It's amusing how nearly the Times' entire roster of op-ed columnists is openly rooting against Sen. Hillary Clinton in the Democratic presidential primary. The paper's policy prohibits them from making outright endorsements, but it seems they've skirted as close to endorsing Sen. Barack Obama as possible without typing the explicit sentence. And it's gotten harsher as the Democratic primary has matured.
Frank Rich, who slings the sharpest, most insightful journalistic lightning bolts week after week (and is, it appears, a liberal Democrat), criticized the presumptive Republican nominee, Sen. John McCain, by writing he's been running a campaign that's nearly as bad as Clinton's. Rich on McCain: "He is emulating almost identically the suicidal Clinton campaign against Mr. Obama. He has mimicked Mrs. Clinton’s message and rhetorical style, her tone-deaf contempt for Mr. Obama’s cultural appeal, and her complete misreading of just how politically radioactive the war in Iraq remains despite its migration from the front page." Ouch.
Maureen Dowd and Gail Collins, who playfully romp through domestic politics, routinely hit Clinton for being too boring and uninspiring; wonder why she can claim the presidential experience she claims to have; and point out she attacks and then makes nice, and then plays the feminine victim card. (Well, Collins tends to disect the absurdity of it all, i.e. the presidential race, whereas Dowd is almost all Hillary, all the time. And considering how much Dowd's work relies on deconstructing and rebuilding feminism, I'm trying to read too deeply into her attractive head shot found in the above embedded link.)
Even David Brooks, that mild-mannered conservative who might want to consider thinner glasses frames, comes back to the Obama side in his column today. Whereas two weeks ago he wrote about the inevitable comedown from Obama's revivalistic campaign (and as a Massachusetts resident, I'll note that perhaps Obama's good friend, Gov. Deval Patrick, serves as a good precedent), today Brooks, writing about speeches Clinton and Obama gave to Iowa's Democratic Party on the same November night, says: "Clinton had sounded like Old Politics, but Obama created a vision of New Politics. And the past several months have revolved around the choice he framed there that night." Although, true to his realist form, Brooks adds: "There’s only one politics, and, tragically, it’s the old kind, filled with conflict and bad choices."
(Obviously, Billy "Crystal" Kristol disdains both Democratic candidates; Paul Krugman strongly prefers the Clintons; I don't read Bob Herbert that much, but he seems to have voted for Obama; and Nicholas Kristof is off in Africa again, fighting the good fight, not really commenting on this race. An old tennis partner of mine once said he's surprised Kristof is still alive, which I agree with, considering his penchant to parachute into the world's most volatile situations time after time.)
Now there are two sides you can take in this: It could be read as further proof that the press loves Obama, hates the Clintons and will only truly scrutinize one, as Saturday Night Live satirized two weeks ago, which Hillary Clinton then cited as proof she is being treated unequally in this race. (I would assume the Clinton camp already knows this, but memo to Mark Penn: The first and quickest way to alienate the press is to say they're the reason things are going poorly for you.)
Or it could be read that Obama really is the more inspiring and promising candidate, less fraught with the burden of partisanship fostered during the (Bill) Clinton era and still strong today, and the Times' roster all realizes that. (Do they talk about this themselves or would purposefully hitting the same message be newsprint collusion?) I say it's a combination of the two because they're so closely connected. Actually, instead of words like "inspiring and promising," I think the more appropriate one is "authentic," as there is one candidate in the Democratic primary who screams authenticity and one who screams calculated, down-the-middle, focus-tested policy, campaigning and even facial expressions. I'll let you figure out which one is which.
When I posted on the day of the Iowa caucuses, I wrote, "Here's to hoping no one trounces anyone tonight so the primary season is extended as long as possible. At least until Feb. 5 when I can vote." But today, as much as I'd like to see a longer primary season, I think that would require a total revamping of how it actually unfolds, so: Hopefully things are settled tonight.
No comments:
Post a Comment