05
Mar
Working the Refs
There’s a clever, effective technique often employed by coaches in the National Basketball Association, used to gain a subtle but demonstrable edge in close games, known as “working the refs.” In essence, it involves endless and bitter complaints about your opponents’ supposed advantages — to your own future advantage. Aggressively contesting every foul and infraction assessed to your side, no matter how deserved it may have been, and in the end, the unmitigated barrage may result in a psychological reaction on the part of the referees, who (being only human) then begin to feel that they have been unfairly calling the game. Striving for impartiality, they soon begin to subconsciously ‘adjust’ their control of the game so as to correct any prior ‘imbalance’ that may have resulted from their previous calls.
Hillary won this week by working the refs.
By constantly complaining about coverage, and relentlessly focusing on charges that the news media has favored Barack Obama and treated him far more gently than herself, Hillary was finally able to staunch the bleeding and stage a desperately needed, last minute comeback that will keep her in the game. By mocking the media, quoting Saturday Night Live, and “practically browbeating reporters,” her campaign lived to fight another day.
And fight is the operative word. Going negative against the media, as well as her opponent, saved the day for the Clintons. For the first time, Senator Obama seemed off his game instead of on top of it, and on the defensive instead of in command, allowing his own, previously potent narrative to be eclipsed by Hillary’s. The Obama camp’s surprise was telegraphed on Tuesday by the candidate himself when he told reporters, “I am a little surprised that all the complaining about the refs has actually worked as well as it has for them. This whole spin of how the press has been so tough on them and not tough on us – I didn’t expect that you guys would bite on that.”
Obama is nothing if not a quick learner, of course, as evidenced by his closing remark, “Clearly, Tina Fey and I are going to have a conversation.” Obama’s joking reference to the SNL host whose skits had the press all but plumping pillows for him was a clear signal that, however belatedly, his team is about to begin berating the referees as well. But the damage has already been done, and the game is headed into overtime now.
For its part, the Clinton campaign – having accomplished its goal of influencing the coverage – has now stepped back and shifted to a rather laughable posture of not commenting on press coverage. “With regard to the media, I frankly don’t find it productive to comment,” said Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson, who had spent most of the previous week doing precisely that. “I’m clearly not an unbiased source in this regard.”
Clearly. What’s also clear is that aggressive complaints against the media, coupled with negative attacks on her opponent, brought Hillary back from the grave. If history is any guide, the Clintons will continue their aggressive battle to regain the White House “until the last dog dies.” What’s also obvious is that the attacks and negativity will only continue and escalate on both sides from here on.
From the Clinton campaign, look for more innuendo, more sotto voce suggestions about inexperience and naiveté, more questions about everything and everyone from Antoin Rezko to Louis Farrakhan. From the Obama campaign, look for harsher examination of everything from the Clinton’s newfound wealth and still-concealed tax records to her votes in support of a war that continues to kill Americans and drain our treasury. Both sides are obviously preparing a fresh avalanche of accusations and attacks.
While ‘spinning’ the latest primary results for the press, for example, chief Obama strategist David Axelrod first noted the Clinton approach of “attack, attack, attack” and then promised to respond soon in kind. “What’s good for the goose is good for the gander,” Axelrod concluded.
In the process, however, Democrats can only hope that their collective goose doesn’t get cooked by the endless assaults on their two remaining candidates — one of whom apparently will still be standing unbowed but quite bloodied – to face John McCain in November’s general election. If the Democratic gaggle of geese morphs into a murder of crows, McCain will be the clear beneficiary.
But before contesting the general election, one must somehow, someway, first win the increasingly bitter race for the nomination. To inject a final sports reference, the only thing that matters in politics is if you “Just win, baby,” as the National Football League great Al Davis once eloquently phrased it.
And if that means ‘going negative’ proves to be the most effective tactic – whether used directly against your opponent, or more insidiously against the refs – then that’s what we’ll see from both the Obama and Clinton campaigns, no matter how distasteful the rest of us may find it.
EVERYONE WORKS THE REFS. I BET IF YOU HAD DAVID AXELROD’S CALENDAR YOU WOULD SEE HIM DINING WITH JOURNALISTS CONTINUOUSLY.
EVERYONE WORKS THE REFS
March 5th, 2008 at 11:31 amTaking a quote (Obama won’t mind because he is free to use other people’s words) from MediaMail - and crediting the author:
March 5th, 2008 at 1:36 pmPosted on 04 Mar 2008 at 7:15 pm by “Tommye J. Winkley
John Q. Public, unless you are an Obama supportor, also believes the press, both print and TV, have failed the US public. You have caricatured one candidate about her hair, her ankles, her laugh, her voice, her marriage–all personal attacks that are subjective and more reflective of a still backward and dysfunctional society that believes women can be demeaned. You could have done the same with Mr. Obama’s big ears, skinny body, stuttering when not repeating a rehersed, memorized speech, muffled voice, and public blowing of his nose. If you engage in this type of coverage, it should be across the board. Since you are not covering facts or disseminating objective information with which the public can make an informed decision, I find it difficult to place my belief in the Fourth Rail of Democracy, the free press. This woman commands respect. If you cannot respect her because you have a mother complex or you do not like her, you need to treat her with respect because a huge number of Americans who are making this race so close respect her and by disrespecting her, you disrespect all of us. Thusly, having pissed off 1/2 of the population, what worth or credibility do you have in
“reporting” anything? You have turned your once noble profession into a third rate Public Relations Firm.”
Now my own words: It is a breath of fresh air to read other than bashing of Senator Clinton. Have you noticed it is the majority of good-old-boy establishment in Washingonton backing Obama? I for one hope Senator Clinton keeps working the refs until they start focusing on the issues, not sex and how one laughs.
Hillary will weasle her way into it one way or the other. First she cried now she works the refs…………i can still picture her on the today show back when her husband was President telling everyone that it was a right wing conspiracy. NO! it was her husband disgracing the highest office in the USA.
March 5th, 2008 at 3:05 pmAnna seems to dislike Senator Clinton but does not state any real reason as to her policy plans or actions while in the United States Senate. But she feels she can blame the wife for a husband’s sexual misbehavior. If Anna is married, will she accept all the mistakes and bad decisions of her husband? I think not. Mrs. Clinton practiced Family Values when she decided to keep her family together, unlike Newt, et.al. If one wants to think about disgracing the highest office, or even lower public held offices, one only has to look at this administration. The secrecy of Bush and Cheney will someday be told and we all will pray for our country to survive it all.
March 5th, 2008 at 3:30 pmThat vast right-wing conspiracy exists! What Bill Clinton did was no worse than what John Kennedy did, or FDR (whose mistress lived in the White House). The press didn’t think that was “news” then. Now we are fed infotainment by a media owned and operated by a half dozen rich white men with right sided leanings. How appropriate was it for the media to print all those unpleasant words about Bill Clinton when the precedent had always been to keep personal matters out of public eye?
March 5th, 2008 at 3:45 pmHillary Clinton hasn’t been pilloried by the press for sexual encounters. No, she has been painted with the broad brush of guilt by association, just as Obama has been “included” in every story about Rezko.
They all work the refs, they all sling mud whenever and wherever they can. However, this time, Obama has managed to stay above the fray until last week. It’s sad to see how his being put on the defensive really threw him off his message. It’s doubly sad to see how he’s probably going to have to lower his standards to HRC’s and the M$M’s in order to keep from getting steamrolled over innuendo and supposition.
March 5th, 2008 at 4:15 pmIt’s time for the media to look at Obama for what he is, a man barely out of the Illinois statehouse, running for the most powerful office in the world. Do I think my state representative is qualified to be president? No — and neither is Obama. If he wasn’t African American, he wouldn’t even be in the running. Come on - Senator Clinton is the best candidate for the job and we all know it! “Working the refs?” — no, the Clinton supporters are finally speaking up for our candidate, and we’re not going to let the media get away with it any more.
March 5th, 2008 at 4:37 pm“It’s time for the media to look at …for what he is, a man barely out of the Illinois statehouse, running for the most powerful office in the world.” Quit criticizing Abe Lincoln! He was one of the best presidents we’ve ever had. Fortunately he beat the “most experienced” candidate. BTW: wasn’t he quite tall and quite an orator?
“Senator Clinton is the best candidate for the job and we all know it!” What an insult. I know that anyone who thinks I am that ignorant is beyond contempt.
Clintonistas have learned the Rovian, Luntz, & Ginrich tactics quite well. And I find those tactics disgusting.
This morning on Fox,Hillary was doing to Karl what she wouldn’t do to Bill.
March 5th, 2008 at 5:06 pmHillary did things for Wal-Mart, Monsanto and other corporations in her law firm days that would crush her “people” if they knew. Hillary is a Republican so that is why the MSM backs her and whether McCain or Hillary wins the corporate and MSM interests still win. While “we the people..” keep losing.
March 5th, 2008 at 5:07 pmClinton is not my preferred candidate for the nomination, but I’m afraid I disagree with Rory O’Connor on this one: she’s been unfavourably treated by many in the mainstream media and has every right to complain about it.
Of course, if Obama thought this one through he’d publicly agree with her and echo her complaints about the way she’s been treated. That’d perhaps get the message through to the bozoes in the media that we the public are fed up with their democracy-corrupting antics while at the same time nullifying any poll advantage Clinton may be seeking to exploit . . .
March 5th, 2008 at 5:59 pmImagine our surprise. Both candidates actually want this thankless and crushing job and intend to win the nomination of their party along with the election this November.
No one in the news media has yet latched onto the angle that both of these citizens are too smart, too well-prepared and too vested with sound judgment, to be a good fit as President.
The danger they present to the nation is that they may actually intend to restore sane values and fair policies to federal governance. Who needs those?
The real story in play is that some citizens emphatically do not, and their intent is that such reform never happens.
yet, too many in the commentariat seem not to get it. Much of the commentary says more about the limitations of the writers and talkers than about the abilities and vision of their subjects.
The whole point of this extended and sloppily designed process, after all, is to choose the leader who can best help us clean up the mess we’ve enabled.
No one should have to “badger” the news community to accord the candidates and the process the respect and high seriousness that it merits. Doing so consistently and fairly would be a major service in the public good.
Imagine that.
March 5th, 2008 at 6:02 pmHopefully everyone is aware that the mainstream media cannot be trusted to inform us as to what the issues & records of the candidates are. This is the same media that helped lead us into Iraq with so many lies, exaggerations & distortions, has refused to take responsibility for doing so and refuses to hold the Bush regime responsible. The same media that helped give the election to Bush in Florida. Wake up people, or we’ll end up with McCain.
March 6th, 2008 at 12:29 amI have nothing but contempt for people like Mark McKinnon. Hillary “is” constantly attacked in media, ironically, by people like McKinnon. Now he comes to us with his insufferable and juvenile fantasies against Hillary, and “tells” us what to believe about her. When Hillary uses positive campaigning against Obama, she’s faulted for failing to deal him a “fatal blow,” by the same media hypocrites who, like McKinnon, will tell us, that if she uses negative campaigning, it delegitimizes her. Is anyone stupid enough to fall for McKinnon’s transparent right-wing inspired attacks on Hillary?
March 6th, 2008 at 3:42 amIn most blogs the civility advice is to attack ideas, not people. If the press and the candidates would stay focused on the issues instead of personalities, no one would have to work the refs.
We’re either going to have a young black man, a middle-aged white woman, or an elderly white man in the White House. Isn’t it time for us to get to the basic policy and philosophical differences between these candidates, putting aside all the subtle race, gender and age attacks?
March 6th, 2008 at 9:50 amCarol H is an uninformed feminist asswipe. Rodham stayed with the slick one not for “family values” but for one reason only: Her own political career. She is a MURDERER, and a fat ugly bull dyke bitch.
March 6th, 2008 at 10:51 amI personally would like the media to use neutral language and just report what was said and not their interpretation.
March 6th, 2008 at 1:54 pmThis would go a long way to equalize the coverage.
I apologize to Carol H for the unkind, nasty words……………..It’s just that I dispise Clinton so much that it makes my stomach churn just thinking of what they have gotten away with, and that the “brilliant” woman whom FAILED the bar could actually be the next president. It’s just about the saddest state of affairs as I could have ever imagined. SERIOUSLY. But I am sorry to have taken it out on Carol H.
March 6th, 2008 at 2:51 pmTerri, Thank you for your advice on civility–and Jay, thank you for apologizing. I was about to delete your previous post because I do not encourage or allow personal attacks or inappropriate language in my comments section!
March 6th, 2008 at 3:49 pmSadly, Jay’s comments are not unusual. One expects to find such vitriolic discourse on right-wing blogs, but it has been depressing to discover the same sort of attitudes on more liberal sites. It is as if the entire “world” has absorbed the right-wing narrative regarding the Clintons. Are we all that malleable?!
Senator Clinton’s campaign was right to point out the media bias with which she has had to contend. I have not found the Clinton campaign any more negative than that of the Obama campaign. Many of the worst accusations re negative campaigning are based on false interpretations of racism, as the most potent example.
And, by the way, Hillary Clinton is NOT Bill Clinton.
March 7th, 2008 at 10:08 amI think CAROL H has said it best! And yes for katyfitz for saying HILLARY CLINTON IS NOT bill clinton.
March 8th, 2008 at 2:09 amJay’s apology helps to think he is not entirely a mean person - just like many who have an inane hatred toward certain people and have no reasonable reasons to hate…just like the ones who say hateful things about Bush. People like Jay have no idea what I’ve done, or experienced, throughout my life. Nor does he know exactly what Senator Clinton has experienced throughout her life. He made the comment that she failed the ‘bar’….which is not a fact…she passed the attorney’s bar and has her attorney’s license. She has worked tirelessly for disavantaged children…and other worthwhile causes. To spread hateful words that have no true basis, whether it is about me or other people like Hillary Clinton, shows an immature mind that never questions, never researches the facts, and does a disservice to yourself and all Americans - who, in the vast majority, want what is best for our country.
March 8th, 2008 at 10:55 amClinton and her campaign have shown great restraint in criticizing both the biased media coverage AND Barack Obama.
They should have said something a lot sooner about the media’s biased coverage. It is simply ridiculous, especially given McKinnon’s own definition of “working the refs,” that Hillary and her campaign were doing that. They mentioned a few times that there seemed to be biased coverage. That is nowhere near “endless and bitter complaints about your opponents’ supposed advantages… Aggressively contesting every foul and infraction… [an] unmitigated barrage…”
And, contrary to what we hear from the commentariat sheep and the blind followers of Obama, he is the one who has been using Rovian tactics against Hillary for months. Just because he SAYS he’s staying above the frey doesn’t mean that he is doing so (a Rovian/Republican tactic all by itself). From his personal, dismissive and arrogant treatment of Hillary (”She’s likable enough” — just ONE example), to all of the half-truths and outright lies he uses against her, often delivered with similar arrogance, he is displaying his careful study and adaptation of the Republican/Rovian Method. The media have totally given him a pass on these actions.
McKinnon uses the “attack” language about Hillary that a lot of the blind followers are using, when in reality, Hillary hasn’t criticized Obama ENOUGH. What is laughable is McKinnon’s characterization of the Clinton campaign’s few mild comments about press bias and justified criticisms of a political opponent as “aggressive complaints against the media, coupled with negative attacks on her opponent…” I’m guessing that McKinnon’s assessments come from the prevailing attitude that turns any assertiveness, strategic action, or political savvy on the part of a woman into bithchiness, meanness, and conniving. That, and he has apparently swallowed all the Republican spin and real attacks over the years about the Clintons.
March 9th, 2008 at 5:31 pmOops! I goofed in the post above. I thought, because of the headline about Mark McKinnon at the top of this column, that Mark McKinnon had written the column about working the refs. The Mark McKinnon reference looked sort of like a by-line to me. I see now that it was Rory O’Connor who wrote about working the refs. So each time I wrote “McKinnon” above, it should have said “O’Connor”.
March 12th, 2008 at 12:10 pm