THE PUNDITS CAN'T DECIDE WHY THEY DON'T HAVE A CRUSH ON OBAMA. In general, I resist claims about which candidates "the media" does and doesn't like. True, there is a real hostility to John Edwards and there was a time when "the media" really was John McCain's base. Still, viewing coverage only through this lens often obscures more than it reveals. That said, I've been dismayed by just how unfair (and that's really the only word I can use) the media has been in its coverage of the recent Clinton-Obama fight (see my previous post for more on that). Initially many argued that Clinton won the debate:
Of the top tier candidates, there now appears to be little doubt as to who is the best debater: it's the senator from New York. Again last night Clinton was at the center of almost every conversation and she shined on the few tough(er) questions asked of her... And, again, Clinton drove home the experience issue with her response to the question over whether or not she would agree to meet with dictators like Venezuela's Hugo Chavez or Cuba's Fidel Castro.Never mind that focus groups had Obama winning or that "experience" isn't necessarily foremost on Democrats' minds right now. I mean, "little doubt?" Seriously? Marc Ambinder explained why most pundits are getting this wrong shortly after the debate:
The press seems to be very keen about Clinton's answer to the dictator meeting question. Whatever "presidential" means to the press -- and it seems to be mean non-pandering, serious, grave and reflective -- Clinton's answer was very "presidential." Do those Democrats who watched the debate on television agree? [...] If there is a disjuncture between the press's evaluation of Obama's performance and the voters' evaluation of his performance, it can probably be attributed a larger change orientation in the Democratic primary electorate.Indeed, some pundits can't quite seem to explain what their issue with Obama is:
The Fix seems to find himself less enthusiastic about Obama's debate performances than the various focus groups/dial groups organized by television networks to provide instant reaction.This is pretty weak tea. Cillizza doesn't really have any basis for his feeling that Obama did poorly, he just doesn't feel warmly towards him. That's fine, but it doesn't mean Obama is bad at debating or campaigning. I've used Cillizza as an example because he's very straightforward and honest, but I get the same vibe from a lot of coverage and especially when political reporters are interviewed.Take Monday night's debate. As we wrote, Obama dominated the early stages of the debate and closed strongly. But, in the middle he seemed to lose his way.
There's little question that when Obama is talking about putting the national interest over special interests and railing against lobbyists he is as good or better than any candidate. But, he isn't yet as consistent a performer as Hillary Clinton and at times Monday night Obama seemed to disappear a bit.
The real issue, I think, is that the pundits don't quite seem willing to admit that the the Democratic primary electorate has different preferences, both in terms of policies and candidate attributes, than they do. This also, I think, explains why Clinton unwisely dove into the fight with Obama after the debate (for example she posted a clip of the exchange on her website and otherwise did her best to keep the story going). If the media were the constituency that mattered that would have been a good decision, but it wasn't because they media doesn't actually represent the Democratic party primary electorate's views. This is what makes me think, as more people start paying attention to the actual candidates rather than campaign journalism, Obama will make gains.
--Sam Boyd
