| One of the most amusing parts of being on the teevee recently was how flummoxed anchors seem to become at the phrase 'I don't know'. I experienced this twice, once on TV directly when an anchor asked me if the media was important to the primary, and I said "I don't know". There was a pause, I gabbered on, and then the right-wing pundit began giving credit to Rush Limbaugh for Clinton winning Pennsylvania. Yeah, I know. The second time was in Philadelphia on primary day. During the pre-interview, and I said that no one really knows what is influencing voters. The interviewer looked shocked, and then I realized she couldn't absorb that notion. So I turned it into something about how there's a media narrative, and a series of conversations among voters, and it's unclear how they intersect. She was ok with that.
Because of the nature of the medium, it's critical on TV to look earnest and self-important and say things like 'this next move from Obama is a game-changer', even if there's no evidence or certainty that anything in this primary contest has changed in two months. This is the nature of a mass media system, which thrives on dramatic narratives, but it is accentuated when a media system is corrupted, as ours has been. The Friedman unit, which Yglesias goes into with his important book Heads in the Sand, is a good example of how it is far more important to look dramatic than be remotely intellectually honest. Glenn Greenwald actually chronicles this process in Great American Hypocrites, where he shows how conservatives like Michael Scherer, who ironically started at Mother Jones, are simply agents of spin (more on this soon).
Anyway, I'm reminded of this need for the dramatic when I read things like this.
Clinton's solid win in the Pennsylvania primary exposed a quandary for the party. Her backers may be convinced that only she can win the white, working-class voters that the Democratic nominee will need in the general election, but many African American leaders say a Clinton nomination -- handed to her by superdelegates -- would result in a disastrous breach with black voters.
"If this party is perceived by people as having gone into a back room somewhere and brokered a nominee, that would not be good for our party," House Majority Whip James E. Clyburn (S.C.), the highest ranking African American in Congress, warned yesterday. "I'm telling you, if this continues on its current course, [the damage] is going to be irreparable."
Obviously what Clyburn is saying could be correct. Perhaps Clinton is making it less likely that the eventual Democratic nominee will win in November. Or perhaps Clyburn wants Clinton to drop out so he does not have to make a choice as a superdelegate, and perhaps the journalist writing this article wants to perpetuate a narrative about Democrats being divided.
The evidence does show that the country hates Republicans, thinks the economy is slipping, and hates the war in Iraq. Democrat Bill Foster just took Dennis Hastert's seat, and Democrats took a majority in the R+10 MS-01. There's just no evidence that the Democrats are in trouble. None. There are a lot of media and political elites that want to spread this narrative for a lot of reasons, some of which are emotional and some of which are financial. Most of all, though, I think people are getting worried because it's something to do. There's a perceived sense of control in worrying and being able to plead for Clinton and/or Obama to do something/anything to end the fighting.
It's much more difficult to let go, as political junkies, and say 'well, voters will decide, and that's that.' It's boring to say 'don't worry, Democrats are going to win big everywhere'. It makes you look foolish if it doesn't happen, but if you fret and bite your nails and then we do win you can celebrate and cover your ass at the same time. The reality though is that events outside our control - climate disasters, an invasion of Iran, etc - are much more likely to change the outcome than anything Clinton or Obama does.
So I just don't see any reason to really be worried. It's a boring race because we're winning and the country is in desperately bad shape as housing collapses. Don't confuse boredom with anxiety at our prospects. Both are painful. |
