Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Do the Clintons dictate the national conversation?
I think they do.
The Clinton machine can take any topic, spin it, and feed it to the world at large.
And the world at large swallows it hook, line and sinker. We are what we talk about. But we don't decide the topic.
The most recent example is the topic of Obama the "elitist".
Agree, disagree, honestly, I don't care. It's not what I wanted to discuss all weekend.
I'd rather talk about ways to prevent the Pentagon from attacking Iran.
Or what about the admission that George Bush knew about the torture meetings? Should we forget about it?
And last weekend, I would have rather we all spent our time building a coalition of bloggers to force the Pentagon to release the NIE on Iraq. Why didn't congress make that a requirement? Why not force congress into stating that there will be no hearings until everyone is provided with the same information?
What about demanding that the candidates hold press conferences to present us with comprehensive energy plans? Not generic rhetoric about renewable sources.
Energy IS the economy.
So what about you? Got anything original to talk about?Can you raise your own questions on your own timetable on your own terms?
Because right now, our intelligence is mere chatter.
We're talking about what FOX or the CLINTONS want us to talk about.
And we're more than happy to cooperate.
We all have the freedom of speech. But when was the last time you talked about what was on your own mind, not on someone else's?
Comments (8)
Seriously! Why do media outlets care about/spread/spin every word politicians utter??? Let's talk issues - with each other... Gasp!
Can we do that without the helping hand(cuffs) of the media?
April 12, 2008 5:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Clinton National Network aka CNN is having a field day with the spin today. It's 'reporters' are following Hillary around like sick puppy dogs.
April 12, 2008 5:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yet Newsweek's Richard Wolf was on CNN this morning talking about how Obama is an "incrementalist." Meaning that he brings people together incrementally, a little at a time by showing them how much they have in common, something he learned in grassroots organizing in Chicago. He was discussing this as it relates to the current "flap" and how it can bring people together by their common anger (from PA, Indiana, etc.). It was an incredibly positive take on this whole thing. He went on to illustrate how Obama used this technique while a state Senator in Illinois. He brought pro-capital punishment and anti-capital punishment people together on common ground, that being that everyone wants to ensure that no innocent person is wrongly executed. Both sides could agree to that, and both sides worked for the Illinois bill (that was passed) to videotape police confessions.
There is good that can come out of this, as long as there are people like Richard Wolf who can bring sense to the silly season.
April 13, 2008 2:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting question: After all, what is the national conversation? It's my opinion that the Clintons are dictating the conversations which will comprise the general election, regardless of who gets the Democratic Party nomination.
Interesting point: The world at large swallows the most interesting tidbits from the torrents of spew emanating from our broadcast media. Remember when it came to light that the UK believed that The Jerry Springer Show represented these United States?
I agree with McLuhan: The medium is the message. What we commonly refer to as "the media" is the messenger, and we receive the message according to our own paradigms.
We seem to have become so accustomed to being divided that it takes hardly any effort to get us to go to our corners any more. I hope that I get to see unity in my lifetime; I'm committed to my children seeing it.
Take a moment to reflect on who benefits from our division. Then think about who benefits from the growing belief that disagreement implies that something bad is going on.
I maintain that unity is possible with disagreement present. As the proper attitude towards failure is required in order to succeed (i.e., move forward), so is a certain attitude towards disagreement required in order to attain unity.
April 12, 2008 9:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hell, even your plea for sanity at TPM goes ignored.
I agree completely.
April 12, 2008 11:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
On second thought, I agree with the the "we all have better things to be talking about" sentiment, but I don't think it's all the Clinton's fault, especially on this specific comment. Obama's remark wasn't perfectly crafted, and a little dismissive of religion and guns, and Clinton's was a pretty good response. Part of my frustration is definitely the IOKIYA My Candidate filter going "but! but!"
April 12, 2008 11:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think they do too.
It helps to have your CNN and NYT eager to help.
And all the concern trolls in the GOP eager to hurt the Dems and drag this out.
April 13, 2008 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jeez, they certainly do not dictate the conversation or there would have been no conversation about Bosnia, none about Whitewater, none about a lot of things that they would rather not discuss. They are just jumping on the bandwagon, but the media's desire to pander to their own elitist stereotype of Joe Sixpack is certainly driving this story.
I was in McDonald's watching their coverage and the folks were rapt watching the news, which seriously misrepresented the story in my opinion. I'm for Clinton, but I can see clearly that Obama was expressing empathy, not elitism. I live in an predominantly African-American neighborhood and the McDonalds customers were all black with the exception of a white older couple at the next table and myself. Nonetheless, i overheard the man at that table mutter "Obama is an asshole" and turned around and engaged him, asking what was actually false about what Obama said?
We back and forthed a bit, not arguing, but discussing whether it was elitist to assume bitterness and i realized the guy seemed to never hear the middle of Obama's comment - then i listened to Schaeffer (I think it's his name, I hate CNN) summarize it and his summary omitted the important context of economic hardship and the part that was most empathetic and I realized no wonder this guy thinks Obama is an ass.
I said that's not what Obama said and this guy said that's exactly what he said and he knows because they broadcast the whole thing. They never broadcast it while I was there, but that made me wonder if they were only broadcasting the choice bits - from their viewpoint - "people are bitter....that's why"
In any case, the media in general believe working class America is ignorant and emotional and love to hate, that's why they focus on emotional coverage of the news, not on policy. that's why they pander with their sympathetic - not empathetic - stories since they believe they have to draw viewers from the steaming pile of ignorance they imagine working class viewers to be. They are the elitists and they pander....and appeal to the worst in people.
sure, I wish Clinton didn't jump on this bandwagon. it's inartful and unnecessary and if she wins the nomination, she will need some of that anger to contrast with McCain who doesn't give a damn about the working class. Nonetheless, i know every word she utters is scrutinized for something to jump on and criticize - even her laugh is scrutiinzed - so to her campaign, it probably feels like turnabout is fair play.
April 13, 2008 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment