ABC News: Obama ‘Bout Ta Pop a Cap in Jeff Zeleny’s Azz!

by matttbastard

Last night on Political Radar, Sunlen Miller of ABC  News breathlessly recounted a “testy” exchange between Barack Obama and NY Times reporter Jeff Zeleny re: Bill Clinton’s recent attempts at race baiting aggressive campaigning on behalf of Senator Clinton:

“I am trying to make sure that his statements by [President Clinton] are answered. Don’t you think that’s important?” Obama shot back, while walking away.

When Zeleny yelled a follow up question suggesting the Illinois senator had not answered the question, Obama fired back angrily, “Don’t try cheap stunts like that.”

Obama then walked away and shook hands with the mass of voters that surrounded him.

A few minutes later, Obama came back and confronted Zeleny again.

“I will answer your question though off the record, would you like to talk off the record?” Obama asked. Zeleny refused to go off the record and then motioned toward the gaggle of TV cameras gathered around him.

“Shot back.”

“Fired back angrily.”

“Confronted Zeleny.”

Shit, Poindexter was damn lucky BHO didn’t go all OJ on his Wonderbread behind!

Er, not so much:

Ok, to recap the Official Beltway Narrative: poor Jeff Zeleny bravely faced the wrath of The Angry Black Man, (leather) gloves off stylez, bwoi! 

Billary betta pray Baby Bam ain’t strapped in S.C this Saturday.


Sweet Jesus, I hate teh MSM.

 (Wow, I’ve been channelling Melissa McEwan quite a bit lately. Hope she don’t get all litigious on my angry negro booty.)

Recommend this post at Progressive Bloggers

10 thoughts on “ABC News: Obama ‘Bout Ta Pop a Cap in Jeff Zeleny’s Azz!

  1. Yeah, I don’t know what Zeleny’s talking about. I read that ABC blog this morning, and totally fell for it–got all geared up to watch Obama tear Zeleny a new one and…*wilt* nada. Zip. The guy barely lost his stride. If anything, he just has that tad ‘ADHD’ look that all the candidates have right now, as they gladhand around everywhere. Much ado about nothing.

    I tellsya, the MSM is starving to make stories about anything these days. Wait…except those pesky wars they’ve got goin’ on. Covering campaign non-events is definitely cheaper, eh?

    Public Enemy w00t! Can’t truss this!


  2. Yup. Throughout all this, members of the media have been reinforcing age-old stereotypes; there was no escaping racial and gender identity for HRC and Obama.

    Branding Obama the “black” candidate was never to Obama’s advantage. “Post-racial”/”post-partisan” safe as (white) milk: that was the winning ticket in Iowa; hell, they were obviously courting Independents/moderate Republicans in Nevada with Obama’s neutral (not positive, not negative–neutral) statements re: Reagan and the subsequent Republican revolution (a tactical error which, IMO, allowed the Clinton campaign to run to the left of Obama, while deflecting attention from the fact that Bill essentially wrote the manual on DLC Third Way bullshit–he was post-partisan before the phrase ever entered into Sully’s Bell Curve-lovin’ imagination).

    Injecting race into the campaign serves to marginalize Obama from the base he has courted from the start of his run: young people who think that race is no longer an issue; middle class white folk who don’t like “politics”, looking for something “positive”; the myth of hope and transformation, comfortable illusions that Reagan rode to victory twice.

    Conversely, you have Clinton race-baiting with impunity, which alienates a core constituency, Black Democratic voters. And her advisers were all too quick to “soften” her image, despite for months girding her profile in anticipation of a GE national security showdown with Rudy Giuliani (talk about a fall from grace…)

    Personally? I think there were just too many members of the MSM who have long been itching for a race v. gender battle, egging each side on until, strategically, it was damn near impossible to avoid going negative (see Jesse Jackson Jr going on about HRC “crying” in NH; Bob Johnson and “guess who’s coming to dinner” etc etc et-effing-c). Race and gender are hot button issues; nuanced policy differences, not so much. The flames have been eagerly fanned by a corporate media run by suits who are solely interested in pulling ratings and selling copy.

    Shit, just look at how Monday night gave so many fucking beltway bozos a meth rush (better than fucking, y0). And since each campaign is now all-too willing to take advantage of (false) media-conceived talking points as weapons to be used against each other, there’s no incentive for members of the media to change the race and gender narrative.

    What this proves is that, contra the wishful thinking of the mushy middle, race and gender are still unresolved issues in 2008; they are real issues that are now being trivialized by talentless hacks who’d rather go for the *ahem* cheap shot than stimulate a frank, nuanced (inter)national discussion. Of course, both candidates could have started the discussion on their own terms, if there hadn’t been the (unspoken) squick re: so-called “identity politics” (post-everything FTW!)

    Now the peanut gallery is dictating the discourse of this primary campaign, just like they did in 2000, just like they did in 2004. And all the while they keep shamelessly fluffing their main man, McCain, while for the most part ignoring the fact that the GOP field is in shambles, with many Republicans planning on staying home come November. Which, IMO, is a much bigger story than the continuing Hillary/Barack soap opera–but I’m a nerdy poli-sci wonk, so what the fuck do I know?

    Blood sells, full fucking stop.

    Don’t believe the hype.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s