American electorate. The look on her face when she is dealing with those dickheads on Race to the Whitehouse is priceless.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

4. I podcast Rachel everyday and the first hour of her show includes the

God-awful "RFTWH." Luckily I'm able to fast forward to the rest of her show on my iPod. I refuse to listen to that mess. I don't understand why she simulcasts the show. Why not have David Bender take calls for that first hour, then continue on with her as she normally does? I know that he sometimes does the rest of the show but that White House show is horrible. I can't stand to listen.

As for Hillary taking the fight to the convention, I don't see how Rachel is completely wrong. Hillary still has a fair number of delegates who want to see her name on the roll call for President or VP. Hillary herself may not have much control over what her more staunch supporters do. They may force Hillary on the ticket simply by casting their votes for her. So Rachel's theory isn't that far-fetched. I don't think it's over yet.

[gblady]

3. While I think...

Rachel is extremely bright, and I agree with a lot of her takes on things...
I did not agree with her ideas on Clinton winning, and I don't agree with her ideas on McCain winning...

And it pisses me off everytime I hear it. That said, we do have to work like dogs to make sure it can't be stolen.

And yesterday, she was admitting that she does have a dark outlook on things. I see this McCain winning take as part of that.
Hope and change seem like unattainable goals to her.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

5. Part of me believes that she's still angry with Obama, but part of me

believes that she wants him to win but is cynical because he won't go on the attack. Lynn Winstead made some good points; however, in that not everyone is attuned to what's going on. Though McSame benefits from that, the debates may help uncover a lot of information about who McSame really is, and when the average American gets a chance to hear Obama's platform spoken by him during primetime, it will change a lot of minds.

[Mme. Defarge]

6. This concern is predicated on the belief that

Americans will always be easily manipulated by the MSM. I don't believe that that will be the case in this election. People are just hurting too much.

Somewhere I came across the admonitition that it is just as foolish to over-estimate the enemy as to underestimate him/her/them. While the corporate-owned media is very influential, when people's lives really, really suck they are going to blame Bush and the Republicans.

[AndyA]

8. I'm leaning this direction as well.

While the M$M has always been self serving to their corporate ownership, I think the American people are hurting too much this time around to believe all the bullshit they're being fed.

Gas prices have hurt most.

The economy has impacted most where it matters most: HOME. With foreclosures through the roof, and decreased home values, most Americans realize things aren't good.

Banks are failing, the deficit is going through the roof, groceries are getting so expensive many are really struggling to keep food on the table, etc.

While it may be difficult to get people out to vote during good times, when times are bad like they are today, people get angry and WANT CHANGE. That is why I think the GOP is going to have a really hard time stealing this election. (Again.)

And now, Ted Stevens has been indicted, continuing a long line of Republican Culture of Corruption.

I think this year may be different. I hope it is. And I hope the Dems in Congress find their spines or gonads and start going after these criminals during the next session.

[Mme. Defarge]

10. Then there's health care,

or lack of it thereof.

Then, there is the phenomenon of Republican candidates, at least in Oregon, trying to somehow attach themselves to Obama's coattails.

In a word, the so-called polls are wrong. The enemy's only hope is for McCain to step aside due to "health reasons" in favor of a less unappealing candidate. My money is on Romney, since he was supposed to be the candidate all along. He's the immediate heir apparent of the Bush family, and he's slick and photogenic. Just run someone who seems/looks electable, doctor the polls to make it appear to be a close election, and rely on voter suppression and electronic vote flipping to do the rest. It's worked before.

Oops! Now I'm scaring myself.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

12. Many people don't think McSame is the same kind of Repuke as the others.

That's the problem. As long as the M$M continue to push the meme that McSame is an independent-minded "Maverick," I don't see how he gets any scrutiny that demonstrates the opposite. He's still competitive with the Independents and even some Reagan Democrats, who I argue should have become Repukes a long time ago. I hear some Democrats even arguing that McSame is not as bad as Dumbya. PLEASE!!! He's not as bad...he's WORSE!!!

[Mme. Defarge]

16. It is true that Obama will not necessarily win

by default. The Dems actually need a campaign strategy that includes equating McCain with Bush. In spite of Media bias, it shouldn't be that difficult, given the plain facts.

[depakid]

20. And unless the Obama campaign puts him on display for what he is

That's what they're going to keep thinking.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

22. Obama is trying but he cannot do this alone. I don't see the Dem

leadership. I asked this question last week: WHERE THE HELL ARE THE DEMOCRATS??

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6546320

I don't see very many of them assisting Obama in this fight to equate McSame with Dumbya. I don't see it at all, save for a few brave, audacious souls: Biden, Richardson, Kerry.

But where is the leadership? Obama cannot do this alone!

[politicasista]

26. Same question people asked in 2000 and 2004

But it was/is much easier to blame the candidate rather than the people that failed him the most.

[Median Democrat]

7. Exactly - Look At Bill Clinton In 1996 - Less Than 50% of the Vote

Big Media is totally in the tank for the GOP, and it is not an issue of campaign strategy. Look at master politicians the Clintons. In 1996, Bill Clinton won easily, but he also had less than 50% of the vote, and the election might have been closer if Ross Perot did not run:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1996#Results

This is why it is complete bullshit the media theme of why Obama is leading by more, and using that to bludgeon Obama. Big Media in the tank for the GOP. They have always been in the tank for the GOP, and due to this bias, it is very possible that Bill Clinton might never have been president if Ross Perot did not run.

[Skwmom]

9. It is becoming obvious to anyone with half a brain that the corporate owned media/RNC

game plan is to focus on tearing down Obama while saying just enough to prop up the false media created image of McCain.

Since people have started to point out how the media is pro McCain, anti-Obama, they've come out with this "the media loves Obama" lie thinking that people who don't really pay attention will buy into it.

[olkaz]

11. glad I haven't been listening then

tl;dr

[Doctor_J]

13. Gregory & his ilk are not trying to keep the race close for ratings -

they are trying to get McSame elected. This stupid "they'll do anytihng for ratings" meme is one of our worst misconceptions. An impeachment trial for * would garner HUGH ratings, but Big Media won't do anything to insult Chimp. Playing daily diaries of McSame's flip-flops, lies, and gaffes would bring in huge numbers of viewers, but they won't go there either. Coverage of the millions of Dem voters who won't be allowed to vote in November would be a huge ratings coup. Not a peep on that either.

Big Media does not want a horse race. They want a GOP victory.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

18. The race between Obama and Hillary boosted the ratings higher than at any time

in cable news history. The money comes from ratings and viewership. Wanting a McSame win and pushing for higher ratings is not mutually exclusive. Yes, they want McSame to win but they know that he doesn't bring the ratings!

[Doctor_J]

35. Given a choice between a close race and a McCain victory, MSRNC and the rest

will campaign for McCain. NBC makes a lot more money for their parent company GE by keeping an ultra-right-winger in the WH. This money dwarfs the few extra advertising bucks they get if 100,000 more idiots tune in to see Gregory's nightly GOP propaganda festival. In addition, everyone you see on camera makes millions per year, and McCain's deficit plan will save them hundreds of thousands in taxes every year.

I repeat the indisputable fact that the brass and all of the "talent" on Cabal News want a GOP victory, not ratings.

[wiggs]

21. EXACTLY RIGHT! This is an important point. nt

[jesus_of_suburbia]

15. Is Rachel really saying this? What a bunch of crap. n/t

[1Hippiechick]

17. It's about sensationalism. The media covers Obama and then criticizes him with the footage.

Double shot - deflects pointing the finger at themselves for covering O in the first place AND they discredit O with the footage AND keep attention off McBomb. Agreed that there needs to be a line drawn in the sand - I watched the same thing happen with Kerry. O needs to show a little more EMOTION. Maintaining that cool facade and "rising above the fray" projection has its limits.

[styersc]

19. We are watching Obama lose this election day by day.

It seems that Obama's campaign staff wanted to go through November on the Senator's likeability and charisma but that will turn out to be a terrible mistake. The only thing our society likes more then outting a personlaity on a pedestal is knocking a personality off of a pedestal.

Obama was blessed with some tremendous press coverage with historic ov ertones but he has squandered these opportunities. He should be using the positive spotlight to speak DETAILS about energy policy that focuses on innovation and making the US the energy leader of the world. He should have made speeches specifically outlining economic policies to help the nation, the issue that is really worrying the electorate.

Time to put meat on the bone. When does anyone remember an Obama speech resulting in a long discussion of policy instead of on his appearance or presentation? He is so concerned with appealing to the center that he is not taking the lead. We are going to lose this election if he tries to coast.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

25. You're wrong. In *every* speech, he discusses specific policy issues but the M$M

doesn't cover his more substantive subject matter. They only take bits and pieces of his speech when he is not discussing these things, then criticize him for having no substance. Please don't fall into the M$M trap. The press wants you to think that he has no substance; that's why they are only showing snipets of his speeches that are of no substance.

ETA: Unlike McSame, Obama has held specific conferences on Iraq policy, on his foreign policy plans, and just held a summit on economic policy with some of the most impressive economic advisors around. Again, please do not fall for the M$M claptrap.

[ProSense]

27. Here is a list of Obama's

speeches

A sampling:

July 24, 2008 -- Remarks of Senator Barack Obama: A World that Stands as One

July 16, 2008 -- Remarks of Senator Barack Obama: Summit on Confronting New Threats

July 15, 2008 -- Remarks of Senator Barack Obama: A New Strategy for a New World

July 11, 2008 -- Remarks of Senator Barack Obama: A Secure Energy Future

July 7, 2008 -- Remarks of Senator Barack Obama: An Agenda for Middle-Class Success

Anyone of them could trigger a discussion on policy. Is the MSM interested?

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

29. As always, thank you for this. If Obama loses, part of the blame

lies with a Democratic party that has an electorate that doesn't supports its nominee. It has been a problem for the Democrats for many, many years. They don't adequate suppor their nominee but neither do the rank and file. We witness it here on DU every day!

[styersc]

40. Perfect out.

If Obama is not able to attract enough votes to win the election it is the fault of those who were not gung-ho enough. Not enough cheering and fawning.

If the candidate gives the more to cheer about I'll lead the rah-rah's but so far it has been cult of personality and warmed over middle of the road triangulation that we could have expected from anyone watching polls rather then drumming up support for principles.

Obama has a perfect opportunity to advance progressive Democratic values but what I have seen is calculated statements designed not to offend rather then to challenge and inspire. If he or anyone else thinks that this can be won by coasting they are sadly mistaken. His campaign should be acting like they are 5 points down, instead they are doing victory laps. Hillary made the same mistake.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

32. Yeah, because voters just LOVE long, boring, wonkish policy speeches.

:eyes:

And ya know, this whole "Obama has no substance" thing is getting real tiresome, just saying. At this point, it's less a reflection on him as a candidate and more on your unwillingness to do any research.

[JaneQPublic]

31. No political "analyst" is particularly good at fortelling the future.

I remember Jack Germond (sp?) would always flatly refuse to make predictions on the "McLaughlin Group." Wise man.

[depakid]

44. It's all about probabilities

Unfortunately, all things remaining equal, if the Obama campaign fails to attack and define McCain (and the corporate media isn't going to do it for them) and Republicans fight the way they always do, then the probability that this election ends any differently than 2004 isn't very high.

This despite all of the other advantages that favor Democrats.

[ecstatic]

34. :( nt

[Born_A_Truman]

36. Rachel needs to keep up

Today she was faulting Obama on Gregory's show for not getting out with voters about the effects of the economy in their lives. Does she not know about his trip to Missouri tomorrow? Town hall meeting in the morning at 10am in Springfield followed by a bus tour in the state.

[Awsi Dooger]

37. A few weeks?

Try several months. Rachel has adopted the most negative appraisal imaginable, repeatedly insisting McCain was the beneficiary of the extended primary.

In fact, that was the precise reason she got into spats on MSNBC with Scarborough and Harwood. They dismissed her nonsense and focused on the big picture variables, the ones that doom any GOP presidential ticket in this climate. Rachel is so clueless she prefers to overreact to daily trivia.

I have no idea how she maintains her current reputation on this board and elsewhere in progressive circles. I want real world analysis even if its balanced. Rachel slants everything in our direction when it comes to issues then tilts everything in defeatist terms when projecting outcomes. More laughable than impressive. Let's just say I wish she were in charge of the betting odds.

[TheDonkey]

39. MSM carrying rethug water to help win election

[barack the house]

41. Rachel is wrong to put forward what could be self fulfilling especially from our side.

[barack the house]

42. The elections depends on us not the media. It's our hard work not the TV's work.We must talk economy

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

43. If you read your post carefully, this could be done to any Democratic candidate.

There is nothing so unique about Obama that he is uniquely susceptible to such focus and treatment. Obama just happens to be the one who won the primaries. To read your thread title it suggests that Obama is a uniquely vulnerable and flawed candidate from this standpoint, but your post is really about how the media is scrutinizing him and glossing over McCain.