Campaign Desk

Obama Sells His Narrative

Press knew he would win big, but still treated it as HUGE NEWS

• Print
• Email
• Comments
• Single page

The accolades for Obama couldn’t have scaled higher heights last night. At one point on CNN, Donna Brazile pronounced him “a metaphysical force in American politics.” Praise was heaped upon praise, and it’s no wonder. As the race has narrowed, it’s impossible not to be struck by the contrast between an Obama speech and the geriatric grumblings of McCain or Clinton’s forced smiles. And last night did prove a kind of breakthrough for the Illinois senator. He beat Clinton in every major demographic and only barely lost among white women and older people. He even won the Latino vote.

But what you had to be impressed with, even more than his margin of victory, or the speech and the monstrously huge crowds that came out to hear it, was how triumphantly he prevailed in the battle of the narratives.

As soon as Super Duper Tuesday turned into Normal Everyday Wednesday, the conventional wisdom going forward was that Obama was going to sweep through the next month with a series of wins. The way the calendar was configured, the states holding contests were just demographically more favorable to him, heavy with the demographics that comprise his base.

If you don’t believe me, look at what the blogs were saying. This was Noam Scheiber at The Plank at around one in the morning last Tuesday, a few hour after the polls closed:

…I figured I should just say a few words about what’s likely to happen in the coming weeks, and why a lot of us think it favors Obama. The next round of contests, slated for Saturday, includes Louisiana, Washington state, Nebraska, and the Virgin Islands. Louisiana is going to be nearly 50 percent African American, Nebraska and Washington are caucuses, which Obama dominated tonight, and the Virgin Islands are the Virgin Islands. (Though, if I must, I think people give Obama the advantage there for demographic reasons, too.) The next day is Maine, also a caucus, and then one week from last night is Virginia, Maryland, DC—all expected to favor Obama demographically. The Tuesday after that brings Hawaii—Obama’s native state—and Wisconsin, which should also be friendly territory for Obama…. Between his near-certain money advantage, the momentum he’ll pick up from the intervening contests, and the fact that he tends to do pretty well in states where he has time to campaign, I think you have to give him the overall edge going forward.

I found dozens of other examples of pundits and savvy bloggers expressing exactly the same sentiment: Obama was going to rack up win after win in the next month.

Hillary Clinton’s people tried to actually work with this reality by spinning it as a foregone conclusion. The story they wanted told was that these were easy and obvious wins for Obama, and so we shouldn’t really make a big deal out of them. Meanwhile, Obama’s people were trying to tamp down expectations that he would do so well, hoping that it would be played big when he did.

Well, you can judge for yourself this morning who won in this narrative battle. It’s clear from all the headlines with the words “surge” and “sweep,” not to mention the New York Post’s reliably histrionic, “WHAM BAM,” that Obama got the better of Clinton on this critical front. It’s true his margin was impressive and indicated a potentially expanding base of support, but the breathlessness with which it was all reported didn’t quite capture how predictable it was—and had been—that he would do well in these three states. Bias? Not really. More like the desire to tell a good story, I think. Who doesn’t love a winner?

CJR

If you enjoy this kind of press criticism please consider a subscription to our magazine, Columbia Journalism Review—a deal via the Web site at $19.95.

To subscribe, to give CJR as a gift, to renew, or to check student and CJR in the Classroom rates, click here.

Comments

Bob Matsuoka

Wed 13 Feb 2008 05:48 PM

While I'm sure Obama's team did do a better job of narrative prep (as they have in just about every other area of the campaign), I'm not sure how much credit they deserve for this. I'd attribute the MSM response to (1) their need to pump excitement into anything they report -- "Obama does as expected!!!" wouldn't make a very compelling headline, and (2) the depth and breadth of his victories, which weren't expected. Remember, the Clinton camp did expend some effort into Va., and still got shellaked. Obama's demographic gains post 2/5 were also significant, and newsworthy. That and Clinton's staffing changes were the biggest stories of note after the primaries, so of course the MSM reported them to death...

padikiller

Tue 19 Feb 2008 12:23 AM

When some obscure doctor came up with unsubstantiated accusations that Sen. George Allen made racist remarks thirty years ago... The MSM and CJR were tripping over themselves to tank his reelection to the Senate... (Not to mention Paul McLeary's "blockbuster" story of the outing of Allen's "jewishness")

And this was merely a Senatorial election.

But a specific individual (Larry Sinclair) has publicly accused Obama for the last month (in a YouTube video that has been watched hundreds of thousands of times) of exchanging gay sex for crack concaine in two specific places (a limo and in a specific hotel) on two specific occasions in 1999... And not a peep about it in MSM or here on CJR... We don't see a horde of fledgling "professional journalists" beating the streets on this story...

Now, you let the MSM get caught with its hand in the cookie jar (a la Rathergate) and CJR has one of its "watchdogs" on the first plane to Texas in a quixotic search of mythogical typewriters to vindicate the offending cookie snatchers...

But specific allegations against a rising Dem?... Hands off!..

Go figure...

It almost seems like some sort of a bias thing might me going on...

You think?

AhmNee

Thu 21 Feb 2008 11:43 AM

What the hell are you blathering about now, Padi? Did you forget to read the article before flying off into your flight of fancy? Or have you simply forgotten what 'on topic' even looks like?

padikiller

Thu 21 Feb 2008 07:40 PM

Do you ever do anything but stalk me here, AhmNee?..

My comments are pertinent.. Obama is indeed able to "sell" his line to an MSM that is tripping over itself to buy it.

And while the MSM has no problem trashing McCain with some fabricated non-scandal based on anonymous innuendo, it utterly ignores a specific public claim from a named individual that Obama engaged in a homosexual tryst with a drug buddy in 1999.

But there's no bias, of course...

AhmNee

Thu 20 Mar 2008 01:42 AM

Pertinent to what? Not this article.

They say you're not really famous until you have your first stalker, Padi.

Keep waiting, you're not famous yet. I'm not stalking you. I just find your tirades amusing. It's only a matter of time then till you make a fool of yourself. That's the payout, really. Seeing you fall on your face trying to make another ridiculous argument.

Your type of fanaticism is the same type you decry in others. It's almost religious, one might say. You must swim daily in a sea of self loathing.

I'm sorry, go on. You were saying how these comments were pertinent to this article ...