I am reminded of the quote from A Few Good Men, where Tom Cruise as Lt. Kaffee confronts Jack Nicholson as Col. Jessep:
Jessep: I ordered Markinson to have Santiago transferred off the base immediately.
Kaffee: Why?
Jessep: I felt his life might be in danger once word of the letter got out.
Kaffee: Grave danger?
Jessep: Is there another kind?
Make no mistake. Sen. Obama is in grave danger.
Sen. Obama won the Wyoming caucus yesterday, although you would hardly know it from the MSM media today.
In one single day, Sen. Obama netted more delegates than he lost on March 4th, and helped claim the seat of disgraced former Speaker Dennis Hastert's seat. Both Saturday accomplishments serve as further evidence of Sen. Obama's ability to motivate and expand the Democratic Party to regions oft ignored and provide down-ticket support in otherwise hostile regions come November.
But that's not the narrative the media wants you to hear.
I knew Sen. Obama was in more trouble than many had previously thought when the CNN anchorwoman reported that the pledged delegate lead was still razor thin; coming in at under 100 (it was 99). It was a Freudian slip; she was citing one estimate including the unpledged superdelegates.
The MSNBC headline is a Newsweek pander piece on Hillary and her increasingly powerful and aggressive support from older white women by Clintophile Tina Brown, who like the object of her affection, can't decide between Hillary and John McCain. Apparently still reeling with guilt from question Sen. Clinton, MSNBC goes on to loft another perfectly timed hit piece from the elitist New York Times hammering home the meme that Sen. Obama never really did anything with his time in the Senate, albeit from more neutral authors.
My guess is these stories had been in the pipe since Tuesday, at least, when a bullied media was all too ready to declare a continuance to this race. The media wants the race to continue. That much is clear. It is in their best interest to have election night after election night coverage with Wolf Blitzer up in front of the big board. Their dislike of Clinton almost ended the race. Whatever would they do until summer? I don't think there are any young blonde girls that have gone missing recently. But the media are also cowards above all, and the growing fury at their bias towards Obama has put them in Macbeth protest too much mode, where two wrongs apparently now make a right.
Wait a second. Are you saying the media was biased towards Obama?
Yes and no. I believe that winning the media is a necessary (albeit insufficient) step towards winning the Presidency. What it takes to win the media changes from day to day, and the Obama campaign had been masterful at winning the media. I also believe the press has no love for Clinton going back to 1992. And really, who is to blame them? I believe that Obama had a stranglehold on media coverage through the Wisconsin primary, but then the media began to slip through his grip. They are dastardly like that. You think you have them one day, and they'll be gone the next. Unless your name is George W. Bush. I believe the shift is evident in the Gallup poll, which beings to see a reversion to levels of support indicative of the time before South Carolina after February 17 and again during the kitchen sink campaign of March. Fortunately for all us Obama supporters, he seems to be trending more positive again, although the media coverage remains in compensation mode.
But you are saying the media is biased!
Again, yes and no. I am saying that the media is what it is. It (and its bias) changes from day to day, and each day, we must accept the current situation and work to change it. We can sit around and cry about how unfairly the media is treating Obama all we want, but at the end of the day, Obama must win the media – whining from the blogosphere won't help. Obama must win news cycles after news cycle and keep the heat on Sen. Clinton.
But why did the media coverage turn away from Sen. Obama if not from Clitnon bullying and bias per se?
My hypothesis is that the media is echoing in part the sentiment of the American electorate. Being for hope and change and not a dirty Clinton has gotten Sen. Obama so far. In fact, it probably won him the nomination. The problem is, there is a perception of staleness in message out there. Old messages don't generate headlines. Moreover, Maureen Dowd, certainly no lover of Hillary, hits the nail on the head when claiming that the media wants a fighter as well. I extrapolate her hypothesis to Democrats wanting a fighter (and a lover).
Sen. Obama has capitalized on many mistakes that the Clinton campaign has made, probably winning him the nomination. He has had a hands down better campaign. And admittedly, Sen. Obama has a much harder time fighting Clinton, as he must temporarily take off his mantle of antiestablishment change to descend into the fight pit with her. I'm still confident he can throw her and her Rovian ways to the mat. Sen. Obama's attacks have been promising, but intermittent and ultimately not overriding. Dukakis, Gore, and Kerry are all too fresh in the minds of many as Democrats too afraid of their own shadow, feeling Americans were too smart to be swayed by aggression.
I have seen a troubling trend lately where the Obama campaign seems to be confident taking the moral high ground, relying on America's mathematical abilities, much as Gore and Kerry relied on America's intelligence to see George W. Bush for who and what he was. "She can't win!" claims the crowd here.
Yes, Sen. Clinton can win. More frightening than a Clinton victory is that her only path to victory is one will cleave the party in twain, irrevocably casting off the already disillusioned future of the party.
You don't believe me?
It's really quite simple. Clinton's task is to cast Obama as the next losercrat unable to take a punch and instill enough doubt in the minds of the superdelegates to swing the nomination in his favor, assuming she can close the gap to about 50 or so in time and overtake his lead in the popular vote. Noted rabid Clinton shill and retired netroots activist Jerome Armstrong is beyond confident this strategy can work (see his addition at the end), claiming "the popular vote" will beat down the "math club" (to harsh retort*).
You still don't believe me?
Why do you think John Edwards, Bill Richardson, Al Gore, and others who certainly share more in common with Obama than Clinton have failed to endorse him? I don't feel it's because they are political cowards afraid of choosing the wrong side. I feel that they need to see that Obama is tough enough.
Obama has a brilliant campaign, but there is more work cut out. I know how disheartening it is to think that something is all wrapped up, only to have to go into extra innings. Obama can still win this. But in order to do so, Obama still must pull off the political feat of his life; finding a means to remain a dignified agent of change and prove that he is the tough kid from Chicago who will fight for us.. His path to the nomination is still much easier than Clinton's -- fight Clinton, win the media, win enough delegates, win the nomination. Otherwise, should he fail, a Clinton nomination will be the least of our concerns.
* I would join in, but like so many rational Obama supporters, I have been inexplicably locked out without reason or notice.