What I learned from Obama's victory

There's been a flood of stories anticipating the 44th president's new reign, and Howie Kurtz at the Washington Post tapped me for his story today on what awaits Barack Obama from the media.

To be honest, the most interesting element of the story to me was his info on how Obama ratcheted down his media consumption as the campaign wore on. No wonder he was able to stay so calm; he wasn't subjecting himself to the barrage of inane commentary and flawed journalism that so often showed itself this past year.

My contributions here were modest. I expect Obama's relationship with the media to grow more strained for several reasons: he hasn't been as open with reporters as some politicians, the conservative media structure will go on an aggressive scandal hunt in the same way they dogged Clinton and there is so much anticipation for his presidency that mistakes are bound to get serious scrutiny.

Some other lessons: If white folks can be too naïve about race, perhaps black folks can be too cynical – One of the constant themes I heard from my friends who are black, is that it took us all a while to believe Obama had a snowball’s chance. One friend talked about relatives who hesitated to vote for Obama for fear he would be killed – after all, in their generation, that’s what happened to uppity negroes who reached beyond their place.

One of the overlooked race dynamics of this election may be that some white folks believed in Obama before many black folks did. Skittish as our tangled racial history may make us on the subject, perhaps this electoral victory can show the value of for all of lowering our guard a bit.

Obama succeeded by refusing to be a spokesman on race – This thought came courtesy of an expert on Terri Gross’ National Public Radio show Fresh Air last week. Old school black leaders rose to prominence by tackling the issues most pressing to black people at the time, which alienated some non-black people. But Obama drew together a diverse coalition of supporters by avoiding that position. Ironically, it makes it tougher for him as president to initiate the dialogue on race he called for during his moving speech on the topic back in March.

Obama is called black because he says he is and the world agrees -- I did a piece last year noting that racial identity is an odd combination of what you call yourself and how the world sees you. It's been interesting to see the letters from people reminding us in the media that Obama is half white; while that is true biologically, Obama himself has chosen culturally to live as a black man in America. So calling him the first black president refers to his cultural choice more than his biology. Confused yet?

In the end, Obama's candidacy forced all of us to look at each other in new ways, just by virtue of how we reacted to what he was doing. And there may be no greater legacy for an American leader in an changing, multicultural world.

Comments

[beltwaybandit]

Keep in mind that Rahm Emanuel actually was NOT well liked by Hillary Clinton at all and he also was personally quite angry at the stunt Bill Clinton pulled with Monica (how the President lied to the people in the famous "wag the finger" denial on TV and also how the President lied to the staff, including Emanuel).

To say that he was "an insider of the Clinton administration" and that it translates to lack of change is way off base.

If you know anything about how Washington works, and I still live and work there part of the time and have for 20 years, it's that the Chief of Staff to the President is probably THE most powerful position in DC next to the President himself. Being tough is a requirement, not a preference.

Emanuel meets that requirement, but no more so than other Chiefs of Staff...John Podesta, Leon Panetta, and Dick Cheney (to Ford 30 years ago)... to name a few.

Obama has not even become president yet, so judging now is way premature. And meaningless.

The country needed change. It voted for change. Now we have to wait until January 20, 2009 for that change to occur formally. On January 20, 2010 if Obama has failed to produce desired results, my guess is the engines will rev up to blow him out of office in 2012. It's what's cool about the U.S....if the current occupant of the top job doesn't deliver, we get to fire his butt every four years. We also get to decide who controls Congress every two years.

And I agree with Eric Deggans (second time ever)...judging the nation's entire journalism corps by one jerk named Chris Matthews is not logical or reasonable.

For every Matthews, there is a Tom Brokaw. For every Sean Hannity, there is an Andrea Mitchell. For every Keith Olbermann, there is a Tom Friedman.

[Eric Deggans]

Seems to me that the only reason the public knows about the controversy over leaking the substance of Obama's meeting with Bush is because the news media reported it.

As far as the Emmanuel hire goes, a number of political minds think it was a good move. Obama needs a tough chief of staff to help him prioritize his efforts early on and to keep distractions at bay.

Also, Obama's biggest challenge won't necessarily be dealing with the GOP. He needs to get the Democratic congress unified behind his plans. And by having a guy as his staff chief who was instrumental in securing the 2006 democratic majority in congress, Obama gets a guy who is respected and is owed a little by the dems in congress to help wrangle them into line.

And judging the breadth of the country's journalists by some crackpot stuff that comes out of Chris Matthews' mouth just isn't fair...

[Oscar]

So nailing Obama is the media's job?

[Morgan]

Chris Matthews on MSNBC has already come out and said that his job is to "do everything I can to make this thing work, this presidency work," which is essentially confirming his all-out support for Obama, which he basically made clear during the election, when he mentioned that he got a "tingle in his leg" when hearing Obama. Link to Matthews' statement - http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2008/11/06/odd-job-matthews-says-his-role-make-obama-presidency-success

Who knows how long the media will keep up this Obama love fest?

But they've already failed on two counts, failing to nail Obama, or even ask him tough questions about

1)Hiring Emanuel, a bitterly partisan left-over, a true Washington insider from the Clinton admin, as chief of staff. So much for the "hope and change" mantra, huh?; and

2)leaking information from a meeting between Obama and Bush that was supposed to be a friendly, private (key word: private) conversation. I'm sure that Obama's propaganda chiefs will spin it that poor Barack had no idea that the meeting was supposed to be private. This falls into the category of Obama's earlier fibs about Ayers ("he was just a guy in the neighborhood") and raging anti-white, anti-Semitic "preacher" Jeremiah Wright (Gosh, I had no idea he was saying all those things ...I must have been gone on those Sundays)

[Oscar]

Two things, first of all I saw a picture of Obama and his two main advisors, Reggie Love and Eugene Kang the other day, both of whom are black. It made me realize that Barack did not become president by "selling out" or doing any of the things that successful African Americans are accused of doing. He became president by staying true to who he is and having the confidence that that would be enough. It was.

And yes, the media will be hard on him. It is what they do. But it is ridiculous to think that the people who make up the media are not people. They are worried about their jobs, kids, and homes just like the rest of us. They wanted a change and felt that Obama is our best chance for that change, just like the majority in this country. I don't think that will stop them from doing their jobs, I fully believe that they will become as cynical as always, just give them time.

[David]

Yes, I would agree, the media blew any ethics they (may have) possessed during this campaign. Obama was a candidate who had some of the normal -- as well as not normal -- baggage.

But the media chose to back off, and essentially give him a hall pass. And as Rags noted above, when the Average Joe on the street can pick up on that, you know it is bad.

It will be interesting to see how the media handles their candidate --- err, I mean Obama -- once he takes office. He'll wind up a diabetic for sure if they continue with their sickly sweet coverage (Obama Invents -- Then Cures -- Cancer! Film At 11!). But for the media to switch gears and nitpick him would be as phony as a WWE storyline.

Unfortunately, the media is what is contributing to the decline in our civilization.

[RagsTTIger]

Obama is the first real black president. That seems pretty obvious. Clinton must be bummed, as he was always referred to as the first black president.

As far as the media is concerned they completely blew their ethics in reporting this campaign. Their bias was obvious to the average person on the street. It is interesting to note in the last few days that Newsweek and the Washington Post both have admitted to intentionally withholding news to to favor Obama. Journalism 101, your job is to report the news, not to be the news. Voting for Obama basically became an emotional vote, not one based upon anything substantial. He was, in essence, the Invisible Man. He had no record and his past associations were troubling. You are judged by the friends you keep. His failure to release documentation pertaining to his personal resume, coupled with his drug dealing activities, while in college, are of concern. Bet your bottom dollar, if Palin had a bad hair day, she would have been skewered. All that is desired is a level playing field, not the Pop Warner vs the Bucs senario.