Comments: I Didn't Want To Love Him

Obama's high-mindedness is enabled, ironically, by the media enviroment the Republicans have fostered for years, in which they will continue to flog things well past the pont of interest in the guise of "context" so nothing ever dies, even (especially?) when the candidate avoids the topic.

I'm not blaming Obama; it's chickens coming home to roost.

Posted by Ahistoricality at September 10, 2008 12:32 PM

I'm not sure I followed where you were going with that one....

Posted by Anne at September 10, 2008 12:56 PM

Me neither: I was in a hurry between class preps....

Let me try again. Due to the steady development of "gotcha" journalism, the personalization of politics, the hypersensitivity to (certain kinds of) hypocrisy in the press, and the relentless cycle of cable news, Obama doesn't have to get his hands dirty. To a large extent, the sheer inertia of the last fifteen years of "politics of destruction" ensures that a lot of the "going negative" happens without him.

He then gets the best of both worlds: the critical work gets done by bloggers and hacks (two different things!), and he gets to campaign against the media -- an old Republican trick, actually, that I've never understood but seems to work. "Working the refs" in the current parlance, shaming or frightening the media into covering the stuff you want and avoiding the topics you don't.

Don't get me wrong: I like what he's saying, how he's saying it. It's going to move things in the right direction, for a change, if it gets any traction. But it's not as radical as it looks.

Posted by Ahistoricality at September 10, 2008 03:12 PM