Russert, Edwards and Obama and Blowback

[wyldwolf]

When Senator Barack Obama and former Senator John Edwards decided to go after Senator Hillary Clinton during the last Democratic debate, they did so because they thought that if they would not attack her, they would have no chance of winning the Democratic nomination. Therefore, they thought, they had to go after her as aggressively as they as possible. Especially John Edwards adhered to the rule that all is fair love, war and politics. The so-called moderator of the debate, Tim Russert, also took his gloves off, thinking that real journalism means that you take sides and play gotcha.

What they didn’t count on, however, was a backlash from liberal bloggers. Topnotch bloggers like Taylor Marsh, Jane Hamsher, TalkLeft’s Jeralyn, Atrios, Ezra Klein, and Michael J. Stickings have all criticized the three mentioned above for their unfair attacks on Hillary Clinton. Especially Taylor Marsh’s post is worth the read. She writes:

The drivers licenses question at the end obviously surprised Clinton. But when explaining Spitzer’s plan Clinton once again showed something that her opponents do not get. She is willing to go to bat for our guy in New York, Elliot Spitzer, who has been trying to deal with the immigration challenge he’s facing as governor. The same cannot be said for the rest of the group on stage standing next to Clinton. What’s Spitzer supposed to do when Congress shirks their responsibility on the immigration issue? Clinton absolutely got caught up in the subject, but she nailed, without flinching, what Spitzer is trying to do. It’s obvious that most of her opponents not only weren’t familiar with Spitzer’s legislation, which lost out because no one would stand up with him, but were only interested in going after Clinton…

There were 52 questions asked last night; 25 had to do with either Hillary or Bill Clinton, including very personal insinuations, with 22 of the 25 being abjectly hostile.

Tim Russert asked 26 questions; 14 were to Clinton, with 5 directly targeting her personally.

Concluding:

Russert’s goal was to provide the headlines the media was salivating to see. He intended to diminish and discredit Hillary Clinton, the Democratic frontrunner, using her former president husband Bill Clinton to help do the job, which included a document waving drama that was all for show. I’d say Russert has a problem with a woman being president, but that can’t be the case. Nah, he was just doing his job.

Jeralyn explains to fellow progressives: “If you are a progressive, stop it. You are feeding Republican dreams. The enemy is not in here. It is outside this room. And this party.”

Will criticism like this from progressive bloggers influence Obama and Edwards? Will they choose yet a different approach, or will they step up their attacks?

As a foreign observer, this is one of the most idiotic aspects of American politics: members of the same party try to destroy each other. In Europe, this is unheard of. At least publicly. When you speak in public, you support your fellow party members. Always. What these Democratic candidates are now doing is that no matter who wins the nominations, he or she will be weakened. It’ll be easier for the Republican nominee to go after him or her and prejudices are being fed constantly. The media are jumping on this thing like a group labradors on a sandwich. The perception that Clinton is a secretive, untrustworthy political opportunist is affirmed, not by her own actions but by the words of her fellow party members and of the media. This while Clinton has to fight this perception if she wants to win the national election.

What we will now see is that Democrats will go after each other even more and that will weaken every single one of them. When politicians start smearing each other, there are no winners. Well, there are, but they’re not any of the ones directly involved.

http://mvdg.wordpress.com/2007/11/01/russert-edwards-and-obama-and-blowback/

Must Read related pieces

Jane Hamsher: http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/10/31/thanks-but-i-think-ill-skip-the-pile-on/

Paul Waldman: http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=tim_russert_stop_the_inanity

I have a fantasy that at one of these moments, a candidate will say, "You know what, Tim, I'm not going to answer that question. This is serious business. And you, sir, are a disgrace. You have in front of you a group of accomplished, talented leaders, one of whom will in all likelihood be the next president of the United States. You can ask them whatever you want. And you choose to engage in this ridiculous gotcha game, thinking up inane questions you hope will trick us into saying something controversial or stupid. Your fondest hope is that the answer to your question will destroy someone's campaign. You're not a journalist, you're the worst kind of hack, someone whose efforts not only don't contribute to a better informed electorate, they make everyone dumber. So no, I'm not going to stand here and try to come up with the most politically safe Bible verse to cite. Is that the best you can do?"

Ezra Klein: http://ezraklein.typepad.com/blog/2007/10/russert.html

Michael Stickings: http://the-reaction.blogspot.com/2007/10/tiny-tim-meet-press-and-undermining-of.html

Tiny Tim: Meet the Press and the undermining of American democracy

Russert claims -- and claims repeatedly, ad nauseam -- that he speaks for "Buffalo," the heartland, the working class, speaking truth to power, demanding answers from those in power, demanding on behalf of the people, Buffalo's man in Washington, at the Georgetown cocktail parties, tearing down the Establishment from within, a horse full of Greeks holding Troy at bay, ready and eager to strike, whenever necessary.

But -- not so much. What Russert is really about is not "Buffalo" -- he doth protest far, far too much, and it's all an act, a "well-designed" persona, artifice, a concoction, a performance -- but unaccountable self-glorification...

... In Russert's "democracy," Meet the Press is supreme. Forget the nuances of policy, forget serious debate. What Russert would prefer, it would seem, would be for the candidates -- the presidential ones, for example -- to come on his show, face his "tough" questioning, his "gotcha" attempts, and stand aside while his fellow insiders, David Broder and his ilk, sit around the table and chit-chat in turn, one after the other, round and round, offering their snide remarks and shallow commentary, stewing happily in the permanent glory of their oh-so-telegenic, oh-so-brilliant selves, self-important to the end.

And then the voters -- you know, those beer-swilling football fans in Buffalo -- could select a candidate based not so much on how he or she performed for their host but rather on how his or her performance was judged by the telegenic and brilliant ones, the self-appointed (or Russert-appointed) arbiters of American politics.

And then: Go Bills! Just to seem oh-so-democratic, oh-so-in-touch with the people, those not privileged enough to live inside the Beltway, let alone to attend Georgetown cocktail parties.

You know, people like us.

[displacedtexan]

1. To me, the most interesting part of this "Attack Clinton" stuff is...

The incredible number of times you read or hear the name Hillary Clinton.

You can't buy publicity like that.

As Mae West said, "I'd rather be looked over than overlooked."

[opihimoimoi]

3. Them high numbers mentioned are Resulting in an opening for Hilliary

Hence her "Pile on" ad...

But more important....the first article is right...They eat their own and weaken themselves....is not a good thing to do.

and Timmy is a TROLL...

Disgusted with the whole bag of shit.

[geek tragedy]

2. As an Obama supporter, I'm confused.

Is it the case that:

1) he was not aggressive enough in his criticism (1/2 the blogosphere);

2) he was too aggressive in his criticism (the other 1/2 of the blogosphere); or

3) only a moron listens to the blogosphere for political advice?

[bpeale]

4. funny, the debate only confirmed my choice

Edwards for President!!! he was stellar.

[Cameron27]

7. His Rovian scare tactics aren't stellar:

[bpeale]

8. my choice not yours

[Cameron27]

11. You don't have any problems

with fear tactics used by a Democratic candidate, in the same way that the wingnuts use them AGAINST Democrats?

[bpeale]

14. funny, i didn't hear any fear tactics being used

you must have watched a different debate

[Cameron27]

15. I asked you about his hit piece,

the 'funny one' about a Giuliani win.

[AmBlue]

10. um..... that's called satire, my friend n/t

[Cameron27]

13. No my friend,

that's satire being used as innuendo:

Hillary Clinton is "unelectable," so says Edwards in a Halloween edition of "Scary Times."

The question from Edwards: What if Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee?

The answer: Rudy Giuliani will be the next president.

If this is supposed to be cute it's not. If it's supposed to be funny no Democrat should be laughing.

Edwards also sent out a long bio piece to Iowans, 12 pages or so according to Chase Martyn, to try to balance out this hit piece. Considering his money gap it's amazing this is what Edwards chose to do. It's obvious he's trying to balance his new attack dog tactics with his small town mill town boy makes good dream story.

Everyone needs to understand the ramifications of what Edwards especially, with Russert doing the heavy lifting last night, is doing. With Edwards being double digit numbers behind, he is putting his own future above the importance of the Democratic party brand in the general election through choosing to destroy the frontrunner however he can, no matter the tactic. Edwards is getting personal. He has now decided to lead the most negative campaign he can, even if by the end of it he loses the nomination, which is even more likely today than it was two weeks ago, because Iowans are not going to like this tactic. Women will hate it and see it for what it is. Desperation.

Question: What cost will there be for eviscerating Clinton so personally and bloodying our brand?

Answer: Handing the '08 election to Republicans.

Besides, how does using scare tactics right out of wingnut central help Democrats? It doesn't.

http://www.taylormarsh.com/

[Dhalgren]

5. It seems at this point that Senator Clinton is attempting to

"stand above the fray" - and is succeeding. It is perhaps the hardest part of the positions that Obama and Edwards finds themselves in that they feel they have to attack Clinton in this way. Here is their dilemma: They need to attack Clinton from the left in order to weaken her with the party base. But in so doing, they are actually strengthening her in regards the general election. At the same time, by attacking her from the left, they are placing themselves to her left which then (by conventional wisdom) harms themselves in the general election. By Clinton calmly fielding the attacks (even if she triangulates herself into New Jersey) and keeping the focus on HER stands on issues (even if her stands are all over the map) she continues to position herself in the place of authority. SHE is answering attacks. SHE is defending her positions. SHE is explaining her statements. SHE is already in the position of a head of government - taking questions and responding to concerns, even from her own opponents. I can't see how any of this works against Ms Clinton at this point...

[Karmadillo]

6. K & R. Nice to see leading bloggers fighting back against the Corporate Media's

efforts to Gore Hillary. No sense in Democrats going along with that kind of thing.

[AmBlue]

9. Lookie, everybody...

The Hillbots have their talking points in order. :puke:

[wyldwolf]

12. LOL! Jane Hamsher, Atrios, Ezra Klein are "Hillbots."

:rofl:

[jemsan]

16. Ditto!!!

[SaveElmer]

17. Why she didn't attack back...

The hypocrisy of Obama and Edwards is almost painful...Hillary could have buried them with past and present flip-flops and contradictions...yet she didn't. She stayed focused on the real enemy - George Bush.

She knew quite well that if she stood her ground and stayed focused on that, the publicity of Democrats attacking one of their own as a campaign tactic would produce a backlash effect.

She has been through this exact scenario many times...

The debate may have been this years "Lazio" moment...

[John Q. Citizen]

18. I agree that Russert is an asshole, always was always will be IMHO The

one thing I'd like to point out though is this comment by Jeralyn.

"As a foreign observer, this is one of the most idiotic aspects of American politics: members of the same party try to destroy each other. In Europe, this is unheard of. At least publicly. When you speak in public, you support your fellow party members."

Under a parliamentary system, political parties are much more disciplined, and parties exercise far more control over their members. People actually get tossed out of the party for comments and votes that undermine the party.

For instance, Hillary's comments about Kerry's joke would have probably gotten her thrown out of the party if we had a similar system here as they use in many European countries. So Jeralynn is correct, except she's comparing apples to oranges.

Here, nobody ever gets kicked out of a party ever for anything. Parties are unable to exercise much if any control over their members.

It's just the way it is. If you don't like it, don't blame Hillary, Obama, or Edwards, blame the system they all operate under. They all do it. They all complain when someone else is doing it to them.

[oasis]

19. Triple kick and recommend.

:kick::kick::kick: