The Media and Obama

To say that the media is ‘in the tank’ for Senator Obama is not completely accurate, in that, while they truly may be in the tank for him, this is not the only reason for their seeming inability to go after him in true investigative, journalistic fashion as they would someone else running for high office. The truth is that they agree with him idealistically, and so they see nothing negative TO report. What is there to investigate about a man who believes as you do, after all? We all feel that touch of brilliance when someone else agrees with us. It can be almost intoxicating to some people, a seal of approval upon our opinions from outside of ourselves. When we hear our own words coming from someone else’s mouth, we think "Yes! Someone else gets it! It’s not just me!" This solidifies our ‘rightness’ of thinking, and we form an instant bond with the one who has just reaffirmed our beliefs.

Bill Clinton, for all of his supposed liberality, was a moderate president. His two greatest achievements were done with the approval and even willingness of the other party, while his own shook their collective heads and voted against them. Wellfare Reform and NAFTA will be Clinton’s two-pronged legacy. He governed from the center. While his personality won him many fair-weather friends, it also alienated many on the far left who realized that he was not their savior, not their true standard-bearer. He wasn’t ideological, he was into self-gratification: What is my position in history? How can I aggrandize myself? Do I come across well on the camera? Do they like me?

This is why Hillary failed in the primaries. The far left, now in a position of dominance within the party (see Pelosi), would not abide another Clinton-esque term in the White House. Hillary was never able to convince the left wing of her party that she was out to change the country for them, rather than have the job for her own ambition. And so they left her. The Daily KOS - Hollywood - Code Pink - Move-On Crowd found their true leader in Barack Obama. And while traditional Democrats would turn out to support her in the primaries, in the crucial, local controlled caucuses, the more active leftists would turn out in droves to achieve the goal of electing a man who was not out for himself, but for a higher purpose, a higher goal, an American changed into something new and to their liking. Hillary said elect me; Obama said choose change. In the end, they wanted change more than a person.

What Hillary didn’t get was that it wasn’t about personality this time around. The party she belonged to had changed. She saw it as ‘me vs. him’ and the people on the left saw it as ‘her vs. change.’ She was destined to lose in that kind of competition at this time in her party’s history.

The media were quick to catch on to this, and rode the tide of change. Many in the press saw in Obama the leader they had always wanted, someone who would represent not himself, but a plan, a dream, an ideology that they themselves had held for so long. Here was someone who agreed with them, and not just in words meant to get him elected for his own achievement resume. Here was a man who was standing in the place of a set of ideals, someone who saw that as larger than himself. For this, they would see him elected over any meager sense of Clintonian loyalty.