http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/2008/06/28/coolly-rational/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=coolly-rational n. the principle of good order<br /><br /> "Observe the strange inversion of all order and sense! Dignity debased; how vilely is the function of a consul prostituted!" ~The Craftsman Fri, 10 Feb 2012 02:25:26 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/2008/06/28/coolly-rational/comment-page-1/#comment-11868 conradg Sat, 28 Jun 2008 20:48:52 +0000 http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2008/06/28/coolly-rational/#comment-11868 I think this is an example of how many in the media want Obama to be a populist hell-raiser, when he's anything but. Many of the pundits, such as Chris Mathews, like politics to be something like a prize-fight, and they don't know what to make of Obama, who doesn't like to play it that way. So they stretch things to fit the story they want to tell, rather than telling the story as it actually is. But I don't think the comparison to Dukakis works, even if the media here is getting the reason wrong. Obama isn't abstracted from the real world situation, or emotionally detached from it. He's merely controlled in his responses, not wanting to inflame issues that are already emotional enough. But the media doesn't know how to describe that, so they use the little boxes they already have. This merely adds to Obama's "mystique", however, because he clearly doesn't fit in those boxes. ANd it makes it hard for Republicans to effectively criticize him, because they too are trying to fit him into boxes, like the Jimmy Carter Box, the Dukakis Box, etc, that just don't effectively describe him. I don't think Obama is dissembling for that purpose, he's just being true to his own sense of things, it's just that there's no ready made "box" to fit that into, and thus the narrative of the media is confounded. I think this helps explain why, in spite of Obama being something of a media favorite during the primaries, coverage tended to fixate almost exclusively on Hillary. She's an easily defined character playing out a narrative the media can easily put into a box. Obama's a phenomena they haven't figured out yet. That's also why they only criticism of Obama that seems to work is the "we don't know anything about this guy yet". It isn't actually true that we know less about Obama than other candidates, it's that the media hasn't yet figured out what box to put him in, which is how they "know" people. The media is a simplistic beast, and if you don't fit into their narrative, you are "unknown", regardless of how much is actually out there. I think this is an example of how many in the media want Obama to be a populist hell-raiser, when he’s anything but. Many of the pundits, such as Chris Mathews, like politics to be something like a prize-fight, and they don’t know what to make of Obama, who doesn’t like to play it that way. So they stretch things to fit the story they want to tell, rather than telling the story as it actually is. But I don’t think the comparison to Dukakis works, even if the media here is getting the reason wrong. Obama isn’t abstracted from the real world situation, or emotionally detached from it. He’s merely controlled in his responses, not wanting to inflame issues that are already emotional enough. But the media doesn’t know how to describe that, so they use the little boxes they already have. This merely adds to Obama’s “mystique”, however, because he clearly doesn’t fit in those boxes. ANd it makes it hard for Republicans to effectively criticize him, because they too are trying to fit him into boxes, like the Jimmy Carter Box, the Dukakis Box, etc, that just don’t effectively describe him. I don’t think Obama is dissembling for that purpose, he’s just being true to his own sense of things, it’s just that there’s no ready made “box” to fit that into, and thus the narrative of the media is confounded. I think this helps explain why, in spite of Obama being something of a media favorite during the primaries, coverage tended to fixate almost exclusively on Hillary. She’s an easily defined character playing out a narrative the media can easily put into a box. Obama’s a phenomena they haven’t figured out yet. That’s also why they only criticism of Obama that seems to work is the “we don’t know anything about this guy yet”. It isn’t actually true that we know less about Obama than other candidates, it’s that the media hasn’t yet figured out what box to put him in, which is how they “know” people. The media is a simplistic beast, and if you don’t fit into their narrative, you are “unknown”, regardless of how much is actually out there.

]]>