There's a Third Option...
Over in Media Matter's County Fair (I love this new section, BTW) Jamison Foster asks why the media (in particular, MSNBC) seems so hostile to President-elect Barack Obama's decision to have experienced, intelligent, qualified people in his Administration...especially when you consider that Bill Clinton was blasted for not having experienced people during his first term, while George W. Bush was praised for bringing in old vets. His conclusion:
I think there is a third reason, but before I get to that, here's my take on the two options. One: most of MSNBC's current pundits got alot of spotlight from covering the tail end of the Clinton Era (remember, this was before Fox News hit the scene) so bringing anything Clinton back into the national scene just puts them in their default mode. As for criticizing Obama: most of the media is just reacting to the (constant) conservative accusation that the "mainstream media" has been in the tank for Obama since he announced his candidacy (whatever; the Pundit CW at the time was this election was Hillary Clinton's to lose).
Anyway, here's my third reason: the media took Obama's message of "change" way to literally.
Again, I think the person who had it right to begin with was Rahcel Maddow, who said:
Obama's selection of Joe Biden as VP was a prime example of "transcending the difference across the political divide (his idea of dividing Iraq up was not that popular, even amongst Democrats). The electoral map is another example of "transcending." As is Obama's selection of Cabinet members.
The press didn't see "change" like that; they saw it as if Obama was going to be another Jimmy Carter, or rather, their interpretation of Jimmy Carter: the Ultimate Outsider whose "outsidiness" ultimately isolated him from getting help from Beltway insiders. They expected him to pick people who would need to be researched in order to find out who they are and what they do. To these guys (people who have been around politics for 20 or more years) this isn't their definition of "change."
Obama's change, essentially, it about building on our common goals instead of splitting up based on our differences. If you want to be a part of this, the only criteria is that your interest has to be for the overall improvement of the country. Selfishness, cronyism, and apathy will not be welcome. Altruism, competence, and intellectual curiosity will be.
And if Obama's Cabinet consists of people with those traits, it shouldn't matter if they were part of a previous White House.
In the early stages of the last two administrations (both the result of "change" elections), the media made much of the importance of new presidents bringing on old hands with White House experience. Suddenly, they portray such moves as inconsistent with the idea of "change." There are really only two possible explanations for this inconsistency: They are blinded by their hatred of the Clintons, or are desperate for something -- anything -- to use as an excuse to criticize Obama.
I think there is a third reason, but before I get to that, here's my take on the two options. One: most of MSNBC's current pundits got alot of spotlight from covering the tail end of the Clinton Era (remember, this was before Fox News hit the scene) so bringing anything Clinton back into the national scene just puts them in their default mode. As for criticizing Obama: most of the media is just reacting to the (constant) conservative accusation that the "mainstream media" has been in the tank for Obama since he announced his candidacy (whatever; the Pundit CW at the time was this election was Hillary Clinton's to lose).
Anyway, here's my third reason: the media took Obama's message of "change" way to literally.
Again, I think the person who had it right to begin with was Rahcel Maddow, who said:
And I think that Obama and Clinton and Edwards are actually identifying what needs to be changed in three really different ways. I think Hillary Clinton is saying the Republicans and Bush need to be out and Democrats need to be in. I think John Edwards is saying the special interests and the lobbyists need to be out and the people need to be in, in the populist way. And I think that Barack Obama is saying that he needs to be in because he can transcend the differences across the political divide right now. There’s three very different visions of what you would do to the country if you had the reins.
Obama's selection of Joe Biden as VP was a prime example of "transcending the difference across the political divide (his idea of dividing Iraq up was not that popular, even amongst Democrats). The electoral map is another example of "transcending." As is Obama's selection of Cabinet members.
The press didn't see "change" like that; they saw it as if Obama was going to be another Jimmy Carter, or rather, their interpretation of Jimmy Carter: the Ultimate Outsider whose "outsidiness" ultimately isolated him from getting help from Beltway insiders. They expected him to pick people who would need to be researched in order to find out who they are and what they do. To these guys (people who have been around politics for 20 or more years) this isn't their definition of "change."
Obama's change, essentially, it about building on our common goals instead of splitting up based on our differences. If you want to be a part of this, the only criteria is that your interest has to be for the overall improvement of the country. Selfishness, cronyism, and apathy will not be welcome. Altruism, competence, and intellectual curiosity will be.
And if Obama's Cabinet consists of people with those traits, it shouldn't matter if they were part of a previous White House.
Comments