Admittedly, I have been glued to cable news since February. I have probably watched more cable news, including faux news, these past three months than I have in the past four years. I watch for the spin. It only makes me angry, but I watch anyway.
The narrative woven for Obama is that he is an elitist and a far left radical. Questionable patriotism and anti-Semitism have been peppered into the narrative for good measure. The hysteria created by his bowling score was enough to cause every guy with a bowling ball in his closet to realize Obama is not like him. Mathews said that Obama’s problem is that he can’t just walk into a diner and hang out with guys – white guys. I mean, he asked for orange juice. Obama’s bitter comment about blue collar values voters dominated the news cycle for weeks. HRC even jumped on that bandwagon, calling Obama an elitist. Then, there is his loose association with the supposedly radical terrorist, Billy Ayers. :dubious: But, Reverend Wright is the ultimate gold mine for news pundits. Not only is Reverend Wright a radical, he is a black radical, which conjures white fear. The Reverend Wright knows Louis Farrakhan, a fact HRC quickly pointed out during the ABC debate, and Obama is guilty by association.
Thus, it can be concluded by the masters of spin that Obama is a leftwing extremist out of touch with mainstream America. Good Gawd, he doesn’t even wear a flag pin.
I’ll admit the spin doctors came up with a strategy that I wouldn’t have imagined. Months ago, I said that the attacks on Obama couldn’t afford to be racist because nobody wants to perceive themselves as being a racist. If Obama was able to define attacks against him as being racially based, he would end up gaining support from people that wouldn’t want to be on the “racist” side.
The spinners saw this also but saw an opening I missed. In the last couple of months we’ve been hearing the whispers about how Obama might be prejudiced in favor of black people and against white people. So they’re selling the story that it’s Obama who’s a racist, which means people can now tell themselves they’re voting against racism by voting against Obama.
The media has used race and racism in the coverage of Obama. The HRC camp has also used racism by planting the absurd argument that Obama’s accomplishments are because he is black, and he can’t win because he is black. The argument about race and electability was true twenty years ago but not today. It should be a huge red flag that the media are fighting so hard to undermine Obama’s campaign. If the media do not win this battle, it will be a huge victory for the American people.
All the specific examples (except as noted below) you give are of trivial matters, none of which imply he is a left wing extremest. He has been characterized as having difficulty in connecting with blue collar workers relative to Hillary, but that is a fact. The Reverend Wright issue is perhaps one area where allegations of ties to left wing radicals were made, but I don’t think the press would’ve run with it so much if Hillary hadn’t made such a big deal about it.
Yes, I’m sure there are quite a few right wing pundits who are trying to paint him as a left wing radical, but I don’t necessarily buy that the MSM is painting a narrative in the first place, much less one that depicts Obama as some kind of extremist. He was a media darling early on, and has fallen from grace somewhat since he assume the front runner position. That’s to be expected, as more stuff about him gets out there.
They have? Not if you’re referring to Ferraro’s comments, in which case you are badly misrepresenting them:
Or were you referring to something else, in which case, cite?
Even if you were representing the claim accurately, it’s a *mighty * odd argument to assert that a claim of someone’s having accomplishments *because * of being black, not in spite of it, would be “racism”.
On what basis do you believe he’s getting harsher treatment than any other frontrunner in a contested campaign?
I certainly will not argue the fact that these are trivial matters but the press doesn’t treat these issues as trivial. An entire hour of the last debate was dedicated to these trivial matters. While Fox is blatant with its narrative, at least the agenda is clear, the other networks are slightly more subtle.
The press loves a “scandal” because it generates revenue. It shouldn’t be surprising that Obama seems to have more of these-- he’s the new guy on the block, and most of us are just getting to know him. Hillary has had here own issues with the debates, though, and it’s not just Obama.
I mean, seriously, how could all (or most) of the news guys out there all get together and decide to paint him as a left wing radical? How could they have all decided to do that independently? No, the more likely explanation is that you’re experiencing confirmation bias.
