Liberal media bias is a very subtle thing. Sometimes it’s not even intentional; it’s just an assumptive way of thinking, a way that the Left automatically colors their world. The latest example, in the wake of the Super Tuesday primary results, is quite illuminating. Apparently, the liberal media approaches accuracy with the attitude, “If no one notices, then we can get away with it.”

In their desperate, almost hysterical attempt to denigrate Mitt Romney (the likely GOP nominee and thought to be the toughest Obama opponent in November), NBC has resorted to spinning tales of being in a tough preliminary fight with Gingrich and Santorum as evidence of Romney’s weakness.

When objective political observers point out that the ’08 Dem prelim season was a bruising affair that came down to Hillary, Obama, and Edwards, then just Hillary and Obama, the reporters at NBC say this to legitimize the Dem ’08 contest as being positive for the Democrats, while using the ’12 GOP prelims to cast all the GOP-ers in a negative light:

It was one thing for Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton to duke it out in ’08, trading victories and splitting up the delegates; it was a clash of political titans. But it’s another thing for Romney — the always-assumed GOP front-runner — to be unable to pull away from Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich.

A “clash of political titans.”

Let that one sit for a while. Let it sink in. Yes, Chuck Todd actually said that.

Just how “titantic” a political figure was Barack Obama in 2008? How long had he been in the Senate? Was it his first term? Did he in fact spend a huge portion of his first term just running for President? Hillary was criticized for allowing the low-standing junior senator to battle her on even terms, and then her defeat was regarded as something akin to the 1980 US Olympic Hockey Team (Obama) beating the heavily-favored “inevitable” Russians (Clinton).

What landmark, Republic-changing legislation did the distinguished Senator Obama introduce and shepherd into law during his long and storied Senate career of, oh, those many months?

In fact, Barack Obama was pretty much the Paris Hilton of politicians–he was reasonably famous for merely being Barack Obama, and nothing more. No accomplishments. No signature legislation. No years-long, well-publicized fights for heart-felt causes. He was modestly-known to some at the time of his announcement for being an attractive, eloquent black politician. Nothing more. (Please do not imbue that statement with negative or nefarious racial implications. It’s intended simply as a political observation.)

That’s a “political titan”?

But NBC uses his standing now to retro-cast his reputation then and attempt to legitimize why a tough Dem prelim race was good for the Dems in ’08 but a similarly tough GOP prelim race in ’12 just proves how weak all the GOP candidates are.

And they do it so smoothly, so seamlessly. You have to really pay attention to catch it.

Comments

18 Responses to “NBC’s “assumptive” bias”

  1. While it’s true that Obama gave the keynote speech at the 04 Democrat Convention, it’s also true that he wasn’t an accomplished politician at that point, or in 2008 for that matter. 2008 was supposed to be Hillary Clinton’s corronation, not a primary contest. In fact, at the time many conservatives reacted with glee when Queen Hillary found herself falling behind.

  2. While it’s true that Obama gave the keynote speech at the 04 Democrat Convention, it’s also true that he wasn’t an accomplished politician at that point, or in 2008 for that matter. 2008 was supposed to be Hillary Clinton’s corronation, not a primary contest. In fact, at the time many conservatives reacted with glee when Queen Hillary found herself falling behind.

  3. People, myself among them, were passionately for Obama in the primaries when he was dueling with Clinton. His massive groundswell of grass-roots support, I think we can  all agree, is something that any of the Republican candidates would envy. Ron Paul alone comes closest to having that level of impassioned backing, though unfortunately not from as many people.

    Characterizing Obama and Clinton’s primary fight as a battle of political titans is correct. They were clearly the two strongest candidates in the party. One of them was expected to be President, and one was expected to be vice president. It isn’t “liberal bias” to view that as such, you can admit the 08 primaries were an involving and energizing affair without being a leftist. Similarly, many conservatives are ready to admit that there doesn’t seem to be a very clear choice in the Republican primaries.

    The Obama victory was about new democrats and lefty democrats versus old guard and blue dogs. That was not just a personal contest, but a demographic battle. I don’t see that sort of battle in the Republican race. I see Santorum representing bigotry, I see Romney representing the super rich, Gingrich representing some ancient 90s conservative ideology, and Ron Paul still on with the libertarians and some leftists. To be honest I don’t see any of those demographics aside from big money being helpful in the elections, so it’s no surprise Romney is the winner. But is there any one there to get the Republican grassroots motivated and to the polls? I don’t think so.

  4. People, myself among them, were passionately for Obama in the primaries when he was dueling with Clinton. His massive groundswell of grass-roots support, I think we can  all agree, is something that any of the Republican candidates would envy. Ron Paul alone comes closest to having that level of impassioned backing, though unfortunately not from as many people.

    Characterizing Obama and Clinton’s primary fight as a battle of political titans is correct. They were clearly the two strongest candidates in the party. One of them was expected to be President, and one was expected to be vice president. It isn’t “liberal bias” to view that as such, you can admit the 08 primaries were an involving and energizing affair without being a leftist. Similarly, many conservatives are ready to admit that there doesn’t seem to be a very clear choice in the Republican primaries.

    The Obama victory was about new democrats and lefty democrats versus old guard and blue dogs. That was not just a personal contest, but a demographic battle. I don’t see that sort of battle in the Republican race. I see Santorum representing bigotry, I see Romney representing the super rich, Gingrich representing some ancient 90s conservative ideology, and Ron Paul still on with the libertarians and some leftists. To be honest I don’t see any of those demographics aside from big money being helpful in the elections, so it’s no surprise Romney is the winner. But is there any one there to get the Republican grassroots motivated and to the polls? I don’t think so.

  5. Steve M. says:

    To be fair, Barack Obama gave the 2004 Democratic National Convention Keynote address that absolutely electrified the room and shot him to stardom and started conversations of his candidacy in 2008 even then. Did he have any halmark legislative accomplishments? No. But he was a well-regarded politician and rising-star, if a not-yet-well-regarded statesman.

    The GOP race differs because the presumptive candidate is not facing the rising tide of excitement around an upcoming star, but struggling to separate himself from a couple of out-of-office retreds with next-to-zero fundraising capabilities. Also, as Rachel Maddow pointed out in the video Kaiser linked to, the race is not drumming up excitement the way it did for the Dems in 08; voter turnout has not been good and GOP voters have become less excited and more jilted.

    • Steve M. says:

      If Marco Rubio and Chris Christie are fighting it out in 2016, that is a “good-for-the-party” energizing race like the Hillary-Obama one.

    • Anonymous says:

      Being force fed Romney kinda kills your appetite doncha know?

      • David Kaiser, Editor says:

         It is nothing like the acid reflux of birther conspiracy theories.

        • Anonymous says:

          Clearly you do not have an open miiiiiind, David.  Just look at the evidence, do your own research. All you have to do is Google Obama fake birth certificate and you will learn the “facts”. Perhaps if you listened to Alex Jones you could stomach the truth and your acid reflux would be cured.

          You might try the 9/11 Truth google also, as well as fake moon landing

          Open your mind.

    • Anonymous says:

      I agree, Steve. Good post.

      I hope Romney can add a Rubio or Ryan to the ticket to make it more exciting. Keep in mind that Obama’s fresh face historic excitement has also subdued a tad.

      If Romney can make the campaign about the economy, jobs, debt, and competence vs. naïveté he has a legit shot. If it is a campaign about personality, class warfare and envy, and obscure social issues Obama will remain President.

    • David Kaiser, Editor says:

      Maddow also pointed out the similarities between Romney’s popularity and that of Bill Clinton’s during this phase of his winning the nomination in 1992 They both had bad numbers.

      The only problem with that scenario is that the economy got progressively worse as the year wore on, and this time there are several economic indicators trending up this time around.

      The summer will be very, very interesting.

  6. Steve M. says:

    To be fair, Barack Obama gave the 2004 Democratic National Convention Keynote address that absolutely electrified the room and shot him to stardom and started conversations of his candidacy in 2008 even then. Did he have any halmark legislative accomplishments? No. But he was a well-regarded politician and rising-star, if a not-yet-well-regarded statesman.

    The GOP race differs because the presumptive candidate is not facing the rising tide of excitement around an upcoming star, but struggling to separate himself from a couple of out-of-office retreds with next-to-zero fundraising capabilities. Also, as Rachel Maddow pointed out in the video Kaiser linked to, the race is not drumming up excitement the way it did for the Dems in 08; voter turnout has not been good and GOP voters have become less excited and more jilted.

    • Steve M. says:

      If Marco Rubio and Chris Christie are fighting it out in 2016, that is a “good-for-the-party” energizing race like the Hillary-Obama one.

    • Anonymous says:

      Being force fed Romney kinda kills your appetite doncha know?

      • David Kaiser, Editor says:

         It is nothing like the acid reflux of birther conspiracy theories.

        • Anonymous says:

          Clearly you do not have an open miiiiiind, David.  Just look at the evidence, do your own research. All you have to do is Google Obama fake birth certificate and you will learn the “facts”. Perhaps if you listened to Alex Jones you could stomach the truth and your acid reflux would be cured.

          You might try the 9/11 Truth google also, as well as fake moon landing

          Open your mind.

    • Anonymous says:

      I agree, Steve. Good post.

      I hope Romney can add a Rubio or Ryan to the ticket to make it more exciting. Keep in mind that Obama’s fresh face historic excitement has also subdued a tad.

      If Romney can make the campaign about the economy, jobs, debt, and competence vs. naïveté he has a legit shot. If it is a campaign about personality, class warfare and envy, and obscure social issues Obama will remain President.

    • David Kaiser, Editor says:

      Maddow also pointed out the similarities between Romney’s popularity and that of Bill Clinton’s during this phase of his winning the nomination in 1992 They both had bad numbers.

      The only problem with that scenario is that the economy got progressively worse as the year wore on, and this time there are several economic indicators trending up this time around.

      The summer will be very, very interesting.

Leave a Reply