BlogHer - Change is it. - Comments

MORRA'S POST

Csamuels — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 17:33:35 -0600

As usual, Morra is thoughtful and independent. And Ms. A, I mostly agree with you - and love the Romano concept of powerful narrative as a determining factor. BUT I have been talking to the many under 35-ers in my life and they bear out here what we read elsewhere - the young, inspired by a man with great rhetoric, a principled set of policy concepts and a call to change. I wrote today on my blog that this race reminds me in a sad way of McCarthy V LBJ. Obama seems to make Senator Clinton into the establishment - so ironic but hard to turn around, I suspect.

Cynthia Samuels, Partner
Cobblestone Associates, LLP
Blog and Media Strategies and Content Development Online and on Television
http:dontgelyet.typepad.com/dontgeltoosoon

And mainstream media - print - is taking cues for online ....

amcreynolds — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 12:09:10 -0600

Thanks for your comment and encouraging feedback Professor Kim.

If print sets the tone for public debate (via CNN), and print is looking at the blogosphere for public opinion, then BlogHer -- equipped with press presses has the power to revolutionize how media covers this election.

Rather than be the "tail on the media dog," why not a watchdog? Of course, I've been a print journalist (photojournalist/picture editor) for my entire career thus far so ... I answer to this challenge daily.

A.M. McReynolds
info@backyardbeacon.org
www.backyardbeacon.org

in this age, we're all media, but...

Kim Pearson — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 06:26:18 -0600

Absolutely, the story is outside the press room, but CNN, et. al., still have the power to set the agenda for public debate, except on rare occasion. That's where the resources are. And the research shows that bloggers and citizen media generally still get their cues from the MSM, just as television news still takes its cues largely from print. There are exceptions, of course -- Monica Lewinsky, Trent Lott, Rathergate, the tsunami in Sri Lanka a few years back and Virginia Tech are notable examples. But the fact that everyone who studies this cites the same examples underscores that we're still the tail on the media dog.

That said, we do have the opportunity to steer this conversation in a direction that tells us what we really need to knnw as voters. That's what is so cool about forums such as Blogher -- public journlism in action.

Kim
BlogHer Contributing Editor|Professor Kim|

Aren't you media too?

amcreynolds — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 02:24:21 -0600

Aren't you media too? Perhaps the story is outside the press room -- like watching the debates with live commentary from New Hampshire viewers? A community-based approach to storytelling is a more effective vehicle for polling public opinion if you wish to add new and original content. After all, you're on the front lines. And you have the access to engage voters in honest conversation and tell a story, report -- in addition to commentary, which is ubiquitous.

A.M. McReynolds
www.backyardbeacon.org

"One of the most important elections Americans have ever faced"

Lisa Stone — Mon, 07 Jan 2008 23:33:00 -0600

Full disclosure: I'm an undecided voter who is still disappointed in President Bill Clinton for four main reasons (China, Bosnia, Haiti, Monica), but I have to weigh in because I just reviewed this clip after reading all the commentary above and every where else.

My two lira: Bravo Hillary. More please, whether I vote for you or not.

This video captures a master debater at the height of her game. She's stretched just thin enough to say something real and heartfelt -- and then she does a deft job of sticking it to her opponent(s). What a surprise to watch this moment of truth in the same day I heard her allow NPR's Renee Montagne turn a Morning Edition interview into a discussion of Sen. Barack Obama and how important it is that Clinton not lose to her primary opponent, Sen. Barack Obama.

Finally, we see the candidate saying something that sounds remarkably unscripted. Goodbye, floral couch from which the Stepford candidate announced her candidacy, hello, woman who understands me. As for her other commentary, hell, it's a cold winter and there's not a woman alive who isn't worrying about working out and that extra piece of pizza, girl, whether we need to or it's just in our heads.

For the VERY first time I found myself thinking, wow, she might get my vote. Followed by: Wow, if she doesn't earn the nomination, somebody should give this woman Brownie's old job heading up FEMA, and then we can work her way up to Secretary of State.

One parting thought: For anyone who hasn't ever watched a presidential candidate in the heat of a campaign, I recommend you re-watch the video and look at only the background: See the flashbulbs? There was a media mob assembled to watch these voters watch Hillary that probably wasn't the size of an inky dinky press pool. How she managed not to burst out with, "Could you PLEASE get those klieg lights OUT of my EYES and hand me a BEER" is beyond me.

So you'll know if I ever run for office. I'll be the one with the port-a-keg.

Lisa Stone
BlogHer Co-founder
Surfette

We can agree, but also agree to disagree

Elisa Camahort — Mon, 07 Jan 2008 23:24:22 -0600

Well, I left a novel of a comment on your post, but suffice to say here that I agree that breaking either barrier will send an important message, which I believe I actually tried to express in the first part of my comment above.

Elisa Camahort
BlogHer
elisa@blogher.org

Ditto Catherine and Kim

Jill Miller Zimon — Mon, 07 Jan 2008 22:54:49 -0600

Wow. I didn't know about that (still in the protective shield of vacation, to be broken by tomorrow afternoon!) clip.

You know, before I got married, one of the first "tests" I had for a date was finding out three times when he'd cried. Remember during Katrina coverage, when we saw some media folks on the air get angry, get upset, cry tears? Life is emotional! And we should just accept that people show emotions, and let them. End of story. Move on.

Sigh - we're getting so over-anxious about this race and the campaigning.

I'd like to ask - how to we keep on top of it, in the best ways, most informative ways, without getting caught up and distracted by the anxiety to "know" or try to know the outcome? Does anyone else feel that way - that we're obsessed with wishing we could know now? Maybe it's just that it's almost midnight and I'm up past my bedtime. :)

Jill
Writes Like She Talks

Not about numbers

Maria Niles — Mon, 07 Jan 2008 21:37:00 -0600

I have to respectfully disagree with you about scale. Just because there are more women than black people doesn't mean it is more important to send a message by electing a woman rather than a black man. Racism and sexism are equally corrosive to men and women of every color and breaking either barrier will send an important message to everyone.

And a very long open letter to my white sisters if anyone is interested in a long-winded rant on the issue. :-)

Scale of changey, yes...

debra roby — Mon, 07 Jan 2008 21:31:20 -0600

BUT.. and for me this is a big but...

If Hilary wins and only serves one term, everyone under the age of 25 would have known only 2 families running our family: the Bushes and the Clintons. most under the age of 30 won't recall a differently named president.

Talk about Dynasties.

I am hoping for change that is bigger than simply changing the monograms back again in the White House. I'd like our younger voters (and students, and political hopefuls for the future) to know that this country is rarely ruled by familial dynasties.

I want greater changiness

Debra
A Stitch In Time
Deb's Daily Distractions

Hillary's tears should be irrelevant.

Catherine Morgan — Mon, 07 Jan 2008 21:17:55 -0600

Hi Kim. I totally agree with you. The media is totally over sensationalizing this, the tears are irrelevant as to whether or not she will make a good president.

I am TOTALLY sick of seeing this clip over and over and over again. Give me a break...The woman is tired, nothing more nothing less.

Contributing Editor Catherine Morgan
also at CatherineBlogs.com and The Political Voices of Women

I'm so tired of hearing about HIllary getting teary

Erin Kotecki Vest — Mon, 07 Jan 2008 20:41:28 -0600

All day. That's all I've seen.

Getting angry enough now to just vote Clinton on double standards alone.

Sigh.

Amazing how this is playing out gender wise. Just Amazing. I'm so naive for thinking we were *mostly* beyond this as a nation. The commentary on Hillary showing emotion be it tearing up today ("weak woman" "playing gender card" ) raising her voice in a debate ("shrill" "like she's been yelling at her husband") has been just disgusting.

I'm so frustrated right now!

Politics & News Contributing Editor
Queen of Spain

The difference in changiness is scale

Elisa Camahort — Mon, 07 Jan 2008 20:21:10 -0600

I was torn for a long time between Obama and Hillary, because both represented both significant and, IMHO, much-needed change for this country and its direction. Not just of what they will do or what they believe, but yes, because of who they are.

But what finally got me is the fact that Hillary will represent change for over half the population. It's more changy. If Obama is elected I will be very pleased, but a part of me will still think that the power structure (which the media is a part of) is continuing to tell more than half our young people that they should not shoot as high and they will not get as far. Because of who they are.

Elisa Camahort
BlogHer
elisa@blogher.org

Glad you brought this up, Catherine

Kim Pearson — Mon, 07 Jan 2008 16:24:33 -0600

CNN has been playing that clip over and over today. I thought she was saying what she honestly believed. But I'm old enough to remember former Sen. Edmund Muskie, whose 1972 presidential bid tanked when he reportedly teared up while defending his wife in New Hampshire. Former Congresswoman Pat Schroeder was ridiculed for getting emotional when she announced she wouldn't run in 1988. (Was it really that long ago?) It's interesting to note that for weeks now, journalists have been speculating on what it would mean if Hillary teared up.

The Witchita Eagle said on Dec. 31 that there's a double standard:

" GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney has choked up lately when talking about soldiers killed in Iraq and his religion, Associated Press reported. But such displays of emotion are unlikely to hurt his campaign and may, in fact, help it by making Romney seem more authentic.

"The same likely couldn’t be said if Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton got misty-eyed.

"Guys have been tearing up all along and people think it’s marvelous,” said Pat Schroeder (in photo), who got grief for crying 20 years ago as she announced that she would not be a presidential candidate. But it’s still politically taboo for women politicians, particularly those running for top offices, to shed any tears."

Either you believe Hillary would be a good president or you don't. But voters need to repudiate this preoccupation with things this kind of meaningless claptrap. Sadly, I think many voters will assign significance to this episode, abetted by a news media so desperate for ratings that it will forgo substantive reporting on issues in favor of a bit of sensationalism every time.

Kim
BlogHer Contributing Editor|Professor Kim|

Hey, people

Virginia DeBolt — Mon, 07 Jan 2008 15:53:07 -0600

there are 49 other states out here with a lot of electoral votes at stake. Doesn't that matter? Why is Iowa "the decider?" The American political process is what needs to be the changiest: the race is too long, the electoral college is an antique, and the early voting states have too much influence.

http://www.webteacher.ws/
http://first50.wordpress.com/

Foreign Policy

Maria Niles — Mon, 07 Jan 2008 13:42:53 -0600

BTW - agree with you here:

"It may also be because I think his foreign policy team is the best- including Samantha Power, whom I deeply admire."

Add in Zbigniew Brezinski and Susan Rice and that sealed the deal for me. Way too wonky for most, though!

Change is it.

Morra Aarons Mele — Mon, 07 Jan 2008 06:44:45 -0600

My colleague Mary Katharine Ham hit the nail on the head when she dubbed Saturday night’s Democratic debate in New Hampshire as a competition to be the “changiest.” No doubt, change is it. Some bloggers I know have a drinking game where they down a shot whenever Giuliani mentions “9-11.” Perhaps I should start one where each mention of the c-word merits a shot.

Saturday night’s debate hall was an electric environment no doubt. The highlight of my evening came while Elizabeth Edwards was “spinning” for Edwards after the debate. She was mobbed by reporters, but as she was on her way out, I stepped up and asked her for a photo, "for BlogHer", and Elizabeth stopped and broke into a smile - "Anything for BlogHer!" she said. So cool. Mrs. Edwards, if you ever decide to run…

Back to reality. On Sunday after the debate, Edwards’ campaign sent out this press release entitled “CHANGE WON AND THE STATUS QUO LOST IT,” quoting ABC’s the Note:

“‘Any time you speak out powerfully for change, the forces of status quo attack,’ [Edwards] said. Suddenly Clinton was alone, angry, and lecturing. The words themselves don’t do the moment justice, but here they are: ‘I want to make change, but I've already made change. I will continue to make change. I'm not just running on a promise of change. I’m running on 35 years of change.’

Of Hillary’s quote, Ana Marie Cox wrote “This may be the moment we will look back on and say "that's when she lost."

Not only do I disagree- but I’m sorry, media, hold on a minute. Yes, Obama won Iowa. Edwards came in second, and Clinton, who is basically an incumbent, lost.

TAPPED’s Tom Schaller wrote “R.I.P., The Clinton Era, 9:34 P.M. Est.” “Wow. Get your kids out and put them in front of the TV: The Clinton Era officially ended at 9:34 p.m. EST when Edwards paired with Obama to bury Hillary as a non-agent of change. Wow, again.”

And George Stephanopoulos said, “Barack Obama, his job tonight is to ride the wave. You know, he  grew up part of his life in Hawaii. He was a surfer. And what he's  got to do tonight is just ride this wave of change. “

Riding waves of change? If anyone is riding the wave of change, it’s Edwards, but that’s not the point.

Obama is part of a wonderful narrative, and Lord knows we need a change in this country. But after eight years of GW Bush, the media owes us more truthiness than bowing to a candidate just because he is changiest. But maybe not. Lois Romano, a Washington Post staff writer who has reported on presidential narratives for many years noted that each successful candidate has a narrative voters can’t resist. Bush’s narrative—one of redemption after a life wasted by alcohol, a reform in his 40’s—proved popular with voters. But, as Clinton said on Saturday night, the narrative gave us “a  president who people said they wanted to have a beer with; who said he  wanted to be a uniter, not a divider; who said that he had his  intuition and he was going to, you know, really come into the White  House and transform the country. And, you know, at least I think  there are the majority of Americans who think that was not the right  choice.”

Obama’s narrative and his rhetoric are more appealing than Clinton’s, for sure. His might be the best ever: a young, brilliant black man come to life our country up. Obama is like Atticus Finch for the contemporary era. But I’m not writing Hillary Clinton off yet. And there are two big reasons for this. One: She did author legislation like SCHIP children’s health insurance, a great example of public policy at work; I believe she could be a crusader for good government. Two: she would be the first woman president. We need more women in office, generally, and I do not believe this will happen without someone big to lead the way. And I was glad that on Saturday night Hillary said “But I think I am an agent of change. I embody change. I think  having the first woman president is a huge change...”

Was this the first time she aligned change with being the first woman? I think so. One reporter I spoke with said Hillary’s message to women wasn’t her problem, it just wasn’t enough to win. Fair enough. But I think Hillary’s brand of changiness isn’t enough partly, because the media has deemed it so, and partly because Bill Clinton has been so visible recently. He needs to lay low for a bit. And of course, Hillary’s change message rings false partly because she does things like hold a luncheon celebrating “rural Americans” at the DC office of multinational polluter Monsanto’s lobbying firm. Frankly, that was the moment Hillary lost me.

But this isn’t an excuse for the media to allow Obama to catch a wave and ride it. As Howard Kurtz and Time’s Mark Halperin both noted, the media really screwed up by ignoring Huckabee for a long time. They declared McCain’s campaign dead. The media sure didn’t bother to research those weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. It’s so tempting to jump on the change wave, but we cannot do it. I don’t mean to sound sanctimonious, and I think I do, but the media stuff makes me angry. So I thought, why would I vote for a “changy” candidate instead of Hillary?

I may vote for Obama because he is the best candidate on my eyes, and because he dismisses lobbyists’ money (although, within limits- he’s not a radical, for heaven’s sake!). If I do vote for him, it will be because he was against the Iraq War from the beginning. It may also be because I think his foreign policy team is the best- including Samantha Power, whom I deeply admire.

I may vote for Edwards too, because he has the best health care plan, he will not take lobbyists’ money and because I believe he is the most courageous on global warming, because he actually asks Americans to conserve: “It is time to ask the American people to be patriotic about something other than war. We need investments in renewable energy – more efficient cars and trucks – and a national cap on carbon emissions."