Wary of American news sources, I usually consult the BBC for my news. I value their attempts at neutrality and their concise but informative reporting. As their American correspondents embrace the Hillary Clinton frontrunner narrative, however, I am disturbed and disappointed.
Cross-posted at The Seminal.
One stuffy column, for example, suggests that the decision about who Democrats nominate will be made by rich women who live in Washington. Some, the article says, are already laboring around the clock to raise funds for Clinton. They are motivated by the hope of rewards from the presumed administration-to-be. Others are jumping on board because they fear ostracization:
This election is being sewn up by a team of hard-nosed, big money brokers in the splashily wealthy salons of Georgetown, Washington’s equivalent of Chelsea in London, where the streets are cobbled, the houses are painted in pinks and yellows, and the gardens are tended daily by teams of Mexican manicurists.
This is where Cindy calls Daisy, who once raised a cool $1 million (£500,000) for someone by getting a bunch of wealthy lawyers in a hotel ballroom and charging them $10,000 each for “surf and turf” (seafood and steak).
Cindy, who is already on the campaign, tells Daisy (who is probably resting on a chaise longue only three doors down the street), “I’ve spoken to Hillary or to someone close to her - and we must have you on board.”
Daisy rather fancies the dashing young challenger, Barack Obama - fancies him literally and metaphorically - but is now reeled in by the thought of the social exclusion that could result if Hillary were to win and acts of disloyalty were to be punished.
The upshot is that the Hillary campaign is the biggest show in town by a long, long way. She reeks of money and power.
The only way the Hillary “steamroller” can be stopped, the columnist suggests, is by male antics:
Hillary’s women think they have it sewn up but not everyone is fully on-message. Bill and his charming, lascivious buddies could still, gloriously, cock it all up. No amount of money can alter that fact.
Ha ha. Americans are so funny, aren’t we? Though the article takes a brief detour to juxtapose a swanky Hillary fundraiser against the poverty of a city “where infant mortality is at Third World levels,” the column’s main message is insulting, even to Hillary supporters: it suggests that our democracy is really an oligarchy of the rich and well-connected, and that on top of this the decisions they make are all just fun and games. The first part of this message might be, in many ways, a depressing truth - but the second part is simply offensive. To suggest that American politics is nothing but a slapstick comedy of boorish men and “hard-nosed,” selfish women is to deny that the decisions made in American politics affect the lives of Americans and, more often than not, the lives of people around the world.
Last week, BBC writer James Coomarasamy also jumped on board the “Hillary steamroller.” Citing Republican references to Hillary as the likely nominee, Coomarasamy talks of her “invincibility.” The only chink in the armor? Her laugh:
That sense of invincibility took something of a knock during the most recent Democratic debate in New Hampshire.
As she appeared more defensive than in the past on a range of domestic and foreign policy issues, a handful of Senator Clinton’s opponents - tentatively, politely - broached the issue of her electability. It broke a taboo but - it has to be said - none of the blows that were landed carried much of a punch.
More worryingly perhaps was the post-debate discussion about whether the frequently-heard Clinton laugh (or “Clinton cackle”, as her opponents would have it) was genuine.
Is this the perception of our political debate abroad? The question of her “electability” doesn’t stick, but the question of her laugh is “worrying” for the campaign? Clearly the voices - such as those here at The Seminal - who worry about Hillary’s lack of precisely defined stands on issues are not being taken seriously. Neither, for that matter, are Iowa polls, which are both unreliable (polling caucuses is a slippery affair, pollsters tell me) and provide contradictory information. An American Research Group poll for September 26 and 27, for example, shows Clinton at 30% over Obama at 24% and Edwards at 19%. A Newsweek poll for the same two days shows Obama at 28%, Clinton at 24%, and Edwards at 22%. Additionally, as the author himself points out, a majority of Americans who plan on voting in the primaries are undecided. When we really look at the numbers, then, we see that everything is actually still up in the air.
Coomarasamy predicts that until and unless rivals “turn that consistent media spotlight against her,” they will continue to trail her. Here, however, he may have things reversed: if the primaries hold any surprises (which they very well might), we might be even more surprised to watch the media abandon its Hillary frontrunner narrative overnight in a race to crown the new champion. The media is the cause of many things, to be sure - but let us not also forget that the media’s narratives are often effects of other causes.
To step back for a moment and look the larger picture, a Clinton presidency could well have its positive qualities and redeeming aspects. What, then, am I fighting for? For one, a better choice - I believe that Clinton is not the leader America needs right now. But perhaps even more importantly, I am fighting to make sure that the choice of our nominees, and hence our leaders, is not determined by the media, or the pollsters, or the fundraisers, or the elite, but rather by the American people, who after all have the greatest stake in the matter. The frontrunner narrative is worrying not only because it concerns a candidate I am uncomfortable with, but also because in itself it undermines our democracy. This, again, is an issue of universal concern whose ramifications extend well beyond Hillary Clinton’s candidacy for the presidency.