Matt Taibbi's wrong: Obama is still the same, dammit.

NH, when the media bought into Obama's hype way back in Iowa -- when (as I know, from friends who live there still) the reason Obama "won" the caucus is because too many people came over the border(s) from Illinois (in particular), Wisconsin (to a minor degree) and North Omaha, Nebraska.  And the Iowa election officials were told _not_ to ID these folks -- or indeed, anyone at all -- and some of this was in the media accounts, as were people who said they'd come from California to caucus, or were from Wisconsin, or other states.  (In MSNBC's initial report of the Iowa Caucus, early January, '08.)   These were flagrant violations of the spirit of the law as well as the letter of the law -- but the DNC told the Iowa election folks to do nothing.

And as we know now, David Plouffe figures he (and the Obama campaign) "got over" because of their vaunted alliance with Bill Richardson; the Obama campaign told the Richardson voters to vote for Obama instead because Richardson was going to drop out soon anyway, so why waste a vote?  (Plouffe wasn't quite this transparent in his book, but that's what was going on.  And he does brag about their "gamesmanship."  I call it cheating and out-and-out fraud, myself, but then, I'm not a polite woman.)

What this means, if you look back on it, is that the DNC was pro-Obama from the start _and_ the media wasn't paying attention from the start.  This goes all the way back to January of '08.

And the kindest way to put it is how I did in this blog -- the media bought into Obama, hook, line and sinker, because he has a good personality, charm, some wit (though to my mind on the nasty and misogynistic side), and is intelligent.  And he wasn't Bush -- and then, when only HRC was left to debate Obama, Obama obviously was the "anybody but Hillary" voter's choice as well, along with some of the base of Republicans who knew they'd support McCain (or whoever won) in the fall _but_ wanted the weakest possible candidate to win the Democratic primaries/caucuses, solely because that would give the Republicans a better shot in 2012.  (Some of 'em do think that long-term.  Which we do also; it is not a vice -- merely, practicality, in this instance.)

And because the media bought heavily into Obama, they couldn't see his weaknesses and didn't even want to look for 'em -- which is why Obama was never properly vetted, and why any vetting that occurred anyway tended to have otherwise media-savvy people bringing up thinly-veiled charges of "racism" -- anyone who questioned Obama's readiness for the job was called "out of touch" at best and an out-and-out Klansman at worst.  And as you well know, NH, there are folks who aren't really good at expressing themselves (again, being kind) who maybe are ignorant in certain fashions who are going to vote for your candidate.  Obama had his -- remember the gal in Florida who was insistent that she'd never have to pay her mortgage again because Obama won the general election?  Yes? -- and we have ours, just as McCain had his and surely G. W. Bush had some as well.  It's just the way it is -- not everyone is equally intelligent or well-informed, and yet they gravitate toward your candidate.  The only difference for Mrs. Clinton was, her more ignorant followers were held up as her _only_ followers -- ignoring all the media-savvy folks online, all the people who knew her record or were actually converted to her cause (as was I) due to her obvious brilliance and competence -- while Obama's more ignorant followers were rarely put on television -- even Fox News didn't show too many of them until two weeks before the election, and by then, most of the folks watching Fox News had the picture anyway (as we read blogs, had seen YouTube videos of some of "The One's" speeches -- we knew what was going on as we could read between the lines) and the others just refused to see it no matter what.

So here we are -- we have an inexperienced POTUS at the helm when we most need competence; we have a speechifier rather than a leader; we have Nancy Pelosi having way, way, way too much power because Obama cannot check her as he seems incapable of understanding how she does her business (via manipulation, and power games, but genteelly and with great finesse), and Harry Reid being by turns ineffectual, weak and rather powerless (really, what other modern Senate Majority Leader was unable to marshal some sort of consensus before ever taking something as important as health care reform to the floor?).  And even at that, consider the nature of Obama's "pep talk" to the Senate Democrats -- what other sitting POTUS in modern history has ever given a "pep talk?"  (That it can be called one is endemic of the problem itself; inexperienced, somewhat immature -- yet intelligent -- man who doesn't know how to wield power effectively, and is getting the run-around by other high-ranking members of his party because they know he doesn't really know his stuff.)

That the media is starting to come around to viewing Obama as any other POTUS -- at least to the point of questioning why he does this, that and the other, even with the qualifiers Taibbi used (which amount to: "Really, I thought he was better than that!") -- is encouraging, but it's a baby step.

As for Taibbi's facts, some of them are right.  I don't know if he got more than 75% of it right, but he's right about Geithner and Bernanke and many of the folks working with them -- those folks worked under Bush, and their priorities didn't change just because Bush went out and Obama got in -- the only trick is, with Bush their policies were scrutnized heavily, while with Obama the media thought "the One" could do no wrong, and thus the policies of Obama's underlings (with the sole exception of Mrs. Clinton) couldn't do any wrong, either.

The media must stop abrogating their responsibilities.  That they refused to perform the duties of the "Fourth Estate" so long should be something the media finds acutely painful and shameful -- but they must learn from this experience.

Never again must any member of the media let his personal feelings (good or bad) bias him in his/her reportage . .  . never, ever again.

(And once again -- damn you, DNC!  We didn't have to be here!  And yes, this is _your_ fault.  The voters got it right.  You didn't.  Suck it up, admit it, and work toward replacing Obama in 2012 if you all want to have any power in Washington, DC.)

Layla, I know from reading other comments here that your beliefs are different than mine, and I respect that.  (If we were all the same, the world would be a boring place.)

My problem with Taibbi isn't that he can't write -- he can.  And he's an effective speaker; witty, humorous, intelligent and passionate.  All good.

Nope.  My problem with him -- and with most of the major media -- is that their assumptions were faulty.  And they forgot their journalistic objectivity.

I'd be just as upset if the media had given Hillary a pass; in fact, had they treated her that way, even though I really admire her record, I'd probably not have voted for her nor still be hoping for her to get a chance in 2012 somehow (I think of HRC as the American version of Golda Meir at this point; Meir also served in the cabinet -- of Israel, granted -- and extremely well, before her ascendancy to the top job in Israel).

I think that no matter how much you like -- or dislike -- a POTUS, or any elected official at all, you should treat the politician(s) the same.  Which means if you're tough on Bush, you should be tough on Obama -- not because you dislike the man, but because his policies still deserve a great deal of scrutiny.

With health care in particular, that's a major step in this country.  When HRC and Bill Clinton tried to get something done in '93, it was heavily scrutinized -- and while it didn't get anywhere, the heavy scrutiny _helped_ because the ideas stayed out there.  And people were able to examine those ideas, along with their assumptions, along the way.

The media should be doing the same thing with health care.  Some of 'em now are.  But much of what passes for journalism these days are puff pieces about how this, that or the other person is getting screwed over by the current health care system.  And while that is undoubtedly correct (I have health problems and no insurance/no money, so I can guarantee the way health care is rationed in this country is a really huge problem), the bill still needs to be out there, understood, examined and synthesized.

Taibbi's quote that I gave in this article reads to me as a plaintive cry: "I really didn't expect this, Barack!  I thought you were better than this!  Why?"  And while that's true from his own perspective -- he _obviously_ didn't expect this -- that's not true for all of us.  We saw Barack Obama as a politician, period.  And saw some weaknesses with his strengths; the HRC voter didn't necessarily dislike Barack Obama, the man, but only that he hadn't been in Washington, DC, long enough to wield power effectively.

And we were right.

Obama said in his second book (the one about recent history in his life) that he knew that many people would see him as a blank page, or "blank slate."  And that this was a strength -- but also a weakness.  So he saw it, and knew what it was -- and as a canny politician, he went with spinning it as a strength.  And because he had a canny media relations team, he was able to use that, along with his native intelligence, charm, etc., to go out on the campaign trail and make himself into the phenomenon he was.

This is why things he said -- the stuff you pointed out -- were ignored by many Obama voters.

I also think that Obama's support is "a mile wide but an inch deep" in many respects; those who bought into the "rock star" phenomenon in particular have lost interest and are probably reading the reality TV blogs.  (With all due respect to reality TV.)

Now, there are folks out there who sincerely believed that Obama was better; my uncle is among them, and one of my best friends.  They looked at what Obama did overall and felt he'd be a skilled mediator.  And they believe the problem isn't with Obama -- it's with the folks around him, or maybe the Senate themselves, or maybe they really don't care for Nancy Pelosi.

Folks like that aren't the problem, either -- they believed differently from the HRC voter, but they had similar assumptions about what it takes to be a POTUS.  That they chose Obama over HRC doesn't necessarily mean they wouldn't have voted for HRC in a general election.  (My friend has said over and over to me in recent weeks that "the US simply isn't ready for a woman President yet."  Which is why, in his opinion, HRC is not POTUS.  My reply to that wasn't really understood by him -- I said if the media hadn't gone whole-hog for Obama, perhaps that wouldn't have been the case.)

I think some of that "rock star" phenomenon has waned now that Obama actually has the power and is trying to use it.

I also believe that Obama sincerely wants to change health care for the better, and figures that any bill is better than none at this point.

As for how we, the HRC voters, were treated -- well, I don't have polite words, so I won't use any.  Let's just say they were plain, flat wrong about who we are and why we do what we do -- the vast majority of us -- and that splitting the Democratic Party's base was a huge mistake, remains a huge mistake, and that most of the members of the DNC who agreed to that 5/31/08 "compromise" need immediate replacement.

Creeper, the way the Obama folks had buses going over the border into Iowa from (mostly) Illinois, North Omaha (which is where the sole black Senator in Nebraska's unicameral lives), and Wisconsin, was wrong.  Flat out, unmistakably, wrong.

And yet the media chose not to discuss it.  While the DNC didn't have the Iowa election board check IDs, as they always used to have to do when _I_ voted when I lived in Iowa.  (I never attended a caucus, but I voted in Iowa.  Twice.  I always had to show my voter ID card and regular driver's license to vote.  If I had the DL but not the voter ID card, I could still vote but they had to check it over later against their records.)

I believe Obama is shrewd, canny, and an excellent speaker when he has a prepared speech.  But off the cuff remarks aren't his specialty; empathetic responses aren't his specialty, either; knowledge of specific issues seems hit or miss from what little I can tell coming out of the pre-packaged White House these days.

Yet folks who are angry with him now say he does study the issues.  And that he tries to work around the difficulties he sees -- and has some care for the folks on the ground (read: thee or me).

I think that's all true.  I think he means well.  I truly do.

But the path of good intentions often leads straight to Perdition -- and really, we, the Democratic base of the party, did not deserve to have an inexperienced person at the helm at this point.

Thanks for understanding my view; I'm very sorry that Iowa was overwhelmed by such a response in January '08 and that the Obama team from the get-go gamed the system.

I'm with you, Creeper; I question this notion that Obama is so "intelligent."  Yes, I suppose he isn't as dumb as a turkey, but he isn't all that intelligent either. I'd say he's about average for an American president. We've had many far more intelligent presidents: John Quincy Adams and Jimmy Carter to mention two. Neither one of them was a particularly successful president.

There are many kinds of intelligence; there is emotional intelligence, political intelligence, social intelligence, musical intelligence ...  etc. ... etc..

Obama's intelligence is more akin to that of the sharpie (as in: a professional card player who cheats), the con man, the dishonest salesman, the sideshow barker who promises you that inside the tent is a man with the head of a baboon, the politician who sizes up the crowd and promises it whatever it wants to hear, the swindler.

The Bernie Madoffs and the Carlo Ponzis (of the Ponzi Scheme) of this world have the same sort of intelligence Obama has -- the ability to fool people into trusting them.

is how it is rhetorically slanted toward diverting  blame or anger toward Clinton by linking repeatedly Clinton and Rubin throughout the article.  It's as if Clinton is to blame for Obama's appointment of Rubin in the current administration.  This strategy -- to blame Clinton first --  is intended to provide a foil for Obama and thus keep him from  bearing any responsibilty for his policies, etc.  In fact, most Bot reporters employ this strategy too. 

I can't possibly add to your points, except to say, "Amen!"

I don't think I'd have found it, else . . . and it's interesting.