Don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to say that the press corps is in the tank for Obama even if they're voting for him in overwhelming numbers. Obama irritates many of the reporters who cover him because he's so controlling and inaccessible. So they're not as much in love with Obama as they're in love with the idea of Obama, of the "meaning" of his run for the presidency, of the redemption he offers a sinful nation that scratched slavery into its liberty-loving Constitution.As he says, get ready for the rapture as they try to top their already extreme prose.
The windows of this mind-set are provided by Slate's Jacob Weisberg, for whom the Obama election is a national referendum on racism; the New York Times' Nicholas D. Kristof, for whom an Obama presidency is an opportunity to "rebrand" our nation and "find a path to restore America's global influence"; E.J. Dionne, who sees an Obama presidency as representing a chance to "rekindle the sense of possibility and transformation" in American life; and a swooning Andrew Sullivan, who almost a year ago speculated that Obama might be "that bridge to the 21st century that Bill Clinton told us about." For Chris Matthews, of course, the Obama candidacy is a "thrill" going up his leg, one that will arc over his torso and detonate his head in the event of a victory.
The leading Obama cheerleader among the commentariat is Newsweek's Jonathan Alter, whose "erection of the heart" for the candidate has no match. Alter sees the presidential election as a world referendum on the United States and "the common sense and decency of the American people." Obama symbolizes hope over fear, and his election would produce an "Obama Dividend" that would "blow the minds of people in the Middle East and other regions, and help restore American prestige." Obama, Alter continues, "knows how to think big, elevate the debate and transport the public to a new place."
Such overwriting leaves Alter little acreage upon which to build a monument if his candidate wins, but the problem isn't Alter's alone. Even political reporters who have scrubbed from their copy any evidence of Obama lust face the same Nov. 5 dilemma as the commentariat. How do you pack all the Obama touch points—healing, hope, change, civility, the second coming of Camelot, post-boomer politician, inspirer of youth, great uniter, world president, and so on—into one story without sounding hagiographic? Isn't that what the commemorative issue of People magazine is for? Then again, how do you write about Obama's victory without looping in the touch points? Hence the performance anxiety. (see the site for the links)
Can any president live up to being an "erection of the heart?"
5 comments:
The economic is scene is going to be a hard one for the next five to seven years. (Europe is to bad subprime loans/ direvitives on the order of a couple of trillon.
So advertising revenue is going to be scarce for MSM outlets. If Obama and cohorts pass their tax policies then 2009 and 2010 will be a depression not a recission.
Then the MSM guys who thought the return of the Fairness doctrine would save their ass will be out in the line waiting to qualify for un-employment compensation also. Of course that will will have the income tax pulled out up front instead of being due by April as it is now.
I'm not trying to say that the press corps is in the tank for Obama even if they're voting for him in overwhelming numbers. Obama irritates many of the reporters who cover him because he's so controlling and inaccessible. So they're not as much in love with Obama as they're in love with the idea of Obama, of the "meaning" of his run for the presidency, of the redemption he offers a sinful nation that scratched slavery into its liberty-loving Constitution.
Complete and utter BS. The MSM adores Obama because he is a cipher for their beliefs and prejudices. It's a Tiger Beat crush on someone else who holds contempt for all those that the MSM sees as beneath them.
I never want to see the words "erection of the heart" ever used again to describe any reaction to any president.
Ever.
Repubs love to talk about personal responsibility. I wonder if they'll ever put it into practice. Blaming the media is acowardly way of absolving yourselves from blame. George Bush has been a disaster, and he is the main reason McCain is losing. But to acknowledge that is to admit you made a mistake in supporting him. So of course, you blame the media.
A month ago, people here were gloating that Obama was going to lose (badly) by being tied to Wright and Ayers. But nobody could trump being tied to W. Had McCain run a great campaign (and not insulted us with the pick of Palin), he might have had a chance to survive Bush and the economic crisis.
The facts, my friends, are that Bush has been a failure, McCain has run a poor campaign, and Obama has run a good campaign.
The media will not have a problem, post-election, in finding the proper words to celebrate their candidate.
All they have to do is continue to use the daily press talking points issued by the Obama campaign.
Post a Comment