Wednesday, January 13, 2016
The press, feeling the Bern, suddenly weighs whether Sanders could derail Hillary
One of the goals of President Obama’s State of the
Union last night was to emphasize liberal issues, such as gun control,
that could ease Hillary Clinton’s path to the White House.
But first she’s got to win the Democratic nomination, and for the first time in this contest, the mainstream media are considering the possibility that this isn’t a slam dunk.
The media’s conventional wisdom has long been that Hillary might stumble in an early state or two, but she was still a virtual lock to be the nominee. But suddenly the punditry, fueled by recent polls, is starting to shift, with news organizations now at least considering the possibility that this is a real race.
The Bernie phenomenon, overshadowed by the Trump phenomenon, hasn’t really gotten its full due in the media. And Bernie agrees, having recently ripped the corporate media for giving his campaign a tiny fraction of the attention that The Donald gets.
He has a point. Although Sanders has been on the cover of Time, the press has largely underplayed the fact that he’s drawing huge crowds, raised $73 million last year and is exciting the liberal grass roots. And the reason is simple: Virtually no one in the punditry universe believes that Sanders can win the nomination.
But now come a spate of eye-catching polls. A new Monmouth survey has Sanders leading Clinton by 14 points in New Hampshire, on the heels of a Fox poll giving him a 13-point lead.
Well, the prognosticators have long expected that Sanders, from neighboring Vermont, would probably take New Hampshire. But now comes a Quinnipiac poll showing Sanders with a 5-point edge in Iowa.
Now it’s true that Clinton has a much bigger advantage as the contest moves to bigger states, where Sanders would not get many minority votes and her union backing would definitely help. But if the heavily favored Hillary Clinton goes 0 for 2 in the first two contests, would that create a media explosion and seriously wound her candidacy?
The Washington Post’s Chris Cillizza says that “would be a total nightmare for Clinton. Period. It’s also a lot more likely to go from fantasy to reality than most people — including most establishment Democrats — understand.”
That’s why Hillary has stopped treated Bernie as a nuisance and has sharpened her attacks. In an Iowa appearance, she said there is a “big difference on guns” between her and Sanders: “If you say stand up to special interests, then stand up to the gun lobby.”
And it’s hard to believe that Clinton’s proposal yesterday to slap a 4 percent income tax surcharge on those earning more than $5 million a year wasn’t influenced by Sanders’ soak-the-rich campaign.
Sanders, who has avoided attacking Clinton personally, has been pushing back, accusing her of running a “panicky” campaign.
Most journalists concluded that Sanders wasn’t serious after the first Democratic debate, when he took a key issue off the table by saying he was “sick” of hearing about her damn emails. The media have pretty much treated him like Larry David ever since.
Clinton is still the overwhelming favorite. But for the first time in many months, the press is questioning whether she might be derailed—and someone else drawn into the race. I’m sure it was just a coincidence that Joe Biden just said that Bernie, not Hillary, has long been fighting against income inequality.
Howard Kurtz is a Fox News analyst and the host of "MediaBuzz" (Sundays 11 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET). He is the author of five books and is based in Washington. Follow him at @HowardKurtz. Click here for more information on Howard Kurtz.
But first she’s got to win the Democratic nomination, and for the first time in this contest, the mainstream media are considering the possibility that this isn’t a slam dunk.
The media’s conventional wisdom has long been that Hillary might stumble in an early state or two, but she was still a virtual lock to be the nominee. But suddenly the punditry, fueled by recent polls, is starting to shift, with news organizations now at least considering the possibility that this is a real race.
The Bernie phenomenon, overshadowed by the Trump phenomenon, hasn’t really gotten its full due in the media. And Bernie agrees, having recently ripped the corporate media for giving his campaign a tiny fraction of the attention that The Donald gets.
He has a point. Although Sanders has been on the cover of Time, the press has largely underplayed the fact that he’s drawing huge crowds, raised $73 million last year and is exciting the liberal grass roots. And the reason is simple: Virtually no one in the punditry universe believes that Sanders can win the nomination.
But now come a spate of eye-catching polls. A new Monmouth survey has Sanders leading Clinton by 14 points in New Hampshire, on the heels of a Fox poll giving him a 13-point lead.
Well, the prognosticators have long expected that Sanders, from neighboring Vermont, would probably take New Hampshire. But now comes a Quinnipiac poll showing Sanders with a 5-point edge in Iowa.
Now it’s true that Clinton has a much bigger advantage as the contest moves to bigger states, where Sanders would not get many minority votes and her union backing would definitely help. But if the heavily favored Hillary Clinton goes 0 for 2 in the first two contests, would that create a media explosion and seriously wound her candidacy?
The Washington Post’s Chris Cillizza says that “would be a total nightmare for Clinton. Period. It’s also a lot more likely to go from fantasy to reality than most people — including most establishment Democrats — understand.”
That’s why Hillary has stopped treated Bernie as a nuisance and has sharpened her attacks. In an Iowa appearance, she said there is a “big difference on guns” between her and Sanders: “If you say stand up to special interests, then stand up to the gun lobby.”
And it’s hard to believe that Clinton’s proposal yesterday to slap a 4 percent income tax surcharge on those earning more than $5 million a year wasn’t influenced by Sanders’ soak-the-rich campaign.
Sanders, who has avoided attacking Clinton personally, has been pushing back, accusing her of running a “panicky” campaign.
Most journalists concluded that Sanders wasn’t serious after the first Democratic debate, when he took a key issue off the table by saying he was “sick” of hearing about her damn emails. The media have pretty much treated him like Larry David ever since.
Clinton is still the overwhelming favorite. But for the first time in many months, the press is questioning whether she might be derailed—and someone else drawn into the race. I’m sure it was just a coincidence that Joe Biden just said that Bernie, not Hillary, has long been fighting against income inequality.
Howard Kurtz is a Fox News analyst and the host of "MediaBuzz" (Sundays 11 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET). He is the author of five books and is based in Washington. Follow him at @HowardKurtz. Click here for more information on Howard Kurtz.
In GOP response, Haley pans Obama presidency, makes case for a 'new direction'
South Carolina GOP Gov. Nikki Haley on Tuesday tried giving President Obama a swift goodbye after his final State of the Union address, saying he had failed to deliver on promises and that America will soon "have the chance to turn in a new direction."
“That’s what I want to talk about tonight,” said Haley, a rising GOP star picked to deliver the party’s official response to the presidential address. “If we held the White House, taxes would be lower for working families. And we’d put the brakes on runaway spending and debt.”
Haley -- increasingly mentioned as a potential vice presidential candidate -- pointed out that she is the daughter of Indian immigrants and suggested that a Republican administration would welcome new families and restore the American Dream.
“My story is really not much different from millions of other Americans',” she said from the statehouse in Columbia. “Immigrants have been coming to our shores for generations to live the dream that is America. … No one who is willing to work hard, abide by our laws and love our traditions should ever feel unwelcome in this country."
She also urged Americans to resist “the siren call of the angriest voices,” in the aftermath of recent terror attacks abroad and in the United States connected to Islamic radicals.
Haley, 43, argued that Obama appears “either unwilling or unable” to address the worst domestic terror threat since 9/11.
She also said the U.S. should welcome "properly vetted" legal immigrants but made clear that illegal immigration can no longer continue.
Unmoved by Obama’s promise Tuesday night to continue to try to fix the country’s immigration problems and his plea to embrace the “pace of change,” Haley argued Americans are “frustrated” by the slow process and the increased size of government during his nearly eight years as president.
Haley, who convincingly won a second term in 2014, has become increasingly popular in political circles for her leadership in the aftermath of the June 2015 shooting in Charleston, in which a white gunman killed nine black people inside an historic African-American church.
She called for the Confederate flag to be removed from the statehouse grounds, and in the immediate aftermath Haley helped maintain calm.
“We didn’t have violence, we had vigils. We didn’t have riots, we had hugs,” Haley said Tuesday. “We didn’t turn against each other’s race or religion. … We removed a symbol that was being used to divide us. And we found a strength that united us against a domestic terrorist and the hate that filled him.”
Haley, the state's first female governor, also said too many Americans during the Obama administration are still feeling the squeeze of an economy too weak to raise income levels, and she railed against ObamaCare, which she argued has made health insurance less affordable and doctors less available.
Still, Haley was unwilling to heap all of the blame on Obama and fellow Democrats.
“There is more than enough blame to go around,” she said. “We as Republicans need … to accept that we’ve played a role in how and why our government is broken. And then we need to fix it. … We have big decisions to make. Our country is being tested.”
Republican South Dakota Sen. John Thune said Obama in his address "clearly wanted to credit for the good things" over the past seven years.
"But I don't think it's going to make much of an impact on people or what's going on on Capitol Hill," he said.
Obama downplays ISIS threat, defends economic record in State of the Union
There's Something really wrong with this man.
“Over-the-top claims that this is World War III just play into their hands,” the president said, arguing that ISIS fighters “do not threaten our national existence.”
The remarks on ISIS are sure to rile Republican critics who say the president’s strategy for confronting the group is inadequate – particularly just hours after ISIS was blamed for another deadly attack, this time in Istanbul.
Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, one of the leading candidates for the GOP presidential nomination, tweeted afterward that the address was “less a State of the Union and more a state of denial.”
The backdrop of the address undeniably was election-year politics, though Obama is not on the ballot. Throughout the speech, the president took several implicit jabs at the GOP candidates competing for his job, and in doing so sought to shore up his own legacy.
His message to them seemed to be: The sky is not falling.
On the economy and on national security, Obama called the criticism “political hot air.” More broadly, the president sounded a call for “better politics” and bipartisanship, and cast the rancor directed at his administration’s policies as the product of an overheated political system.
“Let me tell you something, the United States of America is the most powerful nation on Earth. Period,” Obama said, to those who say America is getting weaker.
And to those who say the economy is just limping along, Obama countered: “Anyone claiming that America’s economy is in decline is peddling fiction.” He said America’s is the “most durable economy in the world” and one that has improved on his watch.
The defiant remarks were met with skepticism from Republicans in the audience. House Speaker Paul Ryan’s office said the “lofty platitudes” still did not explain how to defeat ISIS and get the economy back on track.
In the official GOP response, South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley challenged the president’s message on terror, saying the country is facing threats like few others in recent memory and the president is unwilling or unable to deal with it. At the same time, she urged Americans to avoid following the “angriest voices.”
On that, Haley and Obama had a common message. In his address, Obama returned repeatedly to a warning that the country faces a choice in a time of “extraordinary change” – between facing the future with “confidence” or with “fear.”
He decried politicians who “insult Muslims” or target people “because of race or religion,” an implicit reference to some of the comments made on the Republican campaign trail including from Donald Trump. And he made a reference to remarks from Cruz, saying the answer to threats “needs to be more than tough talk or calls to carpet bomb civilians.”
Cruz responded on Twitter, “We need a president who will defeat radical Islamic terrorism.”
But Obama delivered pointed remarks on the nature of the terror threat. He said the priority remains protecting the American people from terrorism, but went on to play down the ISIS problem.
“Masses of fighters on the back of pickup trucks, twisted souls plotting in apartments or garages, they pose an enormous danger to civilians. They have to be stopped. But they do not threaten our national existence,” Obama said. “That is the story ISIL wants to tell; that’s the kind of propaganda they use to recruit.”
He also dug in on what effectively is an administration policy of not referring to the terror threat as radical Islam. He urged against “echoing the lie that ISIL is somehow representative of one of the world’s largest religions,” and said: “We just need to call them what they are – killers and fanatics who have to be rooted out, hunted down, and destroyed.”
In a statement after the speech, House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Ed Royce, R-Calif., accused him of “pushing these growing threats to the next administration.”
The president from the start was by turns combative and casual, delivering an unconventional address that avoided a detailed to-do list. From the outset, he said he’d “go easy” on the laundry list of proposals – and focus more broadly “on our future.”
“For this final one, I’m going to try to make it a little shorter. I know some of you are antsy to get back to Iowa,” he joked.
He also began, and closed, his address with a call for bipartisan cooperation on key issues, saying Washington “might surprise the cynics.” On issues ranging from criminal justice reform to prescription drug abuse, Obama suggested both parties can find common ground.
The president delivered his seventh and final State of the Union address as he faces an invigorated opposition in both houses of Congress and the prospect of his policies becoming unraveled if a Republican wins the White House in November.
His administration, though, is still trying to deliver on promises made since his first inauguration – most notably, the vow to close the Guantanamo Bay prison camp.
He renewed that vow Tuesday, saying he will “keep working to shut down the prison at Guantanamo.”
“It is expensive, it is unnecessary, and it only serves as a recruitment brochure for our enemies,” he said, without saying whether he might resort to executive action to achieve his goal.
Despite vowing to avoid the to-do list, Obama did tick off several other final-year goals: including raising the minimum wage, doing more on gun control and pushing for free community college – a proposal left over from last year’s agenda. He also tapped Vice President Biden to lead “mission control” in a new national effort to research a cure for cancer.
Hanging over Tuesday’s address, aside from the terror attack in Istanbul, was yet another diplomatic dispute involving Iran -- as it emerged Iran was holding 10 U.S. Navy sailors after they apparently drifted into Iranian waters.
Obama did not address the dispute in the State of the Union, though Republicans pointed to the incident in renewing their concerns about the Iran nuclear deal.
Iran says it has released 10 US Navy sailors
Iran released the 10 U.S. Navy sailors who were detained after two Navy Riverine boats drifted into the Persian Gulf near an Iran Naval base, Iranian state media reported Wednesday.
The Iran Revolutionary Guard’s naval chief said earlier Wednesday that initial reports the sailors were to be released was “speculation,” adding that Iran’s foreign minister had demanded an apology from the U.S. for entering Iranian waters.
Gen. Ali Fadavi also told state TV Wednesday that the American boats showed "unprofessional acts" for 40 minutes before being picked up by Iranian forces.
"Certainly US presence in Persian Gulf and their passage has never been innocent and we do not deem their passage as innocent," Fadavi said, adding that Iran Foreign Minister Javad Zarif "had a firm stance (during a telephone conversation with U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry) on their presence in our territorial waters and said they should not have come and should apologize."
The incident came amid heightened tensions with Iran, and only hours before President Barack Obama gave his final State of the Union address to Congress and the public. Obama did not mention the sailors in his speech, which lasted approximately one hour.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
Tit for Tat ? ROCHESTER, N.Y. (AP) — A statue of abolitionist Frederick Douglass was ripped from its base in Rochester on the an...
-
What's the role of government? To one award-winning academic, it's discrimination according to race. On February 9th, Mic...
-
NEW YORK (AP) — As New York City faced one of its darkest days with the death toll from the coronavirus surging past 4,000 — more th...