Shit its been a long time since I got it together. Still, I have been wondering why we haven't heard anything about an independent run by HRC or Obama. Of the two I think Obama has the easier path here. He can raise seemingly endless oodles of money at the drop of a hat. A large portion of his appeal already comes from independents.
Surely both candidates must have have considered it and discussed the pros and cons. Why haven't our glorious media pundits lavished thie genius predictions on us about this one? More importantly why hasn't Obama played this card with the supers? That would seem to knock HRC out of the box. A third party (or fourth if you count Nader) run by Obama would basically guarantee that the Dems do not take the White House. In all likelihood it hands the election to McCain on a platter, but I suppose their is some small chance that Obama could eke it out on his own. Either way, the Dems lose out. Seems like a pretty powerful bargaining chip to me.
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Monday, April 14, 2008
Astounded
There are only three reasons anyone could have voted for the Authorization to Use Military Force in Iraq:
1) They honestly believed that it was a good idea, regardless of the facts
2) They were ignorant of the facts
3) They felt that they needed to for political reasons
I can't see how any of these are acceptable. Number one is obviously inexcusable, although unfortunately more common than it should be. Number two also holds no water for me. There were hundreds of thousands of people who spoke out against this legislation and the whole cloth "facts" that the neo-cons and wart mongers ginned up as talking points. To claim ignorance or hide behind the "I was duped" meme begs credibility.
This brings us to option number three. A number of Clinton supporters have pushed back on Obama's claim that he was opposed to the war from the start by claiming that since he was not in office and did not have to cast a vote on the issue, he is getting an unfair free pass. "There is no telling what he would have done had he been forced to vote," the argument goes. Perhaps. But there is one hundred percent certainty what every other candidate would have done. Even if there was a 99% possibility that Obama would have voted yea - which there is not - it is still less than the certainty of Clinton or McCain. And what were the "costs" of a nay vote? Potential political retribution from constituents? I am not sure which astounds me more: the fact that so many people would vote for a candidate who chose their own personal fortunes over the lives of even one person, let alone the hundreds of thousands who have perished since that vote or the fact that if Clinton is the nominee, I will end up voting for her too.
1) They honestly believed that it was a good idea, regardless of the facts
2) They were ignorant of the facts
3) They felt that they needed to for political reasons
I can't see how any of these are acceptable. Number one is obviously inexcusable, although unfortunately more common than it should be. Number two also holds no water for me. There were hundreds of thousands of people who spoke out against this legislation and the whole cloth "facts" that the neo-cons and wart mongers ginned up as talking points. To claim ignorance or hide behind the "I was duped" meme begs credibility.
This brings us to option number three. A number of Clinton supporters have pushed back on Obama's claim that he was opposed to the war from the start by claiming that since he was not in office and did not have to cast a vote on the issue, he is getting an unfair free pass. "There is no telling what he would have done had he been forced to vote," the argument goes. Perhaps. But there is one hundred percent certainty what every other candidate would have done. Even if there was a 99% possibility that Obama would have voted yea - which there is not - it is still less than the certainty of Clinton or McCain. And what were the "costs" of a nay vote? Potential political retribution from constituents? I am not sure which astounds me more: the fact that so many people would vote for a candidate who chose their own personal fortunes over the lives of even one person, let alone the hundreds of thousands who have perished since that vote or the fact that if Clinton is the nominee, I will end up voting for her too.
Disagreement By A Thousand Cuts
Mcdaddy writes in on the continuing Krugman/Obama antagonisms
I definitely don’t want that.
I guess it always stings a little more when the opinion hounds turn their usual bag of tricks on someone or something you care about. So why is it that PKnyt is hell-bent on taking cheap shots at Obama, whenever possible? It’s not like Obama or his supporters are arguing in favor of the decrepit health care system that we have currently. And it is not like Clinton and her surrogates haven’t opened the door with even more cynical and supercilious attacks from their camp. My guess is that this is similar to an academic dispute in which two extremely intelligent professors start out at odds with one another based on a difference of opinion. Because it is a matter of opinion and not fact, neither one can empirically prove the other wrong, yet each knows that their counterpart is wrong. As my father–in-law is fond of saying “That’s my opinion, but I know it is right because if it weren’t right it wouldn’t be my opinion.” To admit otherwise is not possible. So the differences quickly escalate and the two colleagues become rivals. Nothing the other does can ever have any merit, because this would call into question the whole premise of the original argument. This easily devolves into the kind of counterproductive sniper fire that hinders any real progress.
As mcdaddy puts the question to Krugman:
Yo, B, my man Krugman has been dissing Obama for a solid 8 months. I am cool with folks stepping up and saying, "I don't like this brother because..." but what troubles me about Krugman is the off-handedness with which he disses Obama and today's column is a perfect example. I wrote him an e-mail today, but this topic is one that needs to be addressed in your blog immediately and if you don't, I'ma have to put you on blast, too.
I definitely don’t want that.
I guess it always stings a little more when the opinion hounds turn their usual bag of tricks on someone or something you care about. So why is it that PKnyt is hell-bent on taking cheap shots at Obama, whenever possible? It’s not like Obama or his supporters are arguing in favor of the decrepit health care system that we have currently. And it is not like Clinton and her surrogates haven’t opened the door with even more cynical and supercilious attacks from their camp. My guess is that this is similar to an academic dispute in which two extremely intelligent professors start out at odds with one another based on a difference of opinion. Because it is a matter of opinion and not fact, neither one can empirically prove the other wrong, yet each knows that their counterpart is wrong. As my father–in-law is fond of saying “That’s my opinion, but I know it is right because if it weren’t right it wouldn’t be my opinion.” To admit otherwise is not possible. So the differences quickly escalate and the two colleagues become rivals. Nothing the other does can ever have any merit, because this would call into question the whole premise of the original argument. This easily devolves into the kind of counterproductive sniper fire that hinders any real progress.
As mcdaddy puts the question to Krugman:
Why are you kicking that away with silly potshots at someone who may not be on your team right now, but is certainly on your side?
Sunday, April 13, 2008
Divided we stand
This is deserving of a much longer post, but I will try to bang it out tonight - perhaps I will get halfway there. Despite my (not so) youthful idealism, I honestly do not ever see a way out of the racial divide in this country. There a lots of reasons for this, many of which are well worn. The one that makes me the lose all hope, however, is the fact that a vast majority of the people in this country belong to what I would call a "post-racist era". This is not to say that racism does not exist at the level of individual people. Nor am I denying that indecencies large and small are visited upon black people all the time. Rather, the "post racist era" is one in which the history under which blacks resided in this country for 350 years loses all meaning because they are not a part of the historical or current reality of the people who are here now.
Slavery was an obviously unfair system. By obvious I mean that it was clear at the who benefited and who suffered. Slave owners' gains (monetary) tied directly to the slaves losses (pick anything here, the list is really too long to summarize). It was a zero sum equation. Fast forward to Reconstruction and the equation becomes less clear. Certainly the institutionalized apartheid in this country prior to the Civil Rights Act worked to the advantage of whites, but this system had also eliminated the clear connections between the oppressed and the oppressors. Because the benefits of the system were distributed more broadly across a larger swath of people, how much any one person "gained" became more difficult to tease out.
Jump ahead again to today and the calculus gets even murkier. We have the most just system that has ever existed in our country (this doesn't mean it is truly "just", only that it is better than everything that has come before it) still, Black Americans are on the whole severely disadvantaged. However, the nature, tone and circumstances of this inequality is either so pervasive or so ingrained in our society, that non-black people today cannot point to any real advantages their race affords them. Even people who believe on an intellectual level that there is inequality among the races have a difficult time citing specific instances that are a direct advantage of their race. Today, the scions of the slave-holding families of the Old South do not seem to experience any cognitive dissonance over the fact that their inheritance was built on the backs of blacks' lost freedom. These are the people for whom the direct link between racism and personal material benefit was the most direct. This being the case, it seems to me an impossible stretch to expect the descendants of the immigrant wave of 1870 - 1900 (let alone more recent arrivals)to contemplate the much more abstract set of benefits that they experience because they are NOT black.
With every passing generation, the "that was a long time ago, get over it" argument gains more and more credence. As a result the possibility of reconciliation and amelioration becomes more and more distant.
Slavery was an obviously unfair system. By obvious I mean that it was clear at the who benefited and who suffered. Slave owners' gains (monetary) tied directly to the slaves losses (pick anything here, the list is really too long to summarize). It was a zero sum equation. Fast forward to Reconstruction and the equation becomes less clear. Certainly the institutionalized apartheid in this country prior to the Civil Rights Act worked to the advantage of whites, but this system had also eliminated the clear connections between the oppressed and the oppressors. Because the benefits of the system were distributed more broadly across a larger swath of people, how much any one person "gained" became more difficult to tease out.
Jump ahead again to today and the calculus gets even murkier. We have the most just system that has ever existed in our country (this doesn't mean it is truly "just", only that it is better than everything that has come before it) still, Black Americans are on the whole severely disadvantaged. However, the nature, tone and circumstances of this inequality is either so pervasive or so ingrained in our society, that non-black people today cannot point to any real advantages their race affords them. Even people who believe on an intellectual level that there is inequality among the races have a difficult time citing specific instances that are a direct advantage of their race. Today, the scions of the slave-holding families of the Old South do not seem to experience any cognitive dissonance over the fact that their inheritance was built on the backs of blacks' lost freedom. These are the people for whom the direct link between racism and personal material benefit was the most direct. This being the case, it seems to me an impossible stretch to expect the descendants of the immigrant wave of 1870 - 1900 (let alone more recent arrivals)to contemplate the much more abstract set of benefits that they experience because they are NOT black.
With every passing generation, the "that was a long time ago, get over it" argument gains more and more credence. As a result the possibility of reconciliation and amelioration becomes more and more distant.
Friday, April 11, 2008
New York, Just Like I Pictured It
Back from NYC. Getting off the downtown 6 at Union Square I heard this honking noise and insane driving beat. These guys were at the top of the stairs absolutely KILLING it. Hypnotic Brass Ensemble - check them out.
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
...in which I invite a few people to have a look around
Having been at it for a week now, I take the plunge. Have a look.
Warning! The article you are about to read...
I have been viciously disappointed with the media for most of my adult life. Therefore, I am hoping to make this the first in a series of harangues on the media that are aimed at absolutely nobody in particular and have no hope of actually bringing about any real change in our society.
The media ecosystem has evolved to a point where the interests of the journalists are too closely aligned with the people that they are supposed to be covering. This symbiosis has made it so that politicians seeking to influence the debate simply need to develop relationships with like-minded editors and reporters who sanitize the political spin through the use of "blind quotes" or "background briefings." Judith Miller's complicity in pushing the Iraq WMD story is one of the most disturbing examples this. Unfortunately, the use of unattributed sources happens regularly in all areas of media coverage.
The problem with unattributable sources is clear - they do not provide the reader with enough information to evaluate the claims being made. Are the sources acting altruistically or are they pushing an hidden agenda? Are they expert enough or familiar enough with the issue to actually provide valid analysis? However, the argument in favor of confidential sources is compelling. Without the guarantee of confidentiality, many sources would not come forward for fear of retribution, which would result in the public knowing less information.
What to do? Here is a simple proposal: news outlets should follow the standards set by Wikipedia with regard to sourcing. If an item uses unattributed sources there should be a disclaimer prominently displayed either at the top of the article or, in the case of TV news, in the lower third graphic. Journalists will still be free to work their sources in the same ways, whistle blowers and leakers will still have protection and the public will have the benefit of knowing up front how they want to evaluate the claims made.
Now I can foresee some pushback from the media on this, since articles with "warning labels" will most likely arouse the suspicion of readers and possibly make them less likely to read or believe the piece. My response? That's kind of the point now, isn't it?
The media ecosystem has evolved to a point where the interests of the journalists are too closely aligned with the people that they are supposed to be covering. This symbiosis has made it so that politicians seeking to influence the debate simply need to develop relationships with like-minded editors and reporters who sanitize the political spin through the use of "blind quotes" or "background briefings." Judith Miller's complicity in pushing the Iraq WMD story is one of the most disturbing examples this. Unfortunately, the use of unattributed sources happens regularly in all areas of media coverage.
The problem with unattributable sources is clear - they do not provide the reader with enough information to evaluate the claims being made. Are the sources acting altruistically or are they pushing an hidden agenda? Are they expert enough or familiar enough with the issue to actually provide valid analysis? However, the argument in favor of confidential sources is compelling. Without the guarantee of confidentiality, many sources would not come forward for fear of retribution, which would result in the public knowing less information.
What to do? Here is a simple proposal: news outlets should follow the standards set by Wikipedia with regard to sourcing. If an item uses unattributed sources there should be a disclaimer prominently displayed either at the top of the article or, in the case of TV news, in the lower third graphic. Journalists will still be free to work their sources in the same ways, whistle blowers and leakers will still have protection and the public will have the benefit of knowing up front how they want to evaluate the claims made.
Now I can foresee some pushback from the media on this, since articles with "warning labels" will most likely arouse the suspicion of readers and possibly make them less likely to read or believe the piece. My response? That's kind of the point now, isn't it?
Monday, March 31, 2008
Have you ever been experienced?
I watched "Bush's War" last night on my DVR and for the first time in a long while it made me pause and reconsider my support for Obama. If you haven't seen it, the show essentially re-lives the internal battles among administration insiders in the run up to the war. It also lays bare the fact that personal politics - as opposed to policy politics - determined our strategy and execution in Iraq. Cheney and Rumsfeld used their experience with personal politics to cut out, subvert and disenfranchise anyone who they felt was an obstacle to their success, regardless of the costs to the country, our soldiers or our security. This seems especially odd, since that during the 2000 election the experience of Bush's advisers- Cheney especially- was widely cited as an asset that would help the relatively inexperienced Governor mitigate his own inexperience. Bush could rely on these men, it was claimed, to help him navigate difficult situations when they arose. In reality these advisers - Cheney especially - used their experience advantage to circumvent policy analysis and discussion that threatened the tactics they supported. And we know how the story goes from there.
So back to Obama. I have never bought the "experience" argument that Clinton has been pushing. To be blunt, I think her 35 years of experience is a) an exaggeration and b) mostly irrelevant. However, one area where she clearly does have more experience than Obama is in this arena of political in-fighting. She has lived through decades of it in both her professional and personal lives. Judging by her current campaign, Clinton has certainly learned these lessons well.
The question is, does this make her less likely to fall prey to the machinations of less-than-altruistic advisers? Or does the fact that Obama is generally better prepared to analyze complex issues than Bush make this a red herring?
So back to Obama. I have never bought the "experience" argument that Clinton has been pushing. To be blunt, I think her 35 years of experience is a) an exaggeration and b) mostly irrelevant. However, one area where she clearly does have more experience than Obama is in this arena of political in-fighting. She has lived through decades of it in both her professional and personal lives. Judging by her current campaign, Clinton has certainly learned these lessons well.
The question is, does this make her less likely to fall prey to the machinations of less-than-altruistic advisers? Or does the fact that Obama is generally better prepared to analyze complex issues than Bush make this a red herring?
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
...in which I completely contradict my previous post
Despite the fact I think the Super Delegate system is structurally flawed, I have decided that it will not play a role in deciding the Democratic nominee. I happened upon this realization last night, just before dinner. Here's my thinking on this:
There are essentially three potential outcomes at the end of the primaries.
1) Obama wins the popular vote AND has the most pledged delegates
2) Clinton wins the popular vote AND has the most pledged delegates
3) The two candidates split, with one winning the popular vote and the other winning the most pledged delegates.
The reality the outcome number three will not occur seems to becoming more and more clear all the time. For example see here and here . I suppose it is still possible, but this seems like an extreme corner case.
That leaves outcomes one and two. In either of those instances the result is the same. As long as one person takes both the popular and pledged delegate victories than the Super Delegates will give that candidate the nomination. Irrespective of who the winner is, it seems fair to say that the loser and their supporters will be told to accept the results. This makes sense in many ways. Most importantly, it makes sense emotionally. At the end of the day, after all the votes are counted and your side lost, then you can come to grips with it. Call it the "We did our best, but our best wasn't good enough" syndrome. Eventually, most of these people would come around to support the official nominee.
The reverse, however, would not be possible. If the Super Delegates go against the popular vote and pledged delegates it would lead to the untenable position of the party leaders going against the rank and file. The Super Delegates may be self-important, but they are not delusional. They realize that neither they, nor their chosen candidate would survive the mutiny that this would engender. It would mean sure defeat at the polls in November and most likely cost the Super Delegates in their individual political endeavors.
This of course assumes that Florida and Michigan are counted in some way that satisfies everyone's concerns about the primaries there. I realize that this is a big if, but I am confident that in the end the Super Delegates will not have the influence that the media is currently assigning to them.
There are essentially three potential outcomes at the end of the primaries.
1) Obama wins the popular vote AND has the most pledged delegates
2) Clinton wins the popular vote AND has the most pledged delegates
3) The two candidates split, with one winning the popular vote and the other winning the most pledged delegates.
The reality the outcome number three will not occur seems to becoming more and more clear all the time. For example see here and here . I suppose it is still possible, but this seems like an extreme corner case.
That leaves outcomes one and two. In either of those instances the result is the same. As long as one person takes both the popular and pledged delegate victories than the Super Delegates will give that candidate the nomination. Irrespective of who the winner is, it seems fair to say that the loser and their supporters will be told to accept the results. This makes sense in many ways. Most importantly, it makes sense emotionally. At the end of the day, after all the votes are counted and your side lost, then you can come to grips with it. Call it the "We did our best, but our best wasn't good enough" syndrome. Eventually, most of these people would come around to support the official nominee.
The reverse, however, would not be possible. If the Super Delegates go against the popular vote and pledged delegates it would lead to the untenable position of the party leaders going against the rank and file. The Super Delegates may be self-important, but they are not delusional. They realize that neither they, nor their chosen candidate would survive the mutiny that this would engender. It would mean sure defeat at the polls in November and most likely cost the Super Delegates in their individual political endeavors.
This of course assumes that Florida and Michigan are counted in some way that satisfies everyone's concerns about the primaries there. I realize that this is a big if, but I am confident that in the end the Super Delegates will not have the influence that the media is currently assigning to them.
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
The super delegate problem
The problem with the Super Delegates is not that they are elitist or biased or even too prone to support the "status quo". While I am certain that at the individual level some or all of these criticisms do apply, the truth is that much the same could be said of any voter. In this sense, the Super Delegate are identical to the regular delegates and to those average citizens whose votes pledged these delegates to one or another candidate. On the whole I do not see this as an inherent failure in the nominating system.
A system that relies on Super Delegates, however, is structurally flawed. By and large Super Delegates are politicians. As such their primary concern is the continued growth of their own individual power and importance. Political success trumps policy objectives. This added layer of personal self-interest is the core problem with Super Delegates.
There has been much discussion about how the Super Delegates should pledge their support to one of the candidates and in so doing end the current fratricide that many people think is damaging the Democrats' chances in November. Why hasn't this happened? Quite simply because each Super Delegate is seeking to maximize the value of their endorsement and to get as much in return as possible. Endorsements from politicians always - ALWAYS- have a price attached to them. This price may be financial - promises of funding for home district projects, for instance - or it may be personal - appointment to a key position that will further the career of the person lending their endorsement. The price extracted by the endorser is based on the perceived value that this person brings to a candidate. This value can wax and wane over time, depending on the electoral circumstances.
It is clear that neither Obama nor Clinton will have enough pledged regular delegates to secure the nomination. So we find ourselves in a situation where with each passing day, the value of a Super Delegates endorsement and the price that they can extract for these endorsements grows. This is a complicated calculus that has to take in to account a variety of factors to a) insure that you end up on the winning side and b)time the endorsement perfectly. Right now, the longer a Super Delegate waits, the more leverage they have. Until this equation changes, don't expect to see any rush of Super Delegates pledging their votes.
A system that relies on Super Delegates, however, is structurally flawed. By and large Super Delegates are politicians. As such their primary concern is the continued growth of their own individual power and importance. Political success trumps policy objectives. This added layer of personal self-interest is the core problem with Super Delegates.
There has been much discussion about how the Super Delegates should pledge their support to one of the candidates and in so doing end the current fratricide that many people think is damaging the Democrats' chances in November. Why hasn't this happened? Quite simply because each Super Delegate is seeking to maximize the value of their endorsement and to get as much in return as possible. Endorsements from politicians always - ALWAYS- have a price attached to them. This price may be financial - promises of funding for home district projects, for instance - or it may be personal - appointment to a key position that will further the career of the person lending their endorsement. The price extracted by the endorser is based on the perceived value that this person brings to a candidate. This value can wax and wane over time, depending on the electoral circumstances.
It is clear that neither Obama nor Clinton will have enough pledged regular delegates to secure the nomination. So we find ourselves in a situation where with each passing day, the value of a Super Delegates endorsement and the price that they can extract for these endorsements grows. This is a complicated calculus that has to take in to account a variety of factors to a) insure that you end up on the winning side and b)time the endorsement perfectly. Right now, the longer a Super Delegate waits, the more leverage they have. Until this equation changes, don't expect to see any rush of Super Delegates pledging their votes.
Monday, March 24, 2008
The dissent of man
My mother forwarded me this opinion piece from Jeff Jacoby at The Boston Globe. It's a complete hit job. My response (in part) was:
Whether you support Obama, Clinton or McCain is really not issue here. More importantly, is our country’s increasing efforts to try and silence dissent. Ask yourself what would have been the result had we been more willing to listen to the hundreds of thousands of people who spoke up against invading Iraq BEFORE the war started? How many hundreds of thousands of lives would have been saved? Yet instead, those very same people were called un-American, jailed and told by the administration, the public and the media that they had better “watch what they say.” But I ask you what could be more patriotic than risking the ire of your friends, the anger of society and the risk of jail because you feel that you must speak out in order to IMPROVE your country?
I challenge you to go watch the full 6 minutes of the sermon that Rev Wright gave. You are free to disagree with every last bit of it. Reverend Wright may be completely wrong. Regardless, Reverend Wright’s speech is precisely the reason why the founding fathers included the right to free speech in the Bill of Rights. In a country where the people are endowed with the power to elect the government, it is not only allowable, but also essential for the populace to speak out when they believe the government is in error. Articles like this, like this serve only to weaken our country and their purveyors are the ones who are truly unpatriotic.
Whether you support Obama, Clinton or McCain is really not issue here. More importantly, is our country’s increasing efforts to try and silence dissent. Ask yourself what would have been the result had we been more willing to listen to the hundreds of thousands of people who spoke up against invading Iraq BEFORE the war started? How many hundreds of thousands of lives would have been saved? Yet instead, those very same people were called un-American, jailed and told by the administration, the public and the media that they had better “watch what they say.” But I ask you what could be more patriotic than risking the ire of your friends, the anger of society and the risk of jail because you feel that you must speak out in order to IMPROVE your country?
I challenge you to go watch the full 6 minutes of the sermon that Rev Wright gave. You are free to disagree with every last bit of it. Reverend Wright may be completely wrong. Regardless, Reverend Wright’s speech is precisely the reason why the founding fathers included the right to free speech in the Bill of Rights. In a country where the people are endowed with the power to elect the government, it is not only allowable, but also essential for the populace to speak out when they believe the government is in error. Articles like this, like this serve only to weaken our country and their purveyors are the ones who are truly unpatriotic.
Connecting the dots...
Something that I have not yet seen brought to light. Perhaps it is just too obvious, but here goes:
This entire Obama Wright flap provides tremendous insight into the method by which politicians, primarily Republicans, seed and spread misleading memes and how they gain traction with the public and the media. First, the issue of Obama ‘s middle name is brought up, using the fringe right to generate some noise. This is really the only place that something like this can gain traction of course because it is completely irrational, but nonetheless the story line is not out there. Next, the issue of not wearing an American flag lapel pin is raised. It gets a little more notice, but not much. Really just more red meat for the right wing echo chamber. Next comes the picture of the trip to Africa where Obama is in Somali dress. Then comes Jack Kingston on the Bill Maher show with the pledge of allegiance claim. Now we have a story that has legs and has multiple “proof” points to it. The mainstream media now looks at this and says, “Hey maybe there is a story here” and a few of them cover it. Even if they merely cover it as a political story highlighting the campaign tactics, it begins to find its way into the general population. Now comes Jeremiah Wright and “God Damn America!” This is a story that by itself probably would generate little coverage. It would simply be seen for what it is – a political hit job. However, if there is a long trail of “evidence” than the major media outlets say to themselves, “By golly this is a real story here and we had better cover it and cover it big.”
Think back, and connect the dots. These seemingly random events were painstakingly plotted. The timing and order of these “revelations” was intentional and premeditated. The purveyors of this story had the Wright video in hand on day one. The final design was not apparent at the outset – hell we still may not have seen the entire composition - but each piece was intricately laid like a mosaic. It is a lesson in how these things take root, a playbook for how to play the media and a case study in what is wrong with our system.
This entire Obama Wright flap provides tremendous insight into the method by which politicians, primarily Republicans, seed and spread misleading memes and how they gain traction with the public and the media. First, the issue of Obama ‘s middle name is brought up, using the fringe right to generate some noise. This is really the only place that something like this can gain traction of course because it is completely irrational, but nonetheless the story line is not out there. Next, the issue of not wearing an American flag lapel pin is raised. It gets a little more notice, but not much. Really just more red meat for the right wing echo chamber. Next comes the picture of the trip to Africa where Obama is in Somali dress. Then comes Jack Kingston on the Bill Maher show with the pledge of allegiance claim. Now we have a story that has legs and has multiple “proof” points to it. The mainstream media now looks at this and says, “Hey maybe there is a story here” and a few of them cover it. Even if they merely cover it as a political story highlighting the campaign tactics, it begins to find its way into the general population. Now comes Jeremiah Wright and “God Damn America!” This is a story that by itself probably would generate little coverage. It would simply be seen for what it is – a political hit job. However, if there is a long trail of “evidence” than the major media outlets say to themselves, “By golly this is a real story here and we had better cover it and cover it big.”
Think back, and connect the dots. These seemingly random events were painstakingly plotted. The timing and order of these “revelations” was intentional and premeditated. The purveyors of this story had the Wright video in hand on day one. The final design was not apparent at the outset – hell we still may not have seen the entire composition - but each piece was intricately laid like a mosaic. It is a lesson in how these things take root, a playbook for how to play the media and a case study in what is wrong with our system.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)