Post-debate liberal spin convergence

One of the most frustrating aspect of politics circa 2006-2008 is the way liberal pundits have picked up the bad habits they once criticized in conservatives -- from content-free accusations of media bias to slipshod factual standards.

Bob Somerby points out the most recent example: liberal bloggers revising their interpretations of the first presidential debate to conform to an exaggerated character-driven narrative (McCain was "small and angry", acted like Obama was "on par with dog shit", etc.). Sound familiar? It's exactly what happened in 2000 when (as Somerby has documented) pundits who originally declared Al Gore the winner of the first debate got caught up in the "sighing" meme and ended up deciding he was the loser.

Things went from tragedy to farce, however, when liberal pundits started quoting biologists about dominance behaviors in primates. This is exactly the sort of manufactured psychodrama that killed Al Gore. But now that the situation has flipped liberals don't seem concerned any more.

Comments

[JimmyM]

During the debate, I certainly took note of McCain's "Senator Obama doesn't understand"s. But, to me, they were not THE STORY of the debate. When I started reading the liberal blogs, I reconsidered and thought, well, maybe McCain's condescension is the story after all, maybe I underestimated its importance. Then I read Somerby (who I'm a big fan of) and realized what happened -- I was mouthing the approved narrative. The "Gore sighing" analogy is exactly right.

I expect that Klein went through a similar process (minus the reading Somerby part). I don't think these pundits are intentionally acting in bad faith. But they are becoming convinced by others' arguments, or if you prefer, falling in line with a group narrative.

[talboito]

Good that they've learned the right lesson.

This stuff works. Use it.

[David]

IMHO both Palin and Obama have too little experience. That's a problem for Palin, as it should be.

But, the media has managed to turn Obama's inexperience into a problem for McCain. First they never talk about Obama's lack of experience and lack of accomplishments. When McCain brought the subject up in the debate, the media then faulted McCain for being insulting, belittling, rude and dismissive to Obama.

With that kind of media support, it's no wonder that Obama's lead is growing.

[Brian]

I see a difference between Obama's experience and his ability to understand/comprehend the issues.

[Howard Craft]

Your comment could be an endorsement of Obama or a criticism, Brian.

In either case it's based on a subjective assessment, which is fine.

***

In terms of David's comment, I wouldn't blame the media too much, except for the ridiculous comments about McCain's attitude and manners.

The problem is that McCain couldn't show where lack of experience was a substantial problem for Obama, or one that people should be concerned about. Obama came across as knowledgeable, confident and competent. Also principled, another key element.

They are both legislators and McCain hasn't been able to make a case that having had a longer Senate career or having been in the military translates into a tangible superior attribute.

I didn't detect any "disrespectful behavior" on the part of McCain at all and certainly not with regard to "eye contact" or "body language".

But every time he said Obama was "naive" or "just doesn't get it" Obama made a strong case that he did have a point of view that he could defend.

McCain labeled differences in policy or opinion evidence of inexperience but McCain didn't persuade me. That was my subjective assessment.

[Kevin]

You hit the nail on the head, Brendan. I'm also concerned about MSNBC turning into the liberal answer to Fox News. What's destructive on the right will be every bit as destructive on the left.

[MartyB]

Brendan –

Do you seriously think liberal pundits are just “picking up the bad habits” previously only encountered in conservative pundits?

As far as I can tell, there have been plenty of pundits on both sides for many years who have been guilty of the sins you mention.

As far as I can tell, the “group think” tendency has existed for many years. I remember wondering where the Reagan (not to mention the more recent Bush) being “dumb” memes came from - as it seems obvious to me such an opinion is based more on style than substance.

Regarding Brian’s comment about “Obama’s experience and his ability to understand/comprehend the issues”.

The real question is how you measure that a person understands issues. Talking about something is fine, but real understanding is better observed though viewing how a person has tackled similar issues in the past: did they find a good solution? What process did they use to solve the issue?

This is where we really have no idea if Obama understands any issues, as his resume has almost no significant accomplishments. Sure, he talks well and acts as if he might understand, but he can point to almost nothing in his 40-some years where he has made real difference.

In fact, his leadership on the Annanberg (sp?) challenge, in which he oversaw the disbursements of around $100 million for school improvement (part of that time in co-ordination with “just a guy from my neighborhood” Bill Ayers), the organization itself acknowledges as almost a total failure. (By the way, where is the MSM reporting on this significant part of Obama’s experience?)

Do you really trust that just because a guy can talk about issues, he really understands what it takes to get something done about them?

[Jinchi]

But, the media has managed to turn Obama's inexperience into a problem for McCain. First they never talk about Obama's lack of experience and lack of accomplishments.

Experience is hardly the defining attribute in a presidential election. We vote for the candidate we agree with and experience only matters when it serves our interests. Strom Thurmond was very experienced. So is Ted Kennedy. I doubt many people would vote for both of those men if given the chance.

Palin's inexperience is a problem for McCain because McCain had been stressing the value of experience right up until he picked her for VP. He undercut his own message. Now she's being judged against McCain's original CinC test.

Obama doesn't suffer the same critique because he's been arguing successfully for the value of judgment and competence over experience. Palin fails with Obama supporters not because she's inexperienced, but because she agrees with John McCain on the issues.

[David]

Sure Jinchi, Obama is arguing that he has good judgment, but his evidence is thin. His opposition to the war in Iraq was based on a generally liberal viewpoint, not on knowledge or expertise. He didn't deduce that the CIA report of WMDs was wrong, because he didn't even have access to that report. He didn't know that the occupation would be handled badly, because he has no military experience or training. He had no idea of how an occupation should be handled.

He completely mis-judged the effectiveness of the surge when it was announced. Worse, he misjudged the effectiveness of the surge after it had actually worked.

[T_Porter]

"This is exactly the sort of manufactured psychodrama that killed Al Gore."

But I thought fundamentals determined the outcome, right? Which is it - did the debate spin screw Gore or not?

[Howard Craft]

"Obama is arguing that he has good judgment, but his evidence is thin. His opposition to the war in Iraq was based on a generally liberal viewpoint, not on knowledge or expertise."

"He didn't deduce that the CIA report of WMDs was wrong, because he didn't even have access to that report. He didn't know that the occupation would be handled badly..."

No, he did not oppose the war because he thought that WMDs would not be found or because thought the occupation would be mismanaged.

His opposition to the the war was based on his opinion that it was unnecessary - that Saddam was not a significant threat to us and that the war and occupation would be long and difficult, even under the best of circumstances.

He also contended that the war was being promoted to effect political changes in the Middle East (later this became more overt as the specific objective of spreading democracy became part of the mission) and the case being made for the war was disregarding "the costs in lives lost and hardships borne". He said we were being rash.

His opposition was based on his belief that unilateral action by the US would hurt the US in the eye of the much of the Arab world and would strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Quesda.

He also offered what he considered to be better priorities - focusing on Al Queeda and improved homeland security; promoting positive democratic change in Egypt and Saudi Arabia; seeking security through energy independence; improving safe guards on weapons across the world.

I don't think Obama was (or is) alone on many of these points. A big difference is Obama said the war was a mistake and we should focus on other areas.

[David]

Howard Craft - I don't know if our attazck on Saddam was "rash," but we now know that there was no hurry, since he didn't have WMDs and wasn't close to getting them.

Obama's supposed alternative of focusing on al Qaeda was just a slogan. In fact, Obama called for no actions against al Qaeda beyond those Bush was already taking.

I don't know what actions Obama would have taken to create democracy in Egypt and Saudi Arabia. That sounds like a slogan, too. In fact, IMHO a successsful, democratic Iraq will help convince its neighbors to move toward democracy.

Obama turned out to be wrong in thinking that the overthrow of Saddam would strengthen al Qaeda. They are weaker in the Islamic world than they were in 2001. I think his mistake was based on the wrong belief that al Qaeda's support was based on valid grievances against the US and the West.

I think Obama was dead wrong to minimize the importance of Iraq. Now that we're close to success there, even the anti-war Associated Press has acknowledged that a relatively stable Iraq would have all the cards necessary to emerge as a major player in the Persian Gulf.

[Howard Craft]

Yes, rash means "rushing to war". In rushing to war we may be going to war unnecessarily.

Rash also means without forethought or preparation.

Rash can mean making a decision without consideration to other courses of action or to the possible consequences.

Saying that we were acting rashly is evidence of good judgment.

[Howard Craft]

"Obama turned out to be wrong in thinking that the overthrow of Saddam would strengthen al Qaeda. They are weaker in the Islamic world than they were in 2001."

Suicide bombings that kill innocent people don't engender widespread support in any nation subject to them or hosting the terrorists involved, If they occurred elsewhere. Loss of leadership hurts too. It was always an undefined sized group as well.

But we have had reports of "foreign freedom fighters" active in Iraq. It is difficult to judge how many there are (or were, as it changes over time), or if they were state sponsored, and to what degree they became "freedom fighters" specifically in response to the occupation.

"I think Obama was dead wrong to minimize the importance of Iraq."

I don't think he has.

[David]

Howard Craft, Obama has proposed reducing the number of troops in Iraq and increasing the number in Afghanistan. I take that to mean that he considers Iraq less important than Afghanistan.

I actually don't believe that as President he'd withdraw troops prematurely from Iraq. It would be irresponsible to allow Iraq to fall back into chaos when they're so close to becoming a stable democracy. I think Obama takes this position now because he doesn't want to admit that he was wrong about the surge.

However, when it comes to action rather than words, I think President Obama would be guided by the advice of Gen. Petraeus. At least I sure hope so.

[Jinchi]

I take that to mean that he considers Iraq less important than Afghanistan.

More precisely, he considers American forces in Iraq less effective than in Afghanistan.

Iraq is suffering from an internal struggle over power, created by the vacuum that was left after our attack on the country. Dozens of local groups are fighting for territory. Add to that the criminal gangs who have taken advantage of the chaos. AQ is not a significant part of that fight and it's arguable that those who are there are only in Iraq because we're there.

On the other hand, Afghanistan is seeing a resurgence of the Taliban and currently suffering the worst violence since we originally went in. Their safe haven in Pakistan also threatens the stability of that country. This is where the people who originally attacked us still live and its a battle that's been largely ignored since 2003. The flip side of Petraeus's call for troops in Iraq is the appeal for reinforcements in Afghanistan by our generals there.

This seems to be a real and entrenched disagreement between McCain and Obama and their respective supporters. We don't even agree on where the threats lie. McCain sees Iraq as the central front in a war for western civilization and (like the current president) is almost dismissive of the importance of Afghanistan. Obama worries about Afghanistan falling back into chaos (possibly taking Pakistan with it) and about a resurgent OBL, while he considers Iraq's current problems to be largely internal and beyond American control.