If you want an example of the mainstream media babbling on endlessly on what they believe the story should be, look no further than the endless obsession with New York's junior Senator. Two years before the first primary vote will be cast, Hillary is today portrayed as the all-but-crowned and inevitable Presidential nominee (as is John McCain for the other side, in a striking parallel that only makes the pattern clearer). The verdict of the elite chattering classes is in: Hillary it is, in a face-off against McCain – a nice, solid storyline that plays to all the things the media like to see in their coverage, such as high name recognition, easy clichés, and nice little cookie-cutter boxes to frame their articles. Just think of all the 'Can a woman be President?' stories already written – pure speculation (not to say useless wankery), but these stories practically write themselves and let you head out to The Hamptons that much earlier.

This kind of fixation on simple stories is only one aspect of a kind of decadent political journalism that consists largely of horserace coverage, a fixation on 'gotcha' moments, endless warm and fuzzy 'personality' profiles – "Candidate X feels at home in a Wal-Mart, just like you!" – standing in for discussion of policy, and a broad avoidance of the boring stuff.

Politics as presented by People Magazine, in short. It's what our lazy journalists do. Call it poli-tainment, if you will, Brangelina in the White House.

Meanwhile, if you talk to just about any politically active Democrat in New York – not a bad idea, considering we are Hillary's home base – any discussion of Hillary's '08 candidacy produces ashen faces and some variation of "God forbid, she can't win. Is there anyone else? Warner? Gore? Anybody?". Dig a little deeper, and you'll find a profound unease with and distaste for the Senator's dexterous triangulation, her hawkishness, and all the other things that Hillary must do as she labors against a remarkably stable negative image created over a decade ago.

The historical model that makes the most sense for gaming the Democratic nomination of 2008 is the republican Chicago convention of 1860; there, too, a liberal New York Senator seen as nationally unelectable, Seward, succumbed to a rival, Lincoln, who carefully positioned himself as everyone's second choice – and won spectacularly. The real 2008 race is the one to be the acceptable and nationally viable other choice – and that's without Al Gore getting into the race, in which case he will win by default.

Or try talking to just about any politically active republican, especially outside of New York, and mention McCain '08. You'll likely be surprised just how many variations of "liberal sellout" are possible in the English language. The GOP base has a better memory, to its credit, than the media think; in their eyes, McCain is first and foremost the author of McCain-Feingold, a founding member of the treacherous 'Gang of 14', and an advocate of various policies that may make the media love him, but produce outrage amongst the true believers. The simple storyline is that the base will overlook these treacheries (as they see them) as the Bush administration continues its slow-motion collapse.

Again, no. Rather, as the efforts to re-brand George Bush as a liberal (and thereby to insulate conservatism from his failure) suggest, the base will look for a dyed in the wool true believer – and that is not going to be the treacherous John McCain. The GOP is now an ideological party, a historical novelty in its own right; but history does not suggest that ideologues choose free-thinkers (even if McCain is merely a shoddy simulacrum of one) to carry their banners.

But because the media are what they are – in love with simple stories, to be generous, scandalously myopic and lazy, to be less so – you will continue to read 2008 coverage that tells you that you essentially have no choice, that the race is already over, and that you must live with Hillary.

Don't believe the hype.

Bookmark/Search this post with:

| | | | | | | |