As I predicted a few weeks ago in this blog, Chelsea Clinton is taking a more active role now in campaigning for her mother. She's the perfect person demographically to reach the younger women that so far have been favoring Obama.
It will be interesting to see if the press gets negative at all in covering Chelsea. Bill and Hillary have gone to great lengths to keep Chelsea under wraps all these years. And if Chelsea hadn't turned out as well as she did, the media would definitely be covering her a la Britney Spears, and criticizing Hillary Clinton as a bad mother.
Friday, February 8, 2008
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
On Sunday's Rally of Powerful Women in Calif. for Obama
Watching the YouTube videos of Oprah, Maria Shriver, Caroline Kennedy and Michelle Obama stumping for Obama at UCLA on Sunday, it was striking to see these powerful, articulate women aiming their words at women and convincing them to vote for Obama.
I'm sure that Oprah's endorsement, along with these other celebrity and political female powerhouses, was instrumental in getting Obama votes for the nomination in California.
Here's a link to an editorial in the New York Times on this rally, calling it "the best campaign rally I’ve seen in 20 years of covering presidential politics."
Do you know why this rally was so powerful? Because with this array of attractive, celebrity women, Obama shows he is a master of the new medium, and the medium is the message. This was a successful "show business" or "entertainment" event for the Television age, or as I'll dub it, the YouTubeAge, which distills visual images into digitally-palatable minutes of downloadable videos available to all.
I'm referring to what media critic Neil Postman termed in his book Amusing Ourselves to Death, Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business. As he argued, we've come a long way from the Age of Typography of the Lincoln and Douglas debates, which were very literate in nature, because the American public was more literate. Now, in the television age, political discourse is all visual; it's all dumbed-down by television. Postman's point: "how television stages the world becomes the model for how the world is properly to be staged. It is not merely that on the television screen entertainment is the metaphor for all discourse. It is that off the screen the same metaphor prevails. . . Americans no longer talk to each other, they entertain each other. They do not exchange ideas; they exchange images. They do not argue with propositions; they argue with good looks, celebrities and commercials."
Postman wrote, "a good television program always aims to achieve...applause, not reflection." These women--Oprah, Shriver, Kennedy--were great at eliciting applause from the thousands in the audience, but they didn't even try to elicit reflection.
That's why Oprah could get away with vague speech consisting only of buzzwords. She offered no specifics. Instead, she repeated buzzwords: "Change we can believe in", "Yes we can," and he is "brilliant, brilliant, brilliant." But she doesn't have to offer examples or specifics; she's Oprah, and a recommendation from her is enough to be persuasive. She has "charisma", that quality that everyone is saying Obama has, and that many say Hillary lacks, but Bill had.
Entertainment is what matters in politics, and Obama is the better entertainer. In showbiz, what works is making people feel good, making them smile and laugh: Obama is good at cracking jokes, and Hillary is less successful at that. Many say they like Obama because he's "inspiring;" his words make them feel good.
In contrast to this energetic panel of telegenic women on stage pumping up the crowd for Obama on Sunday, Hillary Clinton, good student that she is, with her nose to the grindstone, led a town hall discussion for an hour on Monday night, heralding to the Age of Typography, of the true debate, the true discussion, which is what she thinks the American people want. In the last few weeks, she's offered to stay to answer people's every last question. But as the Washington Post mocked her on its web site a few weeks ago with a video showing bored people, that doesn't make for good visual "soundbites," for good television, and it's not what the American people want; it's the same reason people didn't like Gore (who also would have done better in the Age of Telegraphy or Exposition: they want "good looks" and "celebrity"; they want "entertainment." (As does the media--it sells more papers and scores more downloads.) And Obama is better at providing that than Hillary Clinton. As are Obama's supporters.
I'm sure that Oprah's endorsement, along with these other celebrity and political female powerhouses, was instrumental in getting Obama votes for the nomination in California.
Here's a link to an editorial in the New York Times on this rally, calling it "the best campaign rally I’ve seen in 20 years of covering presidential politics."
Do you know why this rally was so powerful? Because with this array of attractive, celebrity women, Obama shows he is a master of the new medium, and the medium is the message. This was a successful "show business" or "entertainment" event for the Television age, or as I'll dub it, the YouTubeAge, which distills visual images into digitally-palatable minutes of downloadable videos available to all.
I'm referring to what media critic Neil Postman termed in his book Amusing Ourselves to Death, Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business. As he argued, we've come a long way from the Age of Typography of the Lincoln and Douglas debates, which were very literate in nature, because the American public was more literate. Now, in the television age, political discourse is all visual; it's all dumbed-down by television. Postman's point: "how television stages the world becomes the model for how the world is properly to be staged. It is not merely that on the television screen entertainment is the metaphor for all discourse. It is that off the screen the same metaphor prevails. . . Americans no longer talk to each other, they entertain each other. They do not exchange ideas; they exchange images. They do not argue with propositions; they argue with good looks, celebrities and commercials."
Postman wrote, "a good television program always aims to achieve...applause, not reflection." These women--Oprah, Shriver, Kennedy--were great at eliciting applause from the thousands in the audience, but they didn't even try to elicit reflection.
That's why Oprah could get away with vague speech consisting only of buzzwords. She offered no specifics. Instead, she repeated buzzwords: "Change we can believe in", "Yes we can," and he is "brilliant, brilliant, brilliant." But she doesn't have to offer examples or specifics; she's Oprah, and a recommendation from her is enough to be persuasive. She has "charisma", that quality that everyone is saying Obama has, and that many say Hillary lacks, but Bill had.
Entertainment is what matters in politics, and Obama is the better entertainer. In showbiz, what works is making people feel good, making them smile and laugh: Obama is good at cracking jokes, and Hillary is less successful at that. Many say they like Obama because he's "inspiring;" his words make them feel good.
In contrast to this energetic panel of telegenic women on stage pumping up the crowd for Obama on Sunday, Hillary Clinton, good student that she is, with her nose to the grindstone, led a town hall discussion for an hour on Monday night, heralding to the Age of Typography, of the true debate, the true discussion, which is what she thinks the American people want. In the last few weeks, she's offered to stay to answer people's every last question. But as the Washington Post mocked her on its web site a few weeks ago with a video showing bored people, that doesn't make for good visual "soundbites," for good television, and it's not what the American people want; it's the same reason people didn't like Gore (who also would have done better in the Age of Telegraphy or Exposition: they want "good looks" and "celebrity"; they want "entertainment." (As does the media--it sells more papers and scores more downloads.) And Obama is better at providing that than Hillary Clinton. As are Obama's supporters.
Robin Morgan on Why She, as a Woman, is Voting for Hillary
And here's a link to a well-written essay, by feminist and writer Robin Morgan (and founder of the Women's Media Center) on why she is voting for Hillary Clinton, not Obama, from the Women's Media Center web site.
A choice excerpt:
"Goodbye, goodbye to . . .
—blaming anything Bill Clinton does on Hillary (even including his womanizing like the Kennedy guys—though unlike them, he got reported on). Let’s get real. If he hadn’t campaigned strongly for her everyone would cluck over what that meant. Enough of Bill and Teddy Kennedy locking their alpha male horns while Hillary pays for it.
—an era when parts of the populace feel so disaffected by politics that a comparative lack of knowledge, experience, and skill is actually seen as attractive, when celebrity-culture mania now infects our elections so that it’s “cooler” to glow with marquee charisma than to understand the vast global complexities of power on a nuclear, wounded planet.
—the notion that it’s fun to elect a handsome, cocky president who feels he can learn on the job, goodbye to George W. Bush and the destruction brought by his inexperience, ignorance, and arrogance.
Goodbye to the accusation that HRC acts “entitled” when she’s worked intensely at everything she’s done—including being a nose-to-the-grindstone, first-rate senator from my state.
Goodbye to her being exploited as a Rorschach test by women who reduce her to a blank screen on which they project their own fears, failures, fantasies.
Goodbye to the phrase “polarizing figure” to describe someone who embodies the transitions women have made in the last century and are poised to make in this one. . . .
Goodbye to some women letting history pass by while wringing their hands, because Hillary isn’t as “likeable” as they’ve been warned they must be, or because she didn’t leave him, couldn’t “control” him, kept her family together and raised a smart, sane daughter. (Think of the blame if Chelsea had ever acted in the alcoholic, neurotic manner of the Bush twins!)"
That last bit about Chelsea is so true--Chelsea has turned out so well, but note how the media doesn't praise Hillary for this fine job she did of mothering. Yet, if the flip side were true, if Chelsea hadn't turned out so well, no doubt the media would delight in blaming Hillary for being a bad mother, for being too focused on her career, on ambition and success.
A choice excerpt:
"Goodbye, goodbye to . . .
—blaming anything Bill Clinton does on Hillary (even including his womanizing like the Kennedy guys—though unlike them, he got reported on). Let’s get real. If he hadn’t campaigned strongly for her everyone would cluck over what that meant. Enough of Bill and Teddy Kennedy locking their alpha male horns while Hillary pays for it.
—an era when parts of the populace feel so disaffected by politics that a comparative lack of knowledge, experience, and skill is actually seen as attractive, when celebrity-culture mania now infects our elections so that it’s “cooler” to glow with marquee charisma than to understand the vast global complexities of power on a nuclear, wounded planet.
—the notion that it’s fun to elect a handsome, cocky president who feels he can learn on the job, goodbye to George W. Bush and the destruction brought by his inexperience, ignorance, and arrogance.
Goodbye to the accusation that HRC acts “entitled” when she’s worked intensely at everything she’s done—including being a nose-to-the-grindstone, first-rate senator from my state.
Goodbye to her being exploited as a Rorschach test by women who reduce her to a blank screen on which they project their own fears, failures, fantasies.
Goodbye to the phrase “polarizing figure” to describe someone who embodies the transitions women have made in the last century and are poised to make in this one. . . .
Goodbye to some women letting history pass by while wringing their hands, because Hillary isn’t as “likeable” as they’ve been warned they must be, or because she didn’t leave him, couldn’t “control” him, kept her family together and raised a smart, sane daughter. (Think of the blame if Chelsea had ever acted in the alcoholic, neurotic manner of the Bush twins!)"
That last bit about Chelsea is so true--Chelsea has turned out so well, but note how the media doesn't praise Hillary for this fine job she did of mothering. Yet, if the flip side were true, if Chelsea hadn't turned out so well, no doubt the media would delight in blaming Hillary for being a bad mother, for being too focused on her career, on ambition and success.
Stanley Fish on Hatred of Hillary
The famous professor and author Stanley Fish writes in today's New York Times on people's intrinsic hatred of Hillary Clinton. He doesn't probe why there is this intrinsic hatred, just points out that it exists. Fish's essay is noteworthy because there are so few voices out there in the mainstream press taking note of a media bias against Hillary Clinton.
Sunday, February 3, 2008
An Academic Study of "the Oprah Effect" before she endorsed Obama
In 2006, Matthew Baum, associate professor of political science at UCLA, studied "the Oprah effect" in the 2000 presidential race, looking at how politicians' appearance on TV talk shows affected people's voting patterns.
This is what he found, from a UCLA article:
"The Oprah Effect" had more than twice as strong an impact on the voting patterns of politically unengaged voters as traditional news coverage had on the patterns of the politically engaged."
"Because highly engaged voters already possess substantial political knowledge, exposure to campaign coverage via either the soft or hard news media is likely to have a limited effect on their voting choices," he said. "They're wading through party mailers, visiting candidates' websites, debating issues with friends and maybe even attending candidates' forums. They've got information coming at them from all directions, so no one source is overwhelmingly influential."
So, an endorsement by Oprah, the queen of talk shows herself, will have tremendous sway on politically unengaged voters who lack substantial political knowledge; this conclusion doesn't bode well for Hillary Clinton.
This is what he found, from a UCLA article:
"The Oprah Effect" had more than twice as strong an impact on the voting patterns of politically unengaged voters as traditional news coverage had on the patterns of the politically engaged."
"Because highly engaged voters already possess substantial political knowledge, exposure to campaign coverage via either the soft or hard news media is likely to have a limited effect on their voting choices," he said. "They're wading through party mailers, visiting candidates' websites, debating issues with friends and maybe even attending candidates' forums. They've got information coming at them from all directions, so no one source is overwhelmingly influential."
So, an endorsement by Oprah, the queen of talk shows herself, will have tremendous sway on politically unengaged voters who lack substantial political knowledge; this conclusion doesn't bode well for Hillary Clinton.
Friday, February 1, 2008
Oprah is Obama's Bill Clinton
I just read in this piece that Oprah is going to make an appearance for Obama in California tomorrow.
This is big news--and it strikes me as unfair. I feel bad for Hillary Clinton. No doubt at the end of last night's debate, when she mentioned how she will be available to answer questions on the Hallmark channel for an hour on Monday night, in a direct appeal to women voters, Obama smiled: he was probably thinking, hah, go ahead and spend millions renting out the Hallmark channel, I've got the women vote locked up, I've got Oprah making a surprise appearance in California on Sunday.
I've already argued that the "Oprah effect" in Obama's favor in South Carolina has been greatly underestimated and underreported by the media. Now Oprah's appearance recommending Obama is going to do wonders for him in California. She is an incredibly powerful woman who is able to to do what Obama professes he will do as President - transcend race: a recommendation from her can move millions of white women to buy a certain book, or even a pair of jeans. Oprah has also achieved what Hillary Clinton has not been able to: Women do not resent Oprah despite the power she has attained. Women are the votes that Obama and Clinton are fighting over, and Obama has found his savior in Oprah--the perfect person to stump for him.
Whereas Hillary Clinton has been trounced by the press for relying on Bill Clinton to campaign for her in several states, in Oprah, Obama has found a more powerful political force than a former President, one who is more universally loved by the public on both sides of the political spectrum.
Oprah's speech in South Carolina in December before 30,000 mostly African-Americans, in which she praised Obama, was steeped in religious imagery and references, and also references to race--a fact which was also under-reported, because somehow Obama has been consistently praised as a figure who transcends race and does not profit from his color, and yet Oprah was specifically referring to his race and making reference to the race of the spectators. It will be interesting to see if Oprah again makes racial and religious references.
It's amazing how entertainment and politics has truly merged here--Neil Postman, the media critic who wrote Amusing Ourselves to Death, about how television has turned politics and news into entertainment, and other books, is surely turning over in his grave: Oprah's stumping for Obama surpasses candidate appearances on late-night talk shows, and the star-studded Kodak audience at Thursday's debate. Here, the most powerful talk show host is bringing her stage to voters and swaying thousands(of women--that is her audience) to vote for her candidate.
This is big news--and it strikes me as unfair. I feel bad for Hillary Clinton. No doubt at the end of last night's debate, when she mentioned how she will be available to answer questions on the Hallmark channel for an hour on Monday night, in a direct appeal to women voters, Obama smiled: he was probably thinking, hah, go ahead and spend millions renting out the Hallmark channel, I've got the women vote locked up, I've got Oprah making a surprise appearance in California on Sunday.
I've already argued that the "Oprah effect" in Obama's favor in South Carolina has been greatly underestimated and underreported by the media. Now Oprah's appearance recommending Obama is going to do wonders for him in California. She is an incredibly powerful woman who is able to to do what Obama professes he will do as President - transcend race: a recommendation from her can move millions of white women to buy a certain book, or even a pair of jeans. Oprah has also achieved what Hillary Clinton has not been able to: Women do not resent Oprah despite the power she has attained. Women are the votes that Obama and Clinton are fighting over, and Obama has found his savior in Oprah--the perfect person to stump for him.
Whereas Hillary Clinton has been trounced by the press for relying on Bill Clinton to campaign for her in several states, in Oprah, Obama has found a more powerful political force than a former President, one who is more universally loved by the public on both sides of the political spectrum.
Oprah's speech in South Carolina in December before 30,000 mostly African-Americans, in which she praised Obama, was steeped in religious imagery and references, and also references to race--a fact which was also under-reported, because somehow Obama has been consistently praised as a figure who transcends race and does not profit from his color, and yet Oprah was specifically referring to his race and making reference to the race of the spectators. It will be interesting to see if Oprah again makes racial and religious references.
It's amazing how entertainment and politics has truly merged here--Neil Postman, the media critic who wrote Amusing Ourselves to Death, about how television has turned politics and news into entertainment, and other books, is surely turning over in his grave: Oprah's stumping for Obama surpasses candidate appearances on late-night talk shows, and the star-studded Kodak audience at Thursday's debate. Here, the most powerful talk show host is bringing her stage to voters and swaying thousands(of women--that is her audience) to vote for her candidate.
Monday, January 28, 2008
Why is Obama's Wife not Being Called out in Media for Wal-Mart-connections?
While the press is slamming Hillary Clinton for mentioning Rezko in the South Carolina debates, it has been silent on Obama's hypocrisy: two years ago his wife was re-elected to the board of Treehouse Foods, an Illinois food-processing company, and the biggest customer for the food produced by Treehouse Foods is Wal-Mart.
From the British paper, the Telegraph, in December 2007: "According to the couple's tax returns, Mrs Obama earned $51,200 for her work as a non-executive director on Treehouse's board last year, on top of the $271,618 salary she was paid as a vice-president of the University of Chicago Hospitals. She also received 7,500 Treehouse stock options, worth a further $72,375, as she did the previous year, when she banked a $45,000 salary from the company." (Link to the full Telegraph article.)
Knowing this, it's surprising that Obama took a shot at Hillary for her time serving on the board of Wal-Mart. Unless he correctly surmised that the media wouldn't call him out for his hypocrisy. Why does he get a free pass?
From the British paper, the Telegraph, in December 2007: "According to the couple's tax returns, Mrs Obama earned $51,200 for her work as a non-executive director on Treehouse's board last year, on top of the $271,618 salary she was paid as a vice-president of the University of Chicago Hospitals. She also received 7,500 Treehouse stock options, worth a further $72,375, as she did the previous year, when she banked a $45,000 salary from the company." (Link to the full Telegraph article.)
Knowing this, it's surprising that Obama took a shot at Hillary for her time serving on the board of Wal-Mart. Unless he correctly surmised that the media wouldn't call him out for his hypocrisy. Why does he get a free pass?
Saturday, January 26, 2008
My article in today's Sunday Chicago Tribune
Here is a link to my article in the Perspectives section, called "Painted into a Corner, Clinton's Wealth of Experience Does not Speak to Younger Women."
Race Constrained Hillary in South Carolina, and Rep. Clyburn not "Neutral" as New York Times states
Sunday's New York Times calls Rep. James E. Clyburn "neutral" in the primary. From the article on Obama's win in the South Carolina primary: “The criticism of Obama ended up really helping him going forward, I think,” said Representative James E. Clyburn of South Carolina, an influential black Democrat who remained neutral in the primary. “If he ends up winning the nomination, he will definitely face an onslaught of attacks this fall, and he may look back on South Carolina as the place that toughened him up.”
First of all, how can Clyburn be deemed neutral by the New York Times? His name has been all over the press because a few days ago, on the 21st, he said Bill Clinton "needs to chill a little bit" in his criticism of Obama.
He also criticized Hillary Clinton's comments about President Johnson and Dr. King. As CBSNews.com asked him, "What was wrong with the statement that it took a president as well as Dr. King to achieve progress on civil rights?"
James Clyburn: "I didn’t say there was anything wrong with the statement. I said that all of us should be careful about what we say about that particular historical period because again a number of people--people I rely on to keep me up on what people are saying and thinking--called me to say that it seemed like she was saying President Johnson, a white male, was needed for Dr. King, a black male, to move on civil rights. Almost like it took a white person to get the job done. Which is not what she says she meant. So I was just saying it’s important that we be careful about that history."
So here is this prominent black U.S. congressman, one of the most powerful African-Americans in Congress, telling Hillary and Bill to watch their speech, because race
is not someone we can easily talk about. Hillary couldn't even defend herself, or criticize Obama, or mention Martin Luther King, whom Obama makes frequent mention of to boost his allure, without offending someone or drawing public rebuke.
So, back to Clyburn's quote in the New York Times. Did South Carolina really toughen Obama up even though Hillary Clinton was warned publicly by this prominent black congressman to watch her criticism of Obama, dare she seem racist?
First of all, how can Clyburn be deemed neutral by the New York Times? His name has been all over the press because a few days ago, on the 21st, he said Bill Clinton "needs to chill a little bit" in his criticism of Obama.
He also criticized Hillary Clinton's comments about President Johnson and Dr. King. As CBSNews.com asked him, "What was wrong with the statement that it took a president as well as Dr. King to achieve progress on civil rights?"
James Clyburn: "I didn’t say there was anything wrong with the statement. I said that all of us should be careful about what we say about that particular historical period because again a number of people--people I rely on to keep me up on what people are saying and thinking--called me to say that it seemed like she was saying President Johnson, a white male, was needed for Dr. King, a black male, to move on civil rights. Almost like it took a white person to get the job done. Which is not what she says she meant. So I was just saying it’s important that we be careful about that history."
So here is this prominent black U.S. congressman, one of the most powerful African-Americans in Congress, telling Hillary and Bill to watch their speech, because race
is not someone we can easily talk about. Hillary couldn't even defend herself, or criticize Obama, or mention Martin Luther King, whom Obama makes frequent mention of to boost his allure, without offending someone or drawing public rebuke.
So, back to Clyburn's quote in the New York Times. Did South Carolina really toughen Obama up even though Hillary Clinton was warned publicly by this prominent black congressman to watch her criticism of Obama, dare she seem racist?