Hillary Agonistes
By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, May 13, 2008; 8:49 AM
When the media, in their infinite wisdom, decide that a race is over, the usual course is to ignore the losing candidate until the person fades from public view.
Heard a lot about Fred Thompson lately? Mike Huckabee? Rudy Giuliani? Bill Richardson? Joe Biden? Chris Dodd?
But while journalists are now treating Barack Obama as the nominee-in-waiting--to the point that no one seems to care that he's likely to get creamed in today's West Virginia primary--the Hillary Clinton story is still very much with us.
The media, it seems, just can't let go.
There's the short-term tactical story: Why hasn't she dropped out yet? Doesn't she watch television or read the papers? The news business has decided she's lost. Why prolong the agony?
But more important, I believe, is the psychodrama story: Is Hillary a sore loser? Detached from reality? Determined to weaken Obama so he'll lose and she can run in 2012? The stories get increasingly sharp-edged, increasingly speculative, as we put the senator from New York on the couch.
And, of course, there are the legacy pieces: How did the Clintons lose control of the Democratic Party? How did she fumble away the nomination? How badly did Bill Clinton hurt her? Has their time passed?
Journalists have been in a co-dependent relationship for nearly two decades with the Clintons, who provided endlessly juicy copy, from their capture of the White House to nearly losing it, from Whitewater to Gennifer to Paula to Monica, from the last-minute pardons to Hillary's Senate bid, to the impenetrable mystery of their marriage.
So while there's plenty of media carping about Hillary's refusal to exit the stage, there are plenty of journalists who want to keep her there.
Here's a new theory on the couple's tenacity, courtesy of the New Republic's Michael Crowley:
"The Clintons find themselves victimized and under siege. The presidency is being stolen from them. The press is out to get them. They deride elites and champion the masses. They live in a constant state of emergency. But they will endure any humiliation, ride out any crisis, fight on even when fighting seems hopeless.
"That might sound like a fair summary of how Bill and Hillary Clinton have viewed the past five months. But it also happens to describe what, until now, was the greatest ordeal of the Clintons' almost comically turbulent political careers: impeachment. That baroque saga hardened the Clintonian worldview about politics and helps to explain their approach to this brutal campaign season. The Clintons have been here before, you see. They're being impeached all over again . . .
"Congressional Democrats were the superdelegates of 1998--worried that the Clintons' campaign to save themselves would extend into the fall, threatening their own political existences. Some in the Senate were on the brink of traveling to the White House to advise the president to resign. But congressional Democrats ultimately rallied, and Hillary played a decisive role in that effort . . . So, if Hillary has believed that she can sway superdelegates in the face of conventional wisdom, it's because she has some experience to justify her self-confidence.
"Surviving impeachment didn't just require savvy tactics; it required defiance. The press predicted that MonicaGate would drive the Clintons from the White House. And, just as some liberal commentators argue that Hillary should end her candidacy for the good of the party and her own reputation, in 1998 many media outlets made similar arguments about her husband. The Philadelphia Inquirer, which had twice endorsed Bill, editorialized that resigning would be 'the honorable thing.' And it wasn't just ink-stained wretches. For a time, it seemed the entire Washington elite wanted the Clintons banished. A day before the 1998 election, Georgetown über-hostess Sally Quinn wrote in The Washington Post that 'the Washington establishment is outraged by the president's behavior' and suggested that he resign to spare her town further humiliation. Never mind that poll after poll showed Americans were quite content with Clinton."
But isn't there a difference between a sex scandal and falling behind in pledged delegates? There's no vast right-wing conspiracy in this case. But maybe Hillary has the same feeling of being kicked around by the press. Bill has certainly made his displeasure with the coverage quite clear.
At HuffPost, Barbara Ehrenreich says Hillary made history--and not in a good way:
"In Friday's New York Times, Susan Faludi rejoiced over Hillary Clinton's destruction of the myth of female prissiness and innate moral superiority, hailing Clinton's 'no-holds-barred pugnacity' and her media reputation as 'nasty' and 'ruthless.' Future female presidential candidates will owe a lot to the race of 2008, Faludi wrote, 'when Hillary Clinton broke through the glass floor and got down with the boys.'
"I share Faludi's glee -- up to a point. Surely no one will ever dare argue that women lack the temperament for political combat. But by running a racially-tinged campaign, lying about her foreign policy experience, and repeatedly seeming to favor [John] McCain over her Democratic opponent, Clinton didn't just break through the 'glass floor,' she set a new low for floors in general, and would, if she could have got within arm's reach, have rubbed the broken glass into Obama's face . . .
"Hillary Clinton smashed the myth of innate female moral superiority in the worst possible way -- by demonstrating female moral inferiority. We didn't really need her racial innuendos and free-floating bellicosity to establish that women aren't wimps."
At Salon, Walter Shapiro examines the politics of euthanasia:
"The New York senator has obviously reached the death-with-dignity phase of her 2008 ambitions. Normally in presidential politics three types of shortages drive a candidate out of a hopeless race -- a lack of press coverage, money and prominent supporters willing to keep on spinning and sowing. But, as Barack Obama is learning with each passing day, none of the usual rules apply while waiting for Hillary to hoist the white flag.
"The Clintons on the downslide remain a riveting psychodrama, so the press pack is unlikely to abandon them to speculate about President Obama's would-be secretary of agriculture. Having already invested (or squandered) $11 million on the campaign, Hillary and her n'er-do-well husband have another $98 million to go before they tap out . . .
"So what will it take for Obama to finally be allowed to celebrate the triumph of hope over experience?"
Some liberal bloggers, such as John Aravosis, are seething:
"Hillary and her husband are now out to destroy our nominee. Your could argue that it kind of made sense when Hillary still had a chance (her kitchen-sink tactics were nasty, to be sure, they appeared to have crossed a line, but at least there was a logic to it when Hillary had a chance). Now that the race is over and Hillary has lost, her ongoing attempts to hurt Obama, to smear him, to make rural voters hate him, to convince America that a black man can't and shouldn't be president, make her little better than the Republicans she hated during the 1990s - people who were out to hurt her simply for the joy of inflicting pain."
What NYT reporter Kate Zernike told me was "ding dong the witch is dead" coverage is generating some anger, as Politico confirms:
"There's a motivational shift afoot in Hillary nation. The legions of Hillary Rodham Clinton backers still investing their cash, energy and emotion into her faltering bid for the Democratic presidential nomination seem driven not by the reasonable expectation that she can beat Barack Obama, but by the emotional desire to see her through to the end of voting and stick it to those who have already written her off. Clinton's campaign is fanning the flames of that backlash -- against the media, against superdelegates who recently backed Obama and against Obama himself. Aides hope to convert the sentiments into protest votes that could deliver landslide victories in West Virginia and Kentucky, Clinton strongholds that are among the next three states to cast ballots."
What about the tiresome dream-ticket chatter? American Prospect's Ezra Klein peers into the future of the Clintonites in an Obama administration:
"Will they be able to keep their sprawling universe of well-connected confidantes from leaking tales of their displeasure to the press? Will they want to? What happens when the first Time magazine cover comes out with Obama staring down the Clintons, and the tagline is, 'Who's Really Running the Country?' It's such an obvious story that it can be predicted, with almost perfect certainty, right now."
I'd say the probability is high.
Still, "in a USA TODAY Gallup Poll, 55% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents also would like Illinois Sen. Barack Obama to choose Clinton as his running mate, although there's notable resistance among his backers."
Obama, for his part, continues to be dogged by bogus rumors, as Andrew Sullivan details:
" 'I heard that Obama is a Muslim and his wife's an atheist,' -- Leonard Simpson, a West Virginia Democrat. Then this:
"Josh Fry, a 24-year-old ambulance driver from Williamson, insisted he was not racist but said he would feel more comfortable with Mr McCain, the 71-year-old Vietnam war hero, in the White House. 'I want someone who is a full-blooded American as president,' he said.
"Meanwhile, I get an email like this:
" 'This guy is a muslim trying to take over religion, rights, gunns, and lastly our country. Does anyone remember 911. He's cunning and a racists. He is connected with dirty money and bad connections in the rest of the world.'
"Obama's got his work cut out with these people when he gets the nomination. A summer of engaging and listening with rural non-college educated white folk would help."
This is McCain's environmental week, and the New York Times reports on the kickoff:
"Senator John McCain sought to distance himself from President Bush on Monday as he called for a mandatory limit on greenhouse gas emissions in the United States to combat climate change.
"Mr. McCain, in a speech at a wind power company, also pledged to work with the European Union to diplomatically engage China and India, two of the world's biggest polluters, if they refuse to participate in an international agreement to slow global warming.
"In the prepared text of his speech, e-mailed to reporters on Sunday night and Monday morning, Mr. McCain went so far as to call for punitive tariffs against China and India if they evaded international standards on emissions, but he omitted the threat in his delivered remarks. Aides said he had decided to soften his language because he thought he could be misinterpreted as being opposed to free trade, a central tenet of his campaign and Republican orthodoxy."
Probably better to decide that before you give reporters the text.
Maybe McCain was trying to avoid ticking off the likes of Bull Dog Pundit, who sees him pandering to Republicans In Name Only:
"There are many RINO's (especially in places like Montgomery County, PA) to whom global warming are huge issues, and if McCain said or did nothing to parrot their beliefs, they would vote for Obama, even though many may have reservations about him.
"So I can't slam McCain too much for doing this, although I wish it was a political move, but I actually think he believes this stuff about man-made global warming, which greatly concerns me. And like it or not, it will be an example to independents and RINO's that McCain is not walking in lock-step with us 'crazies'.
"What's comical however, is the belief that McCain singing from the same hymnal as the Democrats on this issue is somehow going to win him some younger voters.
"You've got to be kidding me. Younger voters are so enthralled with Obama and his empty but effective bromides about 'change' and 'hope' that John McCain could almost offer them free beer and pizza and it wouldn't matter."
Cindy McCain's got her work cut out for her. A Washington Times survey "asked Americans which mother has 'had the most positive influence on America,' and Mrs. McCain trailed the pack, with just 4 percent -- well below Mrs. Obama, Mrs. Clinton and top-choice first lady Laura Bush. She even trailed the fictional matriarch from 'The Simpsons,' who garnered 9 percent."
The fall matchup polls miss the point that, as Al Gore well remembers, presidential elections are decided by electoral votes. Atlantic's Marc Ambinder divvies up the pie, including states "leaning" to one candidate or another, and gives McCain a lead of 245 to 221, with Florida in the Republican's column. (The magic number of course is 270.)
Ambinder's tossup states: Pennsylvania (21), Wisconsin (10), Iowa (7), Ohio (20), New Mexico (5) and Colorado (9) -- 72 electoral votes.
How does the GOP's political health look at the Weekly Standard? Pretty bad, says Fred Barnes, but could be worse:
"Prospects for Republicans in the 2008 election here at home look grim. The political environment isn't as bad as it was in 2006 when Republicans lost both houses of Congress and a lot more. But it's close.
"The empirical evidence is well known. More than 80 percent of Americans believe the nation is heading in the wrong direction. Democrats have steadily maintained the 10 percentage point lead in voter preference they gained two years ago. And President Bush's job performance rating is stuck in the low 30s, a level of unpopularity that weakens the Republican case for holding the White House in 2008.
"There's another piece of polling data that is both intriguing and indicative. In a Wall Street Journal/NBC survey last month, John McCain fared better with Republican voters (84 percent to 8 percent) than Barack Obama did with Democrats (78 percent to 12 percent). McCain was also stronger than Obama among independent voters (46 percent to 35 percent)."
So why is McCain still trailing? "The explanation for this seeming paradox is quite simple: The Republican base has shrunk. In 2008, there are fewer Republicans . . . The surge of American troops in Iraq hasn't turned the war into a Republican asset, but it's at least blunted it as an effective Democratic talking point."
I always figured working for a Webby operation meant lots of freedom. But Politico wants to establish a sort-of dress code! Fishbowl DC has a memo from Jim VandeHei:
"That's right, guys: no more unbuttoned shirts to sport your beastly chests, no more flipflops to sport your gangly toenails and no more wrinkled shirts yanked from beneath your bed.
"I thought it was only me bothered by it but when I announced this to a huge sampling of Politicos they erupted in wild applause (I believe Lisa Lerer even hooted standing atop her chair).
"I am not asking you to wear a monogrammed shirt and tie every day. But we are professionals, so let's all use some common sense and dress like it. Socks would be nice, too."
I'd fit right in there: I'm a big believer in wearing socks!
No comments:
Post a Comment