Political scientist Alan I. Abramowitz writes at TNR:
According to the new conventional wisdom, Barack Obama has been badly damaged by Hillary Clinton’s continuing attacks and by his own personal baggage and mistakes, ranging from his relationship with his controversial former minister, Jeremiah Wright, to his highly publicized comments about bitter small town voters who cling to their guns and religion. And while Obama has been trying to respond to a barrage of media criticism and
Clinton attack ads, John McCain has been able to shift into general election mode–joining in the attacks on Obama, while shoring up his moderate image to prepare for November.
Nevertheless, Prof. Abramowitz argues that Obama and the Democrats remain well-positioned for November. Obviously, that remains to be seen. However, if Abramowitz is right, it will be because the current conventional wisdom — that Obama has faced a barrage of unfair attacks (going back to at least the Texas and Ohio primaries) and that the media has “jumped ship” to Hillary Clinton — is so very wrong.
The latest report from the Center for Media and Public Affairs, analyzing the evening network news shows through March 22, 2008, finds:
Comments on Senator Obama aired on the three major television networks had been at a lofty 88% positive for the period from 12/16/07 to 2/5/08, but dropped to a still impressive 62% positive during the 6 week period after the Super-Tuesday primary (2/6/08 to 3/22/08.) Furthermore, Senator Obama’s overall positive image remained unaffected by the Reverend Wright controversy. During that period, Obama’s positive press remained at 62%.
Positive comments about Senator Clinton on the three major television networks have continued to erode; down to 48% from the 53% she enjoyed during the pre-Super Tuesday period.
The CMPA’s reporting period ends four days after the speech Obama gave to defuse the Rev. Wright controversy. However, a Daylife news trend chart shows that the Wright stuff was dropping off the media’s radar screen until Obama made his comments about bitter small town Americans in the heartland clinging to God and guns due to the last 25 years of US economic policy. And the clingy kerfuffle at its peak produced only half the coverage of the Wright stuff.
Unfortunately, the Daylife chart cannot tell us how much of that coverage was negative in tone. We do know that after the ABC News debate in Philadelphia spent 44 minutes on political and character questions, there was plenty of commentary slamming ABC News. Indeed, as John F. Harris and Jim VandeHei observed at the Politico, “Many journalists are not merely observers but participants in the Obama phenomenon.”
As for blaming criticism from Team Clinton, even liberals like Paul Krugman are not buying it:
But how negative has the Clinton campaign been, really? Yes, it ran an ad that included Osama bin Laden in a montage of crisis images that also included the Great Depression and Hurricane Katrina. To listen to some pundits, you’d think that ad was practically the same as the famous G.O.P. ad accusing Max Cleland of being weak on national security.
It wasn’t. The attacks from the Clinton campaign have been badminton compared with the hardball Republicans will play this fall. If the relatively mild rough and tumble of the Democratic fight has been enough to knock Mr. Obama off his pedestal, what hope did he ever have of staying on it through the general election?
Let me offer an alternative suggestion: maybe his transformational campaign isn’t winning over working-class voters because transformation isn’t what they’re looking for.
The truly delusional, like Gore crony and ex-Clinton FCC chairman Reed Hundt, are already blaming John McCain as the author of the attacks against Obama.
While on the subject of McCain, the corrollary to the current conventional wisdom — that John McCain is peaking now because he is getting a free ride while the Dems pummel each other – may be called into question in light of Obama’s continued positive coverage by the press.  It did happen when Gen. David Petraeus reported to Congress on progress in Iraq — but even then, McCain got less coverage than the Dems, as he has almost every week, even when the GOP nomination was being actively contested. If McCain is peaking now, it may turn out to be because the media will likely give more coverage to McCain — and more negative coverage to McCain — once the Democratic fight is settled.
I had to stop at “media has “jumped ship†to Hillary Clinton  is so very wrong,” Nail Boy.
Your cow pie is just so very large.
If the relatively mild rough and tumble of the Democratic fight has been enough to knock Mr. Obama off his pedestal, what hope did he ever have of staying on it through the general election?
My point egg-zactly. The guy’s a lightweight, with a glass jaw. First hard punch will snap his neck like a twig.
That Reed Hundt piece… wow. “Delusion” doesn’t begin to describe it.
One of the problems that we face as a nationa is that the two sides don’t even occupy the same perceptual realm.
John McCain has been able to shift into general election mode–joining in the attacks on Obama…
When did this happen? The only people I have seen McCain attack lately were the North Carolina Republican Party.
“maybe his transformational campaign isn’t winning over working-class voters because transformation isn’t what they’re looking for.”
DING, DING, DING, DING!!! Krugman finally gets something right.
Thor, go away. Adults are talking.
McCain has been banging on Ayers.
I want to stick around. Soon KK’s gonna tell the story of Obama running in the rain wearing nothing but cape while screaming lines from MacBeth.
Or Lear. Either one works.
Anybody else but me sick of the term “swiftboating”?
And, thor? Note Bene: As a daily reader of PW, I’ve noticed a significant ramp-up of the annoyance factor coming from you lately. It comes off as rather childish attention-getting and certainly not at all amusing.
So tell me to fuck off, I don’t really care.
Off fucketh you regularly.
See? Don’t you feel better?
He’s just a puppy impressed with his own cleverness and is upset that no one agrees with him about that, kelly, so he griefs Karl.
I would be more impressed if he showed any actual comprehension of Karl’s points.
Baracky I think looks a lot under siege though, when he’s not prattling on with his hopey changey schtick he’s just sort of a wimpy dweeb who looks like he lost his wife at the mall.
FWIW, I think he would look much more scared if he lost his wife at the mall, just knowing what was coming.
Yes, it ran an ad that included Osama bin Laden in a montage of crisis images that also included the Great Depression and Hurricane Katrina. To listen to some pundits, you’d think that ad was practically the same as the famous G.O.P. ad accusing Max Cleland of being weak on national security.
Uhhhh, Earth to Krugman? If Hillary merely showed a picture of bin Laden in an ad, then she did exactly the same thing as Chambliss did against Cleland. Here Krugman slyly perpetuates the Big Media/Democrat myth (read: “lie”) that Cleland was “morphed” into or “split-screened” with or otherwise compared to bin Laden, none of which is even remotely true (The ad is, of course, out there in InterwebLand, if The Deciders really felt the need to see it). It’s the classic case of the media having a narrative (“Democrats, even disabled war veterans, are innocent victims of The GOP Slime Machine!”) and repeating a lie enough times that it becomes Truth to them and those who believe them.
The attacks from the Clinton campaign have been badminton compared with the hardball Republicans will play this fall. If the relatively mild rough and tumble of the Democratic fight
You see, the Democrats are merely having a heated dinner-party discussion between the entreé and the cheese course. Pay no attention to what everyone else is saying– it’s all civil, philosophical discourse — just like it always is with Democrats! It’s those dirty filthy ReThuglicans you have to worry about!
Baracky I think looks a lot under siege though, when he’s not prattling on with his hopey changey schtick he’s just sort of a wimpy dweeb who looks like he lost his wife at the mall.
Aww, man, come on. Just stop. Please. These affectations are getting unbearable. You didn’t always write like this. Why do you do it now?
You say a lot of important things and make many perceptive points. Why do you have to present it all in this convoluted voice?
I have no doubt the regulars here will now step in to defend you and criticize me. Someone else will claim the role of diplomat and say something along the lines of, “happy’s writing is an acquired taste, but really, it’s endearing once you get to know it.” Actually, it’s unlikely that anybody will say that now that I’ve preempted it. Or maybe they will now that I’ve said it’s unlikely.
Either way, yeah… come on, man. Your ideas are more important than your online “character.” And the latter is causing the former to be clouded.
Friday afternoon is a really bad time to break out the No-Fun Stick, Jonas. Just sayin’.
Oh, OK. Hey, Karl, please remove this serious post from the blog. It’s “Friday afternoon.”
No you’re right. I’ve been kinda phoning it in lately cause Baracky makes me tired and Hillary makes me tired and between you and me McCain prancing around going on about a gas tax holiday when he hasn’t done a goddamn thing in twenty years to increase domestic oil production has a lot killed my soul and I miss Jeff, mostly his anger. Used to be Jeff could do the anger part and I would feel much better about my day knowing it wasn’t just me but then we could all kind of go from there. The dynamic is different now so I’m different I think.
Also it was either the guy at the mall who lost his wife or that black guy what strikes a pose in Madonna’s Vogue video. I was really torn.
No, no — “guy at the mall” is perfect. Genius, really. That’s the sort of free ice cream I’d like to get in the comments section here.
It’s the “Baracky I think looks a lot under seige” stuff that places the ice cream behind a window: accessible, but a pain in the ass for most readers to go get. It involves an extra effort for them. And that means the ice cream will often be left to sit, unconsumed, behind the window.
You have too many smart thoughts to leave it all so inaccessible like that.
I hear you.
Oh and also you’re being way too nice but thank you.
– Well “something” is running underneath the radar that seems to be giving both Obama and Clinton a wedgies. Witness the latest Rasmussen poll that shows the following total disconnect:
– First the poll asks which party voters trust more on a series of different issues…..and then asks the same question, except which of the candidates voters trust most, naming them.
Heres an example:
* Which party do you trust to best handle Iraq?
Dems 48%
Reps 43%
* Which candidate do you trust to best handle Iraq?
McCain 50% Clinton 40%
McCain 48% Obama 39%
– Whats wrong with this picture?
– In four separate categories, the Dems poll at higher trust numbers in things like taxes, corruption, Iraq, ect. But in every case except one dingle item, McCain polls solidly higher than either Obama or Clinton.
– Conclusion. Either the electorate thinks McCain is a better Democrat than either of the Dem candidates, or something is far more askew among the Donkeys than anyone suspected.
Jonas:
happyfeet is great. I’m here to defend him.
You, however, are grouchy and have harshed my Friday afternoon mellow.
happy’s writing is an acquired taste, but really, it’s endearing once you get to know it.
Someone else will claim the role of diplomat and say something along the lines of, “happy’s writing is an acquired taste, but really, it’s endearing once you get to know it.â€Â
Actually, it’s unlikely that anybody will say that now that I’ve preempted it. Or maybe they will now that I’ve said it’s unlikely.
I couldn’t tell if you wanted me to respond or not. Your whole comment was a lot preemptivish I think.
So go away.
Now I must don my academic gown (no sniggering!) and mushroom shaped cap to honor some student types.
I REGALE ME!!
thank you sir
Actually, I kinda like happyfeet’s writing style. It creates a sort of dichotomy thing between the words and the message. I can see how others might be offput, though.
Plus, he’s open to that kinda criticism, unlike certain trolls I could mention.
Admission: I do not read Karl’s “points”
Karl bags on Obama, 24/7. I give Karl some Obama push-back, he falls over, and green M&M spill out of his head. There are no points in the pointless nor meanings in meaninglessness.
Obama wins the Dem. nomination because he’s an empty-suiter-changey-hoper. And that makes Obama more stewPid. Got it.
I know a girl who thinks of ghosts
she’ll make ya breakfast
she’ll make ya toast
but not if you’re thor cause I don’t think she likes your dismissive tone
I’m telling you, thor is just toughening the anti-Obama nipples for the battle ahead. He’s the grain of sand that irritates the lobster that makes the ruby.
That’s the sort of free ice cream I’d like to get in the comments section here.
I’d prefer two scoops of Krunchy Krill, please.
Jonas, you’ve absolutely no right to criticize happyfeet. He’s one of the top eleventy-one posters on PW, and one of if not the most clever and memorable. I can recall some of hf’s comments sometimes even days or weeks afterwards; I’ve linked to some of them across several blogs; and even find myself somehow mememulating his style (when no one’s looking).
AFAIK, he invented the nomen nudum “Baracky“.
hf definitely has my stay-on-the-island vote.
Does this mean I’m due a lot of spam, soon?
;D
It involves an extra effort for them.
And that is as it should be.
To the dude that was bagging on happyfeet : may you be cursed with a perpetual mushroom bruise from cowboy’s hat. I preemptively denounce myself for being rude. Better Half thinks you are teh stoopid too.
Racists
I think I’m already on record missing hf when he was on vacation. The occasional comment may be a bit tart, but everyone has those momemnts. Jonas complaining about hf using the “under siege” phrase is just silly, given that it’s in my frickin’ title.
Alright, I cannot let this one go. Jonas Brothers – Are you really happy to be known as the teenage boy band that opens for Hannah Montana? Bagging on happy’s style is the equivalent of criticizing Tiger Woods after winning a Major because he wore red on Sunday. There is an elegent, pure insouciance to happyfeet. You gave me a headache. Thanks.
Seconded and gaveled “aye” on a voice vote.
may you be cursed with a perpetual mushroom bruise from cowboy’s hat.
I’m telling you, when I get my regail on, I can stop me some traffic. When they see a tall bearded guy wearing a black flowing robe with blue velvet chevrons, shiny and pointy cowboy boots, and a poofy beret-type cap, cops don’t know whether to taze me or ask for my autograph.
I. Am. A. Study.
Oh. Again thanks you guys. Abstruse, tart, discordant and insouciant. True, true, true and also true. I’m a mess. Y’all are the best.
– All of that, plus I have it on good authority (I’m not mentioning any names here maggie) that Feets Capital eleventyOne card has pictures of kittens on it.
But does he have dancing kitties?
http://tinyurl.com/5gnnlo
Maggie, you may need to put on a seat belt and helmet before clicking that link.
Cowboy – Next time you are gonna be down here in Indy, we should grab a bite to eat.
Iwas hoping that Baracky or Hill would be here in Indy this weekend. I wanted to take my girls to see them.
Jonas – you really should be ashamed of yourself.
Either the electorate thinks McCain is a better Democrat than either of the Dem candidates…
Which may not be too far off the mark, given the way McCain has been campaigning.
Karl missed a key point with the Abromowitz article. Given the shift to the left in the electorate, it looks like conservatives are in for a long stretch of irrelevance in American presidential politics. Because of the shift of hispanic voters, young voters, and swing states toward the Democrats, the only Republican who stands a chance of winning a general election is a non-conservative like John McCain.
Maybe people on the right should consider moving to France.
I’ve thought about it.
No.
IMO, McCain is exactly what he appears to be: a liberal Republican, what we used to call the “Rockefeller wing” of the party. Remember them? Big on civil liberties and spreading money around? If he’d been on leave in the right places he might’ve married a Kennedy or a Shriver. With a few minor rearrangments of the timeline he might’ve been a Kennedy or a Shriver. A politician from, say, 1961 would have a hard time telling the difference without scientific instruments.
He was absolutely serious about the South Carolina ad — he objected to it because it’s nasty politics. He wants to run a nice, civilized, pinky-lifted campaign focussed on issues and qualifications; he wants, in fact, precisely what Obama promised to deliver. He isn’t going to get it, and if he keeps trying for it what he is going to get is his ass handed to him.
Regards,
Ric
– “Given the shift to the left in the electorate.”
– When did that happen Caric, in your dreams.
– For all the smoke and noise, and strident wishful claims of the moonbat gaggle, as of now the Lefts sole claim to anything greater than abject political impotence, rides feebly on the back of a single seat in eaxh wing of Congress, which is of no consequence,
– What happens in the coming election cycle?. We will see. Watching the clown-car circus on the Left in their joke of a primary, its highly doubtful you would get any odds with your long shot hopes.
– Maybe the Donks can try running Lamont in 2012.
Baracky is daytime tv. McCain is primetime. All McCain needs to do is retain his lead-in. Baracky has to turn primetime viewers into daytime viewers. That’s really hard to do. People have jobs and at the end of the day, they don’t want to be daytime tv viewers. The Oprah thing was a huge unforced error. It’s all too transparent now I think.
I dunno, feet. I’d just decided I could be comfortable with the idea. I’d even signed up at Texans for McCaina nd Veterans for McCain. Then he comes out with his f%@&ing comments on Katrina response. He’s working really hard for someone’s vote, but not mine.
BTW, such short-sighted, ill-advised, demeaning of all of us who we’re part of that response, crapola is not a feature of any civilized, issue driven campaign I can recognize.
He neutered the issue. It a lot shows he’s got some grit I think. I was impressed that he would risk that level of bullshit, but it’s smart. He needs to lay down some not-Bush markers, and I think it’s smart to pick one what has its anniversary week late August-early September with an election two months later. NPR is going to be a lot confuzzled and really really sad. He’s done gone and ruined the bestest jewel in their tiara. They invested so much in that.
– RTO. McCain’s biggest problem is that his camp thinks he needs to gently pander to the more moderate side of the Left to pull them over to his side. Apparently his handlers don’t trust the polls that show a large crossover from one side or the other of the two bitterly opposed Dem factions, regardless of which of the Dem candidates win the nomination. He, and them are wrong on both counts. He doesn’t need them to win, and the rift won’t be healed.
– McCain doesn’t strike Me as having very intelligent chops when it comes to this political game.
I have to say Karl, your posts on this election season have been the tops. And they just keep getting better and better.
Mr. Reynolds was right this morning that the Katrina narrative can pivot. McCain will have four years to make Katrina the best thing that ever happened to New Orleans, but he has to break the frame first. Right now it’s a winning frame for Baracky and his media friends. McCain is right I think to acknowledge they won this round. It’s analogous I think (and superior) to how Baracky is still talking about Iraq in a 2003 frame. He’s refusing to acknowledge success. As an issue, it’s a cul-de-sac for him, and he’ll either have to turn around or drive through someone’s backyard and see if maybe he can get out the alley.
He better not run over my dog.
– I should say he doesn’t need them to win, but he’ll get a fairly good sized block just from the “sour grapes” effect, with no pandering necessary. All hes doing with that maverick bullshit Left-pandering angle is managing to needlessly alienate people who are willing to hold their moses and vote for him. Dumb.
– His revisionist crappola in regards to Katrina is some of that sort of pandering. The Left desperately needs all the emotive asshat garbage it can get to feed it’s BDS. Hes picking that subject because most Conservatives just laugh at the fecklessness of that “Bush bad” screed, so he thinks its safe ground to pander on.
– Bush’s complicity in Katrina was his decision to play rope-a-dope, and let the Blanco/Nagin fuckup express roll on, which was an example of his “not presidential” wimpiness. Other than that, McCain’s self-flogging is rediculous vote chasing.
– I agree Feets his move will sreal the thunder of that screed against him from the Left press, but those attacks are going to come no matter what, and he doesn’t need to be doing things that have no payoff, and can hurt him with the voters he really does need.
That’s more after I had time to think though. I was pretty disgusted when I first read McCain’s blather. But it was a really familiar disgust.
I don’t think it hurts him. I think Republicans talking about how it hurts him helps him.
No I didn’t. The point was not to “Fisk” Abramowitz in his entirety, but to extract his first point, which was also common to the Edsall piece and others. Abramowitz happened to be highest on Memeorandum as i was writing, so that’s who got quoted.
As to the point Caric raises, it suffices to say that Abramowitz is stating a thesis in a book co-written by Judis. But Judis is currently on the other side of the debate. Maybe that’s why Judis considers it the “Emerging” Dem majority, instead of the “Emerged” Dem majority. Critiquing the whole of that book was never the point of the initial post and I am not Caric’s monkey. Yep, just quoted Jon Stewart, since that’s about Caric’s level.
peter jackson,
Thanks for the kind words. I loved LoTR. Bet you don’t get that much.
– Well. Maybe. But his recent epithamy with National health care has me right on the verge of saying adios, but I’m going with the idea its just campaign hot air for now. I don’t really care about the Katrina thing, because it only matters to the people that lived through it, and only then to the extent of the successful recovery over the long hual.
– My hot button remains the damn tendency he has to slip into the “one world”, open borders brain-fuck side of things. That is pure Marxism, Period.
– I think that someone in his corner took him aside and finally told him, “Hey dude, you can’t be for open borders and a serious tough operator in the WOT at the same time. Doesn’t compute.” Thats why I don’t think hes very politically astute. He should know that without being told.
I know where you’re coming from. I’m just hoping it means a core group of congressional Republicans will stand up and be counted. What will help is getting that McCain bastard out of the Senate.
– Heh. In the Unions thats called “kicking the morons upstairs”.
McCain is on Tavis tonight. Tavis had Susan Estrich and some other wench on to call McCain a racist right before cutting to the McCain interview. So now in the interview, Tavis looks like the patronizing one. That’s a neat trick.
I think thre’s a reason we haven’t usaully chosen Senators as President. They aren’t used to national media attention and they’ve become accustomed to being able to tailor thier message to the audience in front of them–even so far as saying one thing to one group and the exact opposite to another. That’s really all I think this is.
I can’t believe we’re going to get a former-Senator no matter what. Painted into the corner, wot.
National media attention in a campaign that is. Then again, that might explain Reid and Beohner.
What sucks is the precedent. You end up with 100 Senatorial pricks voting like they’re going to be the next president instead of representing the people that elected them.
Which is the explanation for Clintons voting record. Every vote’s had that in mind.
The Iowa caucus, all year long.
– And why about now, she’d give her husbands left nut to have that Iraq vote back…..
KITTIES!!!!
It’s true, I like to personalize my vignettes. That’s why being told to pipe down, well, it hurts!
I’ll turn off my computer and march myself right into my bedroom and go back to spooning my woman, is that what you people want! You want her saying “not again,” again? I have a good mind to repeatedly set her aglow until all you creepers confess your love for me, and that it’s a nipple-pinching hair-tearing type of no-showering Bangladeshi smelly explosive type of love you feel.
I’m thor. Know your places.
That will be sufficient. The rest is between you and…whoever.
Either the electorate thinks McCain is a better Democrat than either of the Dem candidates…
I think it is indicative of something else. When people are asked about how they rate Congress, it gets rated low; when they are asked how they rate their representative, he gets rated higher. This wierd effect has gone on for years. The generic group gets rated lower than the specific individual. That maybe what you are seeing here with Republicans rated lower than a specific Republican; and Democrats rated higher than a specific Democrat.
Nobody ever said that people who are polled need to make sense!
Mikey,
It may not be as strange as you think. Republicans may like their GOP member Congress but not like the Democratic Congress (and vice versa, before 2006). Heath Schuler’s constituents may not think much of Maxine Waters. Tom Tancredo’s constituents may not like John McCain as much. Arizona may like John McCain’s line on spending, but the spending goes on anyway. And so on.
Karl – I called it weird to emphasize that something was going on; people act this way all the time, having a general, hazy view of an undistinguished group, but having a different opinion about a specific member of that group. For example: I have a high general opinion about retired Marines; I have a very low opinion about Jack Murtha.
One thing I think a lot of people make a crucial mistake about is extrapolating from themselves – their particular positions on issues and the intensity for that issue – to the reast of the group that they belong to or identify with. And when others don’t have exactly the same positions, or the same levels of passion, why those others are now traitors to the party! RINOs and DINOs! In reality you cannot scale that way, you cannot project yourself as being the core of the group without any other information. You may actually be an outlier, and in fact I think everyone on this thread, or on any blog thread is an outlier. Everyone here cares more for politics and cares more passionately than the likely average citizen – we seek out these blogs, some write posts and others comment. This is not normal behavior.
When someone writes that “McCain won’t get the true conservative vote!” or “Hillary won’t get the true liberal vote!” they are conflating themselves (an odd politically passionate specimen) to conservatives or liberals who are nowhere as passionate as they are. In actuality, that candidate may be conservative enough for the bulk (and maybe vast bulk) of the members of a conservative-leaning party (not a conservative party – major American political parties are not ideological locdksteps like a Communist or National Socialist party is) and vice versa with regard to the liberal leaning party.
I think it would be a good thing to keep that little warning in mind when reading of the candidates’ actions. You may think that the candidate is violating a deeply held taboo, but most other people in the group, who do not hold that taboo as sacred as you, don’t care enough to care.
Just a thought.
Karl bags on Obama, 24/7.
There’s bagging, thor, and there’s tea bagging.
BTW – in my last paragraph in #81 when I said ‘you’ that was a generic ‘you’; not a Karl-specific ‘you’. I wish to be clear on that point – Lord knows I’m not necessarily clear all the time.
Great. Looks like some jackass stole my nick.
[…] April 25th, I noted that Obama had continued to get the same 62% positive coverage after the first eruption of […]