Summer CE Week #6: “Can Obama sustain scrutiny?”
Once upon a time, the two parties’ national conventions chose presidential nominees. Now they are television shows that try to establish a narrative – one that links the long-since-determined nominee’s life story with the ongoing history of the nation, one that shows how one man is perfectly positioned to lead America to a better future. The hope is that the nominee will get a bounce in the polls.
And they usually do. Gallup poll data shows that nominees got a 5 percent or better bounce from 14 of the 16 national conventions between 1976 and 2004. And that’s even for nominees that in retrospect seem less than inspiring.
In 1988 Democrats presented Michael Dukakis as the son of immigrants who produced the Massachusetts miracle; Republicans presented George H.W. Bush as the pioneer who went to Texas and was ready to take on another mission. Both got 11 percent bounces.
The biggest of all – 30 percent – went to Bill Clinton, “the man from Hope,” in 1992, helped by Ross Perot’s withdrawal on the day of his acceptance speech. The notable exceptions came in 2004, when a polarized electorate gave George W. Bush only a 4 percent bounce and John Kerry – “reporting for duty” – actually lost ground.
There is a difference between the two parties, however. Democrats can usually depend on the mainstream media accepting their narratives uncritically, while Republicans can expect them to punch holes in their storylines. In 1988, the media didn’t note that Dukakis was less an earthy ethnic than a reformer in the Massachusetts Puritan tradition, but it was eager to point to the senior Bush’s aristocratic Eastern background.
The narrative of this year’s Democratic National Convention can be forecast with some assurance. It will emphasize Barack Obama’s roots in Kansas more than Kenya or even Hawaii; it will portray him as a leader from a new generation eager to cast off the partisanship of the last decade; it will hail him as a symbol that America has risen above past prejudices and can once again stand proud in the world. His acceptance speech at Invesco Field will invite comparison with the other two Democratic nominees who spoke in stadiums, Franklin Roosevelt at Philadelphia’s Franklin Field in 1936 and John Kennedy at the Los Angeles Coliseum in 1960.
An interesting question is whether mainstream media have any appetite for undermining this undeniably attractive narrative. Of “the whole Obama narrative,” one reporter told the New Republic’s Gabriel Sherman, “like all stories, it’s not entirely true.”
Obama’s record of reaching across party lines is, as his own answer to Rick Warren’s recent Saddleback Civil Forum showed, pretty thin. His paper trail is surprisingly thin, too. He has left no papers from his Illinois Senate days; he hasn’t listed his law firm clients or provided more than one page of medical records; the papers of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, of which he was chairman and in which the unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayers was heavily involved, were suddenly closed to National Review’s Stanley Kurtz by the Richard J. Daley Library at the University of Illinois.
Mainstream media, with the conspicuous exception of ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos, have shown little curiosity about Obama’s connection with Ayers. It will also be interesting to see if there is much coverage of Obama’s 2003 vote in Illinois against protecting infants born alive in attempted abortions, now that his campaign has conceded the bill was virtually identical to one that passed the U.S. Senate 98-0 in 2001.
Obama backers dismiss attempts to undermine his narrative as distractions or racism, beyond the bounds of reasonable discourse. Most mainstream media tend to agree. Ayers is no more likely to appear at the convention than the disgraced John Edwards. But other media have a voice. Obama will probably get a nice bounce out of his convention. But it’s not clear whether his narrative can be sustained in the weeks and months ahead.
Mike sure seems to know a lot about Barack Obama. Interesting, if I am reading this correctly, Mr. Obama has some affiliation with an “unrepentant terrorist”. Hmmm… is Obama still being haunted from yet another terrible acquaintance? I think so. First it was his buddy Reverend Wright, then it was that rapper hommie of his, and now we seem to have a terrorist on his list of old pals. What is this man doing in his free time?!? Shooting the breeze with enemies of our Nation? I thought he wanted to lead our nation, not tear it apart like his old friend Ayers.
Michael makes me think that Obama has something to hide when he says “His paper trail is surprisingly thin, too. He has left no papers from his Illinois Senate days; he hasn’t listed his law firm clients or provided more than one page of medical records”. Methinks that our Democratic nominee is a little bit ashamed of his past, or afraid of it more likely. I’m pretty sure that he affiliates or at least supports the leader of the Nation of Islam, Farrakhan. Farrakhan hates Jews and the people of Israel. They are God’s chosen people and our greatest ally in the Middle East and perhaps in the world. Is Obama a Nazi in disguise? I think not, but if I was the PM of Israel I would be praying that McCain was allowed to blow up Iran, before Obama tries to talk them out of blowing up Israel and bringing about the 12th Imam’s return.
I have to agree with Roy that it is pretty sketchy that Omabama’s paper trail is super thin. And that his acquaintances happen to be a person who preaches about how white people are bad and a terrorist? If our democratic candidate is trying to hide his past what is there that he’s hiding? Is it just another problem like other candidates in the past like drug use or adultery or is it something more that should have US citizens scared? I personally don’t know all the facts and I’m sure the only one who does is Mr. Obama himself but looking at some of the facts scares me I’m not going to lie.
In response to Roy:
I think that you are being too heavily influenced by the media. Just because they say that Obama has a thin paper trail doesn’t mean that he hides stuff. Nor is Barack Obama a terrorist or a Nazi. After being in the campaign for this long, the press would surely have dug up serious accusations like this, not just taken a slight interest in the fact that he hasn’t “fully accounted” for his entire life story. Sure there are things he has done in the past that people don’t know about, but look at the man. He is a clean politician and isn’t likely to betray our country.
Obama sure has a history. One that is so interesting, so engulfing, so mesmerizing… the media is only willing to show the good stuff about him! Of course. I mean why not? But wait… McCain, dirty, old McCain, he’s the bad stuff. Watch out for him. Once, in like 1986, he voted to stop preservatives in non-organic foods or something. Yikes.
My sarcasm is almost true. The media portrays McCain as an old man that can’t decide what he’s preaching. They make Obama look like a God. Don’t get me wrong, they are both great men, but why such a difference? The media has an agenda. Luckily, Obama’s coverage of Reverend Wright and such has been, while somewhat thorough, out of the spotlight for now. McCain, on the other hand, is psychologically disturbed from his POW experience in the 60’s and 70’s. Wow. Nothing ever changes in 40 years. Nope.
The media will always say what they want their viewers to say, think, and believe. Personally, I believe they are almost always wrong. And unfortunately for this election year, the media is in Obama’s favor. We’ll just have to wait and see if the advantage Obama has gained is still enough.