I remember back in 2002 and early 2003, as the establishment pundits and Beltway media gatekeepers sized up the Democratic candidates, the blogosphere felt like a much smaller place. From time to time a ragtag group of supporters would generate some emails to a reporter, or a blog post about the coverage would get linked widely, but the larger media zeitgeist was at that time still an exclusive province for traditional reporters and pundits.
This time, it's a whole different story. It's been astonishing to watch the TPM crew, Greenwald, Media Matters and other people and places react quickly on behalf of not only one candidate but all the Democratic candidates as the inside-the-Beltway punditocracy manufactures conventional wisdom. When the insider crew starts parroting narrative threads that are not-factual at best and derived straight from GOP talking points at worst, there's an infrastructure of watchdogs in place to push back.
On that theme, I wanted to share the post below because it captures a glimpse of the growth of the progressive movement's reach in combating the kind of insular, glib narrative-manufacturing process that pollutes coverage of the presidential race.
Our new blogger at Obama HQ, Sam Graham-Felsen, takes on the nonsense:
Millions of Americans are responding to Barack Obama's call for a new politics. Millions of Americans see something profound in Barack's message of civic renewal. And already, tens of thousands of them across the country are spending their evenings, weekends, and spare minutes to help Barack become the next president. Already, over 73,000 people have contributed to this campaign. As Jerome Armstrong puts it, "the number is absolutely astounding."
This week, I’ve been profiling some of these supporters—real people with real stories, deep-rooted hopes, and genuine belief in this campaign.
People like N’ell Jones, a 30-year-old single mother from Little Rock, Arkansas, who decided to get involved in this campaign because she believes Barack will significantly improve her daughter Kaya’s life.
People who have decided to engage in the process for the first time in years, like Randy Larson of Iowa City, Iowa, who believes that "this is a once in a generation chance to elect somebody who has the experience that’s actually important to be president."
People who are getting involved in electoral politics for the first time, like Reese Thornber. "Some in the older generation," says Reese, "are more willing to accept politics as usual... but this generation finds fault with that logic-- we see no reason why there can't be a change."
Unfortunately, some in the Washington media establishment seem to be spooked by this groundswell of support. They don't understand a candidate who doesn't speak the language of Washington, with its increasingly meaningless focus-grouped phrases and glib applause lines. They're confused by a political leader who wants to use a national campaign for president to have a dialog with the American people about the best ways to address our common problems.
But most of all, they're uncomfortable with a campaign that that sustains itself and continues to grow because of passion, interest and commitment from normal Americans who aren't part of the conventional-wisdom machine in D.C.
Their response? Another round of the tired, old "style versus substance" narrative that fails to capture what's really happening.
Take this piece from the Politico or this column from today's Washington Post.
Or better yet, this AP report:
The voices are growing louder asking the question: Is Barack Obama all style and little substance? The freshman Illinois senator began his campaign facing the perception that he lacks the experience to be president, especially compared to rivals with decades of work on foreign and domestic policy. So far, he's done little to challenge it. He's delivered no policy speeches and provided few details about how he would lead the country.
Fortunately, media watchdogs like Greg Sargent of TPM Café are refusing to let stories like this go unquestioned:
But wait -- no policy speeches since the campaign started? What about this speech on March 21? What about this one on March 2? Those are both foreign policy speeches -- or doesn't that count?
Here's a speech calling for universal health care on January 25. Obama announced his exploratory committee on January 16.
Sargent also reports that -- surprise! -- the Republican National Committee is cutting and pasting the misleading AP "analysis" piece to all of its contacts.
Glenn Greenwald's take hits home as well:
Obama's vocal opposition to the rotted cynicism that plagues our political discourse and drives our dysfunctional Beltway system is substantive. It is arguably the most important issue we face. Yet the jaded Beltway media, precisely because it is drowning in the very cynicism that Obama is criticizing, will never see that issue as anything other than empty cosmetics.
Indeed, Barack's two books arguably offer more on-the-record substance than any other public figure in recent memory. He's lived abroad and understands that America's leadership in the world depends on more than tough talk and self-righteousness. He spent years of his life working as a community organizer in the South Side of Chicago, working with real people and making real impact in their daily lives.
We believe in Barack because we know that the kind of experience our country needs comes from places beyond the Beltway.
Folks in the media can continue to try and analyze this campaign through a traditional, politics-as-usual lens—but this campaign is not, and will never be, a traditional campaign, and Barack Obama will never be a traditional candidate.