Division Street

The hottest meme in the political universe right now is the apparent inability of the media to find a way to have fun at Barack Obama’s expense, but what the media is missing is that when it comes to Obama, the media themselves have long been the target. The Obama Messiah Watch anybody?

Now comes the ever-dependable Onion once again to teach the media a few lessons with “Time Publishes Definitive Obama Puff Piece.”

Remember, it’s funny because it’s true.

“Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, has left a slot open in his schedule during the first weekend of August for an appearance at the Lollapalooza music festival in his hometown of Chicago, according to multiple sources familiar with the ongoing planning and logistics,” The Daily Swarm reports. (h/t: Jim DeRogatis)

But when this says “delivered by AT&T,” does it mean Lollapalooza or Obama?

When I first heard about the New Yorker cover flap, I figured I’d take a look at it and find that not a whole lot of people know from satire and dismiss it or chastise the complainers. But I have to tell you, I’ve looked at that cover over and over again, studied it, stared at it from every which way, and I don’t see the satire. Obama and his supporters have a right to be angry.

It’s a great drawing, that much is true. Especially the caricature of Michelle. If only!

But on the cover, without cover language, or without the context of being attached to an article inside, the desired effect is lost. If, as Kelly McBride, head of the ethics faculty at the Poynter Institute has said, the cartoon’s title, “The Politics of Fear,” appeared on the cover as well, there would have been no problem. Or if the drawing was inside the magazine surrounded by an article giving it context. But alone on the cover without context - and with such a dead-on depiction of the way the Obamas are perceived and/or smeared by right-wing nutjobs - is too dry and removed to qualify as successful satire. The New Yorker is wrong, and I can’t remember such an egregious misstep by the magazine.

I’d still love a poster of it, though.

(more…)

The New York Times on Sunday reported on dismay among Obama supporters upset over what Times columnist Bob Herbert calls “lurching with abandon.” But the Times did so in a way that marginalizes those supporters. Start with the headline: “Obama Supporters on the Far Left Cry Foul.”

Those upset with Obama are hardly restricted to the “far left.”

The Times continues with references to “left-wing bloggers” and “purists,” as if those stunned by Obama’s reversals are starry-eyed idealists (never mind that that’s how Obama the hopemonger has portrayed himself) who aren’t pragmatic (cynical?) enough to know how to win elections.

Memo to the Times: All those folks giving those $5 donations that impress you so much? That’s them!

But there’s no question that the most conservative of Obama’s supporters are upset too.

(Interesting aside: Those voting against the FISA bill include not just Hillary Clinton, but John Kerry, Dick Durbin and Harry Reid, among others. And in the veep watch, Joe Biden and Chris Dodd - neither of whom has a chance to be put on the ticket in my view - voted Nay. Evan Bayh, who I think has a very good chance, voted Yea.)

(more…)

The revolt - and revulsion - of Barack Obama’s recent vote on FISA legislation among his supporters has been well-documented by now, and certainly - along with a series of other sudden policy shifts - calls into question whether his campaign thus far has simply been an exercise in cynical expediency dressed up in the rhetoric of hope and change.

The image on this post comes from this video about the FISA bill. Note that one defense Obama uses is that he’ll review the program “when he’s elected.” That’s astonishingly arrogant; besides the questionable notion that he’ll fix whatever is broken once he gets to the White House even if contrary to his vote now, he’s taking a helluva chance with our civil liberties because there is the off-chance that John McCain wins this election. Then what will Obama do? Lead an effort in the U.S. Senate to reverse all those “Yes” votes - including his own?

Barack Obama is (rightly) taking a beating for his politically expedient moves to the center after campaigning in the primary for a new kind of politics that was, in part, free of guile.

Doug Kennedy and Dahlia Lithwick at Slate are the latest to weigh in with “Obama Veers To The Right, But Does He Need To Take The Constitution With Him?“

The piece opens like this:

“Barack Obama’s rightward drift in recent weeks has hardly gone unnoticed or unrewarded. What’s most fascinating about his efforts to appeal to the American center is the extent to which Obama, as a constitutional law professor and Harvard Law Review president, has repeatedly chosen the Bill of Rights as his vehicle for doing so. It’s not an overstatement to say that in the past month Obama has tugged the First, Second, Fourth, and Eighth amendments to the center.

(more…)

“Every four years, the Democratic Party assembles a platform that outlines the party’s position on a number of issues,” the latest e-mail to supporters from Obama HQ says. “Traditionally, the drafting of the platform is not open to ordinary people. This year, that’s going to change.

“For two weeks in July, people all across America will hold Platform Meetings in their own communities to discuss the issues and share their input. The outcome of these meetings will be reviewed by the Drafting Committee as it creates the final Platform.”

So, in other words, anyone who wants to forward ideas to the platform-writers can, just like the old days!

Thing is, I think Obama’s core supporters are already trying to write the platform, but he’s not listening.

This is another brilliant marketing move, but packaging change is different than actually enacting it. Nothing of consequence will appear in the party’s platform as a result of these meetings that otherwise wouldn’t. But it’s a nice, if empty, organizing tool that creates the appearance of engagement while party insiders do their thing.

In an e-mail sent to supporters, campaign manager David Plouffe reveals today that Barack Obama will forego the usual convention hall acceptance speech for an open-air event in Denver.

Why?

“Barack has made it clear that this is your convention, not his.”

Oh. I was guessing the stunning visuals.

“It’s going to be an amazing event, and Barack would like you to join him.”

Really? Me?

“If you make a donation of $5 or more between now and midnight on July 31st, you could be one of 10 supporters chosen to fly to Denver and spend two days and nights at the convention, meet Barack backstage, and watch his acceptance speech in person. Each of the ten supporters who are selected will be able to bring one guest to join them.”

Aha. Funny, I don’t remember an e-mail going out about this. But it’s your convention, not Barack’s!

As long as I’m reading the New York Times Op-Ed page (”Caveney’s Dish“), David Brooks outlines an indisputable fact about where Barack Obama gets most of his funding from despite the campaign’s efforts to tell you otherwise: from rich people.

“As in other recent campaigns, lawyers account for the biggest chunk of Democratic donations. They have donated about $18 million to Obama, compared with about $5 million to John McCain, according to data released on June 2 and available at OpenSecrets.org,” Brooks writes.

“People who work at securities and investment companies have given Obama about $8 million, compared with $4.5 for McCain. People who work in communications and electronics have given Obama about $10 million, compared with $2 million for McCain. Professors and other people who work in education have given Obama roughly $7 million, compared with $700,000 for McCain.

“Real estate professionals have given Obama $5 million, compared with $4 million for McCain. Medical professionals have given Obama $7 million, compared with $3 million for McCain. Commercial bankers have given Obama $1.6 million, compared with $1.2 million for McCain. Hedge fund and private equity managers have given Obama about $1.6 million, compared with $850,000 for McCain.”

Hedging on Hope!

“When you break it out by individual companies, you find that employees of Goldman Sachs gave more to Obama than workers of any other employer. The Goldman Sachs geniuses are followed by employees of the University of California, UBS, JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, National Amusements, Lehman Brothers, Harvard and Google. At many of these workplaces, Obama has a three- or four-to-one fund-raising advantage over McCain.”

Cynics might suggest these are “insiders” and “special interests.”

“When he is swept up in rhetorical fervor, Obama occasionally says that his campaign is 90 percent funded by small donors. He has indeed had great success with small donors, but only about 45 percent of his money comes from donations of $200 or less.”

By small, he means short. Most of his donors really aren’t very tall.

“Over the past few years, people from Goldman Sachs have assumed control over large parts of the federal government. Over the next few they might just take over the whole darn thing.”

Viva la Revolucion.

“Look, this really is a pro-Obama bumper sticker,” writes Eric at The Edge of the American West. “It’s just a realistic, not to say jaded, pro-Obama bumper sticker. And maybe it’s more than a little whiny. You really think you can win the presidency without courting or crafting constituencies that Good People don’t like? I don’t.”

Proceeds will be donated to the Obama campaign.

* Thanks to the passionate but good-humored Obama supporter who sent this to me.