Squaring the Culture

So here’s what scares me – that Fox has become the most “fair and balanced” when it comes to Clinton. I really feel like I am in Upside Down World now, but they have been pretty good. Just last night, I flipped over during a ball game, and Greta Van Susteren was on, talking abt FL and MI! She kept asking how in the world Obama thought he could disenfranchise two MAJOR states without repercussions?! Good question – I’d like to know that, too!

Rabble Rouser Reverend Amy, Commenter at You Can Call Me Uppity

I spent part of the morning reading what Hillary Clinton supporters are saying about Obama, which is where I happened across the video you’ll see below. (I spent another part of the morning watching Charlie Wilson’s War with Shel; if you haven’t seen it yet, treat yourself, Aaron Sorkin scores nicely with an entertaining and thought-provoking script.) The video shows Neil Cavuto of Fox teaching young Obama “strategist” Flavia Colgan what it takes to function in the Big Leagues — and demonstrating that his show is the Big Leagues. In it, Cavuto, merely by asking pointed questions, completely dismembers the arguments that Hillary Clinton ought to drop out of the Democratic primary race.

A number of things come to mind:

First of all, candidates with no hope of earning the nomination have remained in the race ’till the bitter end plenty of times in my lifetime; Ron Paul comes immediately to mind, but with a little help, so do Ronald Reagan (1976), Ted Kennedy (1980), and Jesse Jackson (1988). None of those candidates had the slightest chance of becoming the nominee. It strikes me that the Democrats are eager for Mrs. Clinton to drop voluntarily out of the race precisely because she does have a chance of becoming the nominee, but in a way that demolishes their populist pretensions. If she truly had no chance (as they routinely and disingenuously claim), they wouldn’t give a rat’s patoot whether she stayed in or not.

Secondly, let’s take note of the fact that for the first time in the lifetime of anybody reading this, the press is actually getting a little bit tough with a Democrat. I’m wondering when one of the Democrats-in-the-street will look up from growling at his or her morning paper, frown and crinkle their brow a little, and say “I wonder if this is what it feels like to be a Republican?” I’m not holding my breath, but I am going to start plastering that comment around Hillary Clinton support sites here and there in the hopes that perhaps one of them will wake up from their stupor and, at long last, grasp something from the real world.

Let’s not pretend that what Mrs. Clinton is facing today is remotely like what Republicans face every day. It’s not; she still has their protection from completely legitimate scrutiny of the issues that properly should have landed her behind bars in the 1990s, her famous, vicious temper, her utter disdain for ordinary Americans, her imperious treatment of the help, or the complete and deliberate disconnect between what comes out of her mouth and what she genuinely believes. Before Tim Russert’s impertinent questions during a primary debate in Philadelphia last October, the press treated Mrs. Clinton like Miss America on the day after winning her crown (with occasional help from a plant or twenty.)

Still, today they’re at least sometimes expecting her to meet a professional standard, and they’re filling the air with pompous expressions of outrage that she dare act like a politician running for office, the way they do when they’re complaining that the Republicans are acting un-American when they don’t just go home and let the Democrats run things. They’re also fawning over Obama in the most embarrassing fashion. Clinton’s supporters are feeling, most of them for the first time ever, what it feels like to work against the wind of press opinion, and they think that’s unfair. The fact that they’re largely spoiled children complaining that the world isn’t providing the easy victory they’re owed does not nullify the other fact that it is unfair. The press takes sides, and does not treat candidates evenly, ever, and for the first time ever, the Clinton campaign is tasting this a little.

It’s a little too much to ask that Clinton supporters be candid about their own candidate, I suppose. The same comment I included at the top of this column contains this laugher about Clinton’s negative campaign:

… and really – WHAT negative ads has Clinton run? The ones where she points out his attacks on her are baseless?? How DARE she not cave to his false interpretation of her record!!

As I said, we can’t expect reality from day one. However, tasting the wrath of the press for a change may be a good start.

Finally, I think I’ll pay closer attention to the Hillary Clinton support sites for the next few months. They’ve got a better handle on Obama’s scandals than most conservative sites I’ve visited. If there’s real corruption there — and I’m betting there is — the Clinton campaign is a lot more likely than the McCain campaign to find it and use it, and the Clinton supporters will be talking about it in detail. Stay tuned.