TPM’s Greg Sargent reports that Barack Obama’s campaign is miffed with The New York Times this morning over the paper’s analysis of its own poll, complaining that the analysis overlooks much of the poll data that suggests Obama is doing pretty well with white voters.
Given that I wrote much the same early this morning, I obviously agree with the Obama campaign’s argument.ÂÂ
However, the fact that the Obama campaign is going after the paper for it is a little telling. After all, the slant of the paper’s analysis seems to be trying to advance either the notion that whites should feel guilty that they are not supporting Obama even more strongly, or laying the foundation for blaming his lagging support — even a possible loss — on white racism.
Accordingly, Camp Obama’s whining here is of a piece with their complaint about the satriric New Yorker cover. The campaign’s desire to control Obama’s image is now overweening, extending to attacking its natural allies in the establishment media for publishing things they likely believe will help Obama. John McCain could probably tell Obama about the risks of attacking one’s supposed allies too often. There is a point where the desire to control image and message can become counter-productive.
Moreover, these sorts of attacks may start to raise the question among more people as to whether Obama thinks he can bring Unity to our politics simply by beating down dissenters, satirists, late-night comics and even outright friendly media outlets with the cudgel of political correctness from a bullying pulpit bearing the Great Seal of Obamaland.
(h/t Memeorandum.)
White voters are confuzzling cause they don’t always vote for the same person, and nobody seems to know exactly why.
O! didn’t learn anything regarding Hillary’s coronation, did he?
That, I think, is what Camp O! objects to — the suggestion that he is not (ahem) inevitable.
McGehee,
Yes, though I suspect they also don’t want any suggestion that he is not the Unifier (ironically).
Of course they need to control the image. What else is there?
I mean, testify. Describe the moment in which you gave your heart to Obama. Where was it? What were you thinking? How did it feel? How were you transfigured?
The ranks of the testifiers seems to be growing with people speaking to the moment they’ve realized Obama isn’t the savior but a sort of Mr. Hankey.
Baracky should say hey white voters, maybe you didn’t notice but I’m on all the covers of your favorite magazines. This poll suggests that white people don’t really have a handle on what cover appeal means. It’s a voter education issue really.
Perfect for ACORN, it is. They should get a few dead people to go door to door, educating voters. Seems like it would be right up their alley.
I figure instead of him coming out and saying “John Kerry reporting for duty”, he should come out and kareoke the song Ebony and Ivory.
So, you’re basically saying that Obama shouldn’t be allowed to defend himself or his campaign. You’re such a great guy.
um, what was the offense?
That’s not what he’s saying. He’s saying that Obama’s coming across as too thin-skinned, Ric.
Comment by Ric Caric on 7/16 @ 12:01 pm #
Do you speak English?
Baracky’s point is that The New York Times should have consulted him before publishing an analysis of their poll that conflicted with the way he wants people to think about these things. Karl is just trying to Dr. Phil for them at a difficult time in their relationship is how I read the post.
NATIVIST!
Karl: perhaps the Obama campaign objects to, as an example from their objection, Nogourney saying Michelle Obama is unpopular with a 20% approval rating, while Cindy is not mentioned and she clocks in at an astronomical 24%. They are objecting to Nogurney’s selective use of the numbers, especially in that Nogourney’s “accidental” subtext is that Obama is only supported by black folks. Leaving aside, Nogourney’s thesis of basically saying whitey loves McCain and blacky loves Obama, it’s sort of hard to win a general election if independent voters believe you represent on;y 11% of the population.
Dan: I remember when I found Obama. It was when I remembered, that unlike Jesus, Obama is real. further, people could see him and even have a conversation with him. Now, if 2000 years from now, Obama mania has resulted in a ossified bureaucracy consisting of swindlers and pedophiles, who have sold out his ideals in the name of money and power, then I think your criticism will be dead on.
h/t Chris Hitchens
Actually, what our academic friend doesn’t get is that neither the New Yorker cover nor the NYT poll analysis were intended as attacks on Obama. Thus, the notion that he is “defending” himself (particularly as against the NYT piece) is an absurdity. The NYT is trying shame people into voting for O!, but O! didn’t like that angle, so Camp O! goes after the paper. It’s not a sign of hyper-sensitivity; it is the sign of the control freak.
Obama isn’t real. He’s a metaphysical construct with no payoff. Obama claims he’s bringing the Logos into the fallen, incarnate world, but his philosophy is ad hoc and incoherent.
You and I are more real than Obama is, but neither of us comes close to being as real as Christ.
Learnedhand,
Perhaps you should read my post again, particularly the part where I expressly agree with Obama’s take on the NYT story. The fact that I agree with him on the substance does not preclude me from also concluding that his complaining is bad politics and suggestive of control freakishness.
.” Now, if 2000 years from now, Obama mania has resulted in a ossified bureaucracy consisting of swindlers ”
Too bad it didn’t take 2k years, or 2k seconds for that matter. It was rotten from the start. Read Rezkowatch.com
Good stuff.
That’s probably the worst analogy ever.
When was the last time the Methodists, let’s say, forced you to attend church on Sunday on pain of imprisonment? On the other hand, did you pay your taxes last year?
Obama claims he’s bringing the Logos into the fallen, incarnate world, but his philosophy is ad hoc and incoherent.
He’s like Prometheus! Bringing Legos from the heavens!
Ad hoc? Incoherent? I don’t care so long as I get the special edition Milennium Falcon set.
It’s not a sign of hyper-sensitivity; it is the sign of the control freak.
Bingo, Karl.
Caricature is a zit on the ass of humanity.
Comment by JD on 7/16 @ 1:06 pm #
Caricature is a zit on the ass of humanity.
JD, zits have a head with something in it, the perfesser doesn’t.
This is the second time today that I have assumed that you are referring to “Mr. Heaney”.
“Green Acres is the place to be” (quack, quack!)…
Actually this instance was the first. Was Heaney the large greasy overall-wearing fellow?
Sdferr,
No, Pat Buttram. Kinda unfortunate name, really.
Ah, the fellow that always had some flim-flam or other. I must admit I paid this show too little attention to be able to recall much beyond the theme song, Eddie Albert (a genuine hero), one of the Gabor schwestern (Eva?) and a spinoff I didn’t pay attention to either.
It was Eva. Good catch.
Not just a “spinoff” — Green Acres was part of the “Hooterville Trilogy” that consisted of Beverly Hillbillies, Green Acres, and Petticoat Junction.
Rob is not only correct, but I have previously posted here about the CBS decision to rid itself of these shows, along with Hee waw and mayberry, RFD, in favor of hipper urban fare — it was kind of a sign as to where pop culture was going viz the bitter clingy crowd.
Did Hooterville as a term carry it’s current boobs or tits baggage back when the shows were on? Or is hooters as breasts a newer coinage?
Well, Gunilla Hutton, who went on to become a “Hee Haw2” honey, was one of the daughters for at least one season — and she has a pretty decent rack.
Can you imagine if none of the TV shows Rob cited were ever made and somehow a new sitcom made it out of development to air this fall and it was set in a fictional town called Hooterville?
Yeah, me neither.
Um, ignore the “2” in “Hee Haw2” above. There has been no sequel or remake. There was a spinoff but IMDb says Gunilla wasn’t in it.
Did any of you watching the first release of these shows think ‘boobs’ ‘knockers’ ‘tits’ ‘breasts’ ‘oh joy!’ in 1966? Or did you think ‘schnozze’ ‘beak’ ‘honker’ ‘Jimmy Durante’ or the like? Or something else altogether.
[…] Obama mad at NY Times? […]
Sdferr, I first read an old interview of Pete Townshend sometime in the mid-’80s where he referred to his “giant hooter,” and was surprised.
I mean, he always seemed so flat-chested.
My dad had a ginormous nez so I was introduced to the auld slang at an early, I guess.
[…] approach†to when and where he would grant interviews to the network news anchors on the trip; complaining about the New York Times analysis of its own most recent poll; stonewalling the press to this day […]
[…] approach†to when and where he would grant interviews to the network news anchors on the trip; complaining about the New York Times analysis of its own most recent poll; stonewalling the press to this day […]