The Dangerous Obsession of the Punditocracy
Posted by MEC on June 8, 2008
Today’s New York Times has a set of op-eds about “What Went Wrong”, i.e. why Hillary Clinton is not going to be the Democratic nominee for president. The reasons proffered range from Mark Penn’s “lack of money” to Michelle Cottle’s “Bill Clinton’s behavior”.
Underlying all the excuse-making and criticisim is the assumption that Hillary Clinton should have won, except—.
Which is an insult and a grave disservice to Barack Obama. The inescapable corellary is that Barack Obama didn’t win, he only got it because Hillary didn’t; that he should not have won. The punditocracy’s obsession with Hillary Clinton dismisses the man who did win, who got a majority of the delegates and at least as many primary and caucus votes as Clinton, as the also-ran. The very few references to Senator Obama and his campaign imply or even state outright that his supporters should have been Senator Clinton’s supporters, but he stole them from her. The one exception is an afterthought at the end of Clinton advisor Mark Penn’s contribution to the Hillaryfest: “And sometimes your opponent just runs a good campaign.”
“Just” runs a good campaign. It “just” sorta happened, who knows how? Couldn’t have been because Obama was the better candidate. It’s “just” a mystery.
Expect more of the same in the general election. Assuming Senator Obama does not pick Hillary Clinton to be his running mate, every blip in the polls, every action that can be characterized as a “misstep”, every statement that can be criticized as a “gaffe” will be studied through the lens of “Would this have happened if Hillary were his running mate?” or “Would Hillary have done this?” or “Where would the candidates be in the polls if Hillary were running instead of Obama?”
The real meaning of that headline “What Went Wrong” is not “What went wrong with Hillary Clinton’s campaign” but “Why didn’t we, the pundits and Beltway insiders and reporters, get the outcome we wanted?” They’ve been dictating the presidential races for years, and suddenly the voters are acting as if it’s their decision and not the mediacracy’s. How dare we?
Can we continue to defy the dictates of the punditocracy and elect the leader we need instead of the leader the talking heads want to report on? There’s only one acceptable answer to that question: “Yes, we can.”
[Edited to add] Et tu, DailyKos?
Phoenix Woman said
I can’t remember where it was mentioned first, but somebody pointed out that the media flatly refuses to admit that a big, big reason for Obama’s winning over the activist wing of the party is because he was against the Iraq war from the start, whereas Hillary voted for the AUMF.
For the media to admit that being against the Iraq war is a plus politically, they would have to skirt uncomfortably close to the question of their role as what Scott McClellan called “complicit enablers” of Bush’s Iraq policy.
LanceThruster said
Shoulda, woulda, coulda.
Sen. Obama ran a superb campaign and the voters responded to his message. He and his people did more things right than she and her people did. Despite all the poor coverage by the media (which was often patently unfair to both), this time the system seems to have worked.
Now on to beating McCain in Novemeber!
Charles II said
I think the Obama phenomenon most resembles–though with a far more positive direction–the George Wallace campaign of 1968.
Voters have concluded that neither the traditional Democratic nor Republican parties represent them. The Republicans failed to deliver on abortion, gay marriage, and immigration–and have lost a war– while the Democrats… well, we could go on at length. So, people reject everything about Washington and, most importantly for understanding this election, they don’t focus on issues as much as on the intangibles we call “character.”
Under those circumstances, Obama’s race becomes an advantage: he physically doesn’t look like most of the politicians we see on the talk shows. (There is also a real, not a perceptual advantage operating here. When Obama sits down to negotiate an end to war, he will be speaking as the first real downpayment on the fulfillment of America’s endless empty promises of equality. But this is probably not on most voter’s minds).
On issues, I have been irritated with Obama ever since he arrived in the Senate–on my nickel, I might add. I can’t remember how many nastygrams I wrote him back before he announced. The bankruptcy bill. Continuing to fund Iraq. Chest-thumping over Iran. Threatening to invade Pakistan. Refusing to take on the health care industry. In other words, I think he’s a perfect Beltway candidate: in-tune with the punditocracy on all the issues where he might make a difference, while presenting a liberal front.
May I be in error and may the difficult times we are facing inspire him to greatness.
Phoenix Woman said
One thing to remember is that FDR ran on a similar platform in 1932. He was also attacked for not having specifics — and in fact he didn’t have specifics. He did, however, have very smart people who knew what needed to be done, and in the first hundred days FDR let them do it. Republicans howled, especially through the media organs they controlled, but they were so decimated by the 1930 and 1932 Democratic tidal waves in Congress that they were reduced to sniping and griping.
Kathy said
I’ve been wanting to point out that one should take a good look at the people around a politician. Hillary surrounded herself with awful people, Penn, etc. Obama chose smart, and I hope! good people. Despite Rove’s “success” one doesn’t have to be evil to win.
jo6pac said
Also FDR came from $ but he knew who really needed help. I don’t believe anyting until I get my rights back and we are out of all Wars.
jo6pac
Stormcrow said
Sorry, MEC, but I think “what went wrong with Hillary’s campaign” is an admissible question.
I know that 12 months ago, the general tenor of opinion in the liberal blogosphere was that the nomination was Hillary’s to lose. She was “inevitable”. I for one found this hideously depressing, because she was last on my list of Democratic candidates. I’d have voted for her if she’d won, but I’d have had to swallow vomit in order to do so.
Long story short, Barack Obama outgeneraled her.
(1) He started with a 50 state strategy.
(2) He never bothered with the “media consultant” snake oil merchants who gave such lousy advice to Hillary.
(2a) Corollary: Obama never had to pay a charlatan like Mark Penn 4 or 5 million a month. So that money was available for other uses.
(3) His approach to a media crisis was fairly consistent throughout:
(a) He disengage emotionally from the threat. He distanced himself.
(b) He enlarged the frame of discussion.
(c) He replied within the enlarged frame, not the original one.
His reply nearly always blindsided the opposition that way. Consequently, that opposition was never able to compose an effective riposte.
That emotional distancing also meant that he never exhibited the symptoms of overt obsession which have been all too evident in Hillary for years.
Obsession nearly always blinds its victims and makes their thinking stereotypical and conservative.
I’ll take this moment to point out the extremely stereotypical and politically conservative way Hilary has managed her policy for the last half dozen years. From war votes to video game crusades, she has never felt sure enough of her ground to think or act outside of the box.
Her campaign strategy was of a piece. She went with the consensus option: hire a bunch of media consultants and let them run the show. The consensus option was disastrously wrong. But when people obsess rather than thinking clearly, they’ll often consult with quacks and hedge magicians rather than stand on their own ground, assess for themselves, and use common sense.
That’s how my maternal grandfather died. He was a very smart guy, but fear of cancer dislocated his thinking processes. By the time he’d got rid of the quacks from south of the border and started consulting real physicians, it was too late. The stuff had metastasized all through his body.
That’s the same way that Hillary lost the primary.
MEC said
Stormcrow, your analysis is at least as much about why Obama won as about why Hillary lost. Which is as it should be. My objection is that all the “Why Hillary Lost” stories eclipse the more important story, “Why Obama won.” Obama’s the nominee and the story is all about somebody else. WTF?
“Why did Hillary lose” is an admissible question if the conclusion is, “Therefore, other Democrats should avoid making the same mistakes.” It’s not admissible if it begins and ends with “It’s all about Hillary Clinton.” Because it isn’t.
Tuesday Morning News Roundup « Mercury Rising 鳯女 said
[...] II on Media Coverage Of The 2008…Phoenix Woman on OK, Now I Understand McCain…MEC on The Dangerous Obsession of the…CMike on Media Coverage Of The 2008…Charles II on Media Coverage Of The [...]