Following Obama's long predicted loss in the Pennsylvania, the media has reacted with an utterly predictable outpouring of feigned shock, desperately chugging away in another attempt to resuscitate Hillary Clinton's ratings-grabbing but mathematically quixotic kamikaze dive for the Democratic nomination. Of course, as always, the praise the media has for any Democrat is always a double edged sword, and it's a testament to the fundamental negativity of the post-inevitability Clinton campaign that the junior Senator has embraced her recent media characterization as the mocking cancer on Obama's campaign, a dreary reflection of his (and, if we're to be honest about the racial undertones, rural America's) alleged failings. To the media's delight, the enduring appeal of the Clinton brand among Democratic loyalists and the profoundly personal support Clinton enjoys among a solid majority of white suburban women (the crucial demographic that propelled Clinton to decisive margins in eastern Pennsylvania) have been completely ignored in an effort to perpetuate a disingenuous myth about Obama's electoral prospects.
Nevermind that this gleeful concern trolling about Obama is not actually grounded in general election polls. Nevermind that the Pennsylvania Democratic machine, which was solidly behind Clinton, merely demonstrated that John McCain's aspirations in the state will be mercilessly dashed when Rendell and an alliance of key Democratic mayors unleash the combined might of the Clinton and Obama urban/suburban coalition (white rural Bubbas be damned). The media has its narrative against the likely Democratic nominee, and it will pursue it right into the first week of November.
Nowhere is this lazy speculation better encapsulated than in a recent article at the pseudo-progressive gossip site, the Huffington Post. There, professional concern troll Thomas Edsall slapped together a handful of quotes from a couple of consistently anti-Obama sources to declare that the media, just now, had "turned on Obama." Nevermind that we've just emerged from two months of non-stop obsession over manufactured scandals about pastors and bitterness. Nevermind that the media has been portraying Obama as an inexperienced "empty suit" making a cute run against the inevitable Clinton for over a year. This has just happened. And now, tragically, Obama has lost such long-time media "allies" as:
- Time's iconic hack, Joe Klein, whose last friendly hat tip to Obama consisted of a vacuous attack on his patriotism. Yes, his once-obvious but now-defunct Obama bias is slightly less exuberant than that of fellow Time colleague Mark Halperin, who today made his own contribution to the echo chamber by pointing out that there are "doubts about Obama." Halperin, of course, failed to note that the two Democratic officials quoted in his article are both major Clinton fundraisers.
- Politico, an online magazine so "biased for Obama," they have effectively made Clinton's opposition research team redundant.
- John Judis, senior editor to the dying neoconservative rag, the New Republic, an Obama media ally last seen peddling now disproven predictions that Wright and Bittergate would destroy Obama.
- The New York Times, which endorsed Clinton.
- The London Times' Anatole Karetsky, a once truly devoted Obamaniac who was last seen urging Democrats to "forget all the razzmatazz over Obama."
- And, of course, the loyal Short Round to Obama's Indiana Jones, Karl Rove.
Indeed, as Edall implies, if all these dear friends are now "turning against" Obama, it can only be because tough love impels them, without any ulterior motive whatsoever, to make the world aware of these hard truths.
Or not.
It would be pointless to again go over all the hard evidence that shows that, at the very least, Obama is not only as electable as Clinton, he has a much tighter base of support that would allow Democrats to concentrate more resources in places like Colorado and Virginia, in addition to the traditional swing states, instead of wasting time and energy playing defense in states like New Hampshire, Wisconsin, Oregon, and Minnesota (all of which would be threatened under Clinton). So I'll just get to the obvious: the media does this every four years, with every nominee.
Whenever the Democratic process has crossed that threshold of virtual irreversibility, the media goes into hysterics emphasizing the dissatisfaction of Democratic voters, insisting that once seemingly formidable candidates (like John Kerry) were actually terrible mistakes perpetrated by those elitist liberals who have a deathgrip on the tragically hapless "Reagan Democrats."
This New York Times article from 1992 provides a perfect illustration.
In this now-laughable example of the punditry's hopelessly awful attempts at forecasting elections, not only are Democrats concerned about the inexperienced and unelectable Bill Clinton... they may call upon the superdelegates to save them from the surely mortal self-inflicted wound that Clinton apparently embodied.
"The voters haven't embraced Clinton, so I don't see any reason why I should endorse him," Mr. Eckart said. "Look at the exit polls. People have terrible doubts about this guy, and we're talking about Democrats."
In the New York primary Tuesday, the turnout was exceptionally low, 29 percent of the electorate backed Mr. Tsongas, a ghost candidate, two-thirds of the voters said they were dissatisfied with the choice presented to them, and 4 in 10 said they doubted Mr. Clinton had the integrity to be President.
To borrow a line from one of John Judis's concern-laden screeds, "WOE IS HIM!" The unelectable Clinton, seen here failing to CLOSE THE DEAL! In Missouri, the Democrats decry his lack of "showing 'em" in the "show me state." In New York, he loses 29% of the vote to a ghost as 67% of Democrats express their dissatisfaction and 40% call his integrity into question. Like the hardcore Clinton supporters who obsess over Wright and Ayers today, surely these 40% of New York Democrats would never end up actually defending Clinton. Why, in fact, reading this article, it seems plausible that George H.W. Bush could even carry Manhattan itself!
Meanwhile, Ronald Brown, the Howard Dean of the MC Hammer era, desperately struggled to keep his party from tearing itself apart:
Ronald H. Brown, the party chairman, has been phoning uncommitted delegates and others, "discussing the lay of the political territory," as he described it. He denied putting pressure on anybody, but others in the party said he was sending a subtle but clear message that it was time to halt the squabbling.
But alas, the inept party chairman of yesteryear could not sway the superdelegates from their noble cause, for:
A prominent Senator, who also asked not to be identified, added, "lots of people are hearing from home, 'Keep it open, even if the odds make it look impossible,' because Clinton may self-destruct before the convention." As a result, predicted the Senator, who remains uncommitted, "it's not going to shift into cruise control for Bill Clinton very soon."
Yes, yes, Clinton may self-destruct, and in a horrific act of self-immolation, he would single-handedly save the dissatisfied Democrats from their own naive decisions.
Coincidentally, after this article was published, the inexperienced and unelectable Bill Clinton was elected in a landslide and went on to serve as president over eight years of peace and economic prosperity.
But, of course, the false predictions didn't end there. Just a few days later, the New York Times published another article with this ridiculously non-prescient analysis of Clinton's campaign:
"It's a general malaise," Mr. Sullivan said. "There's no finger on the pulse. You wonder what world these guys live in." The Democratic campaign, he adds, is almost a rerun of the Dukakis effort in 1988, "the most mismanaged campaign of modern times."
Ah Bill Clinton, the Second Coming of Dukakis!
And so, as the media prattled on then, it prattles on now, forgetting the moronic predictions of yesterday to make room for the moronic predictions of today. As we head towards Indiana and some wholly unimportant south Pacific territory called "North Carolina," Obama's old enemies become his "former" allies, proffering their objective, sagelike advice to the black militant atheist flag-hater who, before Pennsylvania, they apparently considered a friend. And with the best interest of the Democratic Party in mind, they selflessly argue that, if only the superdelegates would be wise enough to drag this to the convention floor, the Democrats might be saved from the unacceptable, disappointing candidate they've stumbled upon.
After all, as any Republican pundit will tell you, no one wants to live through 1992 again.