An observation regarding the Press, and Obama vs. Hillary

Over the weekend I read a fascinating article in the New York Times Magazine section. It's an article about Barack Obama and it was written by James Traub - it's entitled "Is His Biography - Our Destiny?" I found the article as interesting as the title was compelling. And I did learn some things about Barack Obama, so if you can grab a copy of the Magazine before it gets recycled, it makes for interesting reading.....HOWEVER.....

The article brings me to my first observation. I've said before in postings that I don't believe journalists even recognize their prejudices against the right, and especially against President Bush. (I think it's as second nature to them as breathing). Truly, I believe press writers, magazine writers - perhaps media writers in general - unless they consciously write from a conservative point of view, writers just think everyone in the world dislikes Republicans and thinks Republicans are evil, uncaring, unintelligent boobs. When they speak about our President - and I never miss a chance to point out that he is O-U-R President - their rancor gets even worse!

The article I mentioned above, begins with the author interviewing Obama on his campaign jet. Obama is describing how his heritage and his multiculturalism will resonate better with a broad spectrum of Americans. In the second paragraph, Traub wants to lend credibility & weight to what Barack has said, indicating that Obama supporters echo the candidates belief! Here's the second sentence of the 2nd paragraph in Traub's article about Obama.

"Obama supporters believe that his life story and the angle of vision it affords him hold out the possibility of curing the harm they would say we have done ourselves through our indifference to the view of others and through the insularity of a president who seems so incurious about the world."

(Regardless that it's one of the most poorly punctuated run-on sentences I've ever seen)...that's how long it took the author to get his first "slash" in at George Bush. That didn't take long, did it? And in the very next sentence he acclaims his own statement as factual by adding, "There is thus an emblematic force to Obama's candidacy."

See? They don't even recognize they're doing it!

The article continues to describe the major differences in how Hillary perceives and evaluates situations and issues, and how Barack does. The author claims that it's a fundamental difference in mental "orientation" and problem solving between Hillary and Barack, and examines the differences. The entire article is a discussion, and a dissection, of how a Barack Obama Presidency would be as fundamentally different from a Hillary Presidency, as it would be from a Republican one. Very interesting stuff!


----- # ----- # ----- # ----- # -----

Second observation. I was taught to watch a person as much as hear what they said. To watch how they "carry" themselves in motion and while standing still, in conversation and when thoughtful. How they position themselves when they know a camera is on them, how they engage with others, and how they disengage. Watching how the candidates' faces change just as the camera leaves them, or when they think they're off camera is fascinating! Here's just a few examples ....

I get the feeling that Hillary is getting more and more frustrated. I think she thought this long 2 year campaign was her time to gather all "her subjects" to her - her stroll toward "coronation" in a matter of speaking. That's changed a little, she's still playing the leader, but she's also starting to hear "footsteps!" I saw that she was absolutely incensed during the debate when Tim Russert actually had the gall to question an answer she had given. There was the briefest of "How dare he!" look in her eyes! As the other candidates recognize her discomfort, it will be interesting to see how good she is at "thrust & parry!"

Referring again to the article in the Times Magazine section, there's a full page picture of Barack Obama on page 51 with him sitting in a chair, backlit by sunlight, pondering .....with the exception of the fact that this picture is in color and not black & white, and the chair isn't a "rocker," how reminiscent of a similar photo of John Kennedy is that picture? Eerie!

I watched Fred Thompson yesterday at one of his campaign stops. He was addressing some group and I don't know what he was doing, but it appeared that he wanted to be anywhere but there. I'm starting to see Fred as someone who's starting to recognize he might have gotten into something he wasn't anticipating. He fidgets, he stammers, he looks down a lot - or worse while he's talking he looks like he's searching. Sorry Fred, you can't have a "second or third take" on these questions! What you say - is what you said!

----- # ----- # ----- # ----- # -----

Lastly and hopefully most importantly. The biggest difference I see between Bill and Hillary is a comfortable self-assured confidence. Someone once said that to be really good, you had to be, "unconsciously competent." There's none of that with Hillary - she knows what she doesn't know! She's fighting to be competent - but she wants this so badly she may kill herself doing it! What's more, with Hillary there's no glibness, no smoothness. Every comment and answer (to my ear) "sounds" overwritten - as though each word is calculated - right down to the laugh! Hillary might be "hitting" 98% of the notes, but there's no feel, no "aria." President Clinton was so confident about his personality carrying the day, he could be almost "casually comfortable" in any situation. Think about how comfortable he looked during a speech, how he could "will" a tear when "feeling our pain." And I think Bill Clinton was more than just smart, he's a very clever person, for all the good and bad that word contains. I think Hillary is smart, but not nearly as smart as Bill, nor do I think Hillary will ever be as comfortable, or as unflappable as he is/was.

Barack Obama a few weeks ago said that Hillary (because of her leaning toward the middle on certain issues) might turn out to be a "Bush-lite" president! (Chuckle chuckle, snigger,snigger). I think there's an even better chance that Hillary will turn out to be a "Bill-lite" president. And then we can all begin to wonder about just how much of her time in office will be a "shared Presidency?" Ee-gads! How much of her time in office will NEED TO BE a shared presidency? Oyyyy!

Dum Spiro Spero!