I don't put much faith in Drudge, but I do sometimes visit the place; he has been known to hit on a truth now and then. Today's headline on the Drudge Report http://www.drudgereport.com/ wears out the meaning of 'silly', or else it's pure satire on ABC's blog article about Hillary's phone conversation with Bill Richardson, or else it's a plot.* I will explain what I mean. First, here is part of the piece, it's from ABC's Political Radar: http://blogs.abcnews.com/...
April 02, 2008 7:39 PM
ABC News' George Stephanopoulos Reports: Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., and former President Bill Clinton are making very direct arguments to Democratic superdelegates, starkly insisting Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., cannot win a general election against presumptive Republican nominee, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.
Sources with direct knowledge of the conversation between Sen. Clinton and Gov. Bill Richardson, D-N.M., prior to the Governor's endorsement of Obama say she told him flatly, "He cannot win, Bill. He cannot win."
Richardson, who served in President Clinton's cabinet, disagreed.
It must be satire! For even Drudge must be asking himself: what on earth is Hillary supposed to be saying to superdelegates? That Obama can win? 'Sources with direct knowledge of' usually requires something a little more startling to be attached to it. I was expecting something more like "...told ABC that Hillary Clinton, in a phone conversation with Bill Richardson, threatened to bring Richardson's political career to a screeching halt...". The video that goes with this little piece sheds no more light on the matter http://abcnews.go.com/...
.** I'm no fan of Hillary's, but it seems normal, and even acceptable, for a candidate, in the course of a conversation with some superdelegate or other, to say, "He can't win!" How is this news? ABC did go with it in a newscast.***
Now, if ABC were using this vapid little story to create some kind of soundbite, that's different. I live abroad and am ignorant of whether ABC has a bias toward, say, Hillary. Suppose, just for the moment, that it does. Something like OBAMA CAN'T WIN would be a good one, it's visually quite strong and would be a good foil for the Obama supporter's YES WE CAN. (Conversely, the latter would be a good retort to the former!) As soundbites go, it's a bit obvious; but why be subtle if you achieve more being the opposite? And who knows? Maybe it's ABC and Drudge, they are in cahoots to get a good soundbite. Or maybe, and I lean toward this next, it's ABC and Drudge and Richardson, in a little plot to create the ultimate, and ultimately simplistic, soundbite, hoping that it will become a veritable drumbeat across the nation, becoming louder and louder until every man, woman and child is up in arms about it. Tell the voter that Jones can't beat Smith, and watch the fireworks. Tell the voter that Smith says that Jones can't beat Smith, and watch Smith get beat!
Or perhaps it's just Hillary in cahoots with Drudge (they say she is in league with him but I've never seen the proof) in an effort to get an eyecatcher out there to the voter.
The thing is, Drudge can't like Hillary very much, given the photo of her that he's put on today's home page. It is terrifying. And, parked right above the words "OBAMA CAN'T WIN, it's powerful all right. What it's really saying is, "Hillary says Obama can't win, but look at her eyes: they are the eyes of a madwoman!" Update [2008-4-3 11:45:23 by emme]:: Drudge has changed the photo of Hillary, it's different from the one I saw this morning when I posted this diary. In the new one she doesn't look like a madwoman; in the other one, she really did. The New York Post is now running this story and the photo they use is more like the first one Drudge used, though still not quite as terrifying! http://www.nypost.com/...
I can't think of another explanation for why ABC---and now the New York Post---would put any emphasis on Hillary telling Richardson, a superdelegate, that Obama can't win, maybe you can. Or maybe no explanation is needed, maybe there is something here that has flown right over my head---it wouldn't be the first time, as my readers can testify! But if there's nothing here to do a flyover, I just don't understand. The whole burden on the candidate is convincing a superdelegate that his opponent, unlike himself, can't win the general election. Various arguments will be brought in to show this. The superdelegates base their decision largely, if not solely, upon which candidate they feel can deliver the goods, namely, the oval office and power to the party.
In any case, I sit here scratching my head at the vapidity of it all. Where's the dirt? I ask myself. What is the real crime here, on Hillary's part? It's not a threat. I don't say she didn't use some threats in that conversation, and I don't say that she did; I don't say that she didn't have something to back up her apparent certainty that Obama can't win, something the voters don't yet know about, and I don't say that she did. I just don't know. But her "He can't win, Bill, he can't win," is a belief and no more. If, suppose, she followed it with something awful about Obama that hasn't yet been exposed but will be, it couldn't have been very bad, judging from Richardson's endorsement of Obama. (Just after he hung up the phone, it would seem!) It's a belief...that made the homepage of ABC as if she had stated the opposite belief: Obama CAN win---indeed, as if she had said "Obama will win!
ABC and Drudge and Richardson all know that it's just a belief, that it's nothing much, and so I am guessing that it's the little plot I've outlined above...or something else.
* A wee theory is ahead, I hope it doesn't fit the conspiracy theory category that Kos says he will ban us for, or I'm toast. I don't mean it that way. Is there a tag for 'part tongue-in-cheek and part not'?
** In the video, George Stephanopoulos discusses something a lot more exciting (it wouldn't take much), namely, Bill's tantrum in California, and that's worth looking at. I didn't go with that today because my diary of yesterday, a shameless rant, was on that topic.