I think what this article ignores is that Obama's "new politics" is not so much about being squeaky-clean ethics-wise, but about getting over the past few decades of hyper-partisanship and personal attack politics. It's about not demonizing people merely because you have honest policy disagreements, or just because they happen to be in the opposite party.

Politics is an ethical swamp, and always has been. It's not going to change, and anyone who believes it will is simply naive. But the hyper-partisanship of recent years is not a given. It wasn't that way in the past. Republicans and Democrats used to be able to sit down and hammer out compromises on a variety of of issues.

We're now stuck in a nasty dynamic where everything either party does is aimed at sticking it to the opposing party. National interest hardly even plays into it. I don't know if Obama will be able to change that or not, but it's at least hopefully that he sees the problem. As, I think, does McCain.

markci.wordpress.com

*at least hopefull

*at least hopeful

Can't type for shit today.

As a Hillary supporter, I interpretted 'new kind of politics' to mean, "don't attack ME, attack HER." and the media complied. But will they continue? Stay tuned...

Wow, Slim. Kudos on responding to an insightful post with a knee-jerk overgeneralization. Your attitude just about sums up the Clinton campaign's refusal to look at their own tactical decisions as the reason why she lost.

Why do I keep being accused of summing up, or encapsulating, or some other grand analogy representative of Hillary supporters, today? Talk about your over-generalization (which is redundant). I mean, it's almost like a compliment. But really, I'm just one Hillary supporter. I wasn't even part of any campaign per se, so I never really made any "tactical decisions" or mistakes (unless you count logging on Slate so often. They've been pro-Obama for almost as long as Olberman and Matthews. and the individual bloggers themselves? Gosh, there are so many Obama supporters here, and such crazy things they say!).

Sorry. I guess I should have just said that posts encapsulated all your other whining and blaming instead of actually acknowledging that Hillary was undone by her own terrible campaigning and not a monolithic media. If it makes you feel better to blame Slate for her failures that is certainly your right. I will readily agree that there is a pro-Obama slant to this site, but to then take Slate plus MSNBC's coverage and apply that to the whole media just shows a complete lack of understanding about how the media in this country works.

So I will go with an analogy. Your lack of understanding of the media in this country is similar to the Clinton campaign's inability to understand the democratic primary process.

Does that work for you?

Actually slim thats pretty funny (I think you meant it seriously with a strong dose of irony). Theres even some truth to it, although I'd say its pretty much a given of a successful politician in the modern era.

The thing is that Obama had a tactical advantage in all the attack/counter attack bs that went on due to the nature of his message. Broadly he was the candidate that wanted to get beyond all the nasty attacks so we can come together and work on the big issues, she was the experienced, tough fighter who could take the heat no matter what. So when she complained or took umbrage etc, it undermined her own message. Obama could instead say, look these attacks are exactly what I'm trying to get beyond, why don't you look why so and so would do this. Thus he could respond and reinforce his message.

Have you checked out the Pew Research study on bias in the primaries? Turns out Clinton received just as much positive press as Barack until the week when she accused them of not investigating him. After that, she had the clear advantage.

Blueshift

no not at all. Everything isn't always tied up into an analogy though. What are you? a nutty preacher guy or something? Country music--if you didn't find it so 'bitter', right?, likes the extended methaphor. Better than the simply analogy because it's better supported.

So, if I'm all-wet with my characterization of the media's preference for Obama, please tell me all the fair sources out there who didn't almost immediately fall behind him. I will give you Fox. But other than them? You REALLY think it was only SLATE and Olberman? Are you THAT oblivious in your Obama fandom (and Hillary hatred?).

at least blueshift is a little fair

I didn't say that Slate and MSNBC were the only pro-Obama opinion writers out there, but they were the ones you focused on.

I would love to hear your response to the Pew Research Center's study as you ignore that. Or how about the NYT endorsement for Clinton? Or how about Ben Smith's blog at Politico? How about the coverage in the Economist? None of these varied sources were pro-Obama. You concede on Fox, but considering that Fox is the #1 output for cable news, doesn't that kind of throw a wrench in your inference that there was a general media bias in favor of Obama?

I happen to like Hillary. I think she was by far the brightest candidate in the field, and I would have happily voted for her in the general. I chose Obama because I felt he had the best chance of ending the type of polarization this nation faces right now and actually implementing the agenda that both he and Clinton agreed on. Look past your own venom and you'll see an almost identical political platform.

blueshift:

Have you checked out the Pew Research study on bias in the primaries? Turns out Clinton received just as much positive press as Barack until the week when she accused them of not investigating him. After that, she had the clear advantage.

Blueshift

Did you happen to notice that the data did not support the conclusion of that "research"?

It is all water under the bridge now. In time, the truth will be told.

Yes, we used to be able to count on the Democrats to put aside their differences and uphold their end of the deal, but that started to change in the late 50’s when they started comparing Eisenhower to Hitler. It went downhill from there as the New Liberals hijacked the Democratic Party. Conservatives and Republicans haven’t changed much (we are conservative after all), but the liberals and Democrats have changed a great deal. The quality of your representation has degraded to the point that very few of them are qualified to serve in public office. Over time this degradation has slowly seeped over to the moderates and then to the conservatives as society as slowly sunk into the toilet. We’re still far more moral than your party is, but many of us are sinking along with you.

Obama has never been squeaky clean. In fact, considering his past and current friendships and associations he’s one of the dirtiest ever.

Cassandra

"considering his past and current friendships and associations he’s one of the dirtiest ever"

You need to get out more.

fyodormd: I know we're just tossing out random examples, but didn't you find the "Hillary, get out NoW!" cover story on Newsweek--which was BEFORE Texas and Ohio even (by that balding, weasel-faced Clay-Easton Ellis look-a-like writer) to be just a tad odd? Do you think such a Newsweek cover story would have came out at that time, demanding that a man quit the race? Having said that, it's easy to make amends and join up with those Obama supporters who--even though they accuse me of venom, can discuss Hillary's competence and worth so sanely. thanks, fyodormd.

now Cassandra: your opinion about conservatives and repubs all staying the same since Eisenhower being the same just begs for discussion. Eisenhower being the man who warned against the military industrial complex and their (non-conservative) tyrany. What would he say about McCain's pledge to be in Iraq for 100 years, or the fact that practically the entire cabinet of the Bush II administration have been employed in the oil biz? Did you know Nixon's first election platform included affirmative action, and his 2nd, abortion rights? Ask his speech writer Pat Buchannon if he believes true conservatives believe in an increasing government at home, and a costly and never ending military occupation abroad? I don't think Pat is big on outsourcing at the expense of the American worker, or trade agreements which favor other countries, either. When you were talking about how 'moral' your party was, did Larry Craig in a men's room stall pop into your head? he did mine. My newspaper this a.m. featured an add from some conservative organization which demanded, "What would Reagan Do?" and discussed our currently terrible economy, the mortgage crisis, bloated gas prices, over-extension abroad without friends, and stated refusal to talk with our enemies. You say that 'new liberals' hijacked our party, Cassandra. Isn't the better question, who highjacked YOUR's (and followup: why don't you care?).