Main-stream media freakout's continue as the reality that Hillary Clinton will not be the Democratic nominee sets in. Matt Bai of
NYT's The Caucus
argues that Dems need to stop anointing "Kennedy's" and then goes on to blame Obama for making the comparison. Only, he hasn't. Hillary has, the media has, but while Obama is comfortable placing himself on the same historical continuum as the civil rights movement; he's never cried Kennedy.
If you're under 30 (as I am), this Kennedy stuff has no real resonance at all. For my generation "Kennedy" and "Camelot" signify "Great Leader and Great Time" in the same abstract way Elvis Presley signifies "King of Rock". We get that it was goo times, but we don't get why and they're not our times anyway.
What's strange is the sudden 180 twist of the MSM in regards to Obama: the sudden rising of his expectations (from "Will he win NH?" to "Anything less than a 10 point lead is a failure!") and a marked rise in rallying behind Hillary-- the debate over if she's more qualified is now "she's so qualified!" and promulgating the idea that Barrack's rise is the result of some sort of irrational exuberance; as Bai's article tries to state. There's a nasty sentiment that the voter's are too stupid; that Barrack is a fad. Maybe it's just the news cycle, maybe they feel bad that Hillary cried, but my feeling is that, as they've been for most of this primary season; the MSM has been horribly out of touch with popular sentiment.
Hillary argues that nobody's asked Barrack the tough questions in any of the debates, that he hasn't been vetted, that she alone is ready to lead. There's been 20 debates; she's been at all of them. She's gone after him either on her own or through proxies. Nobody will argue that the Clinton's have not gone full tilt to discredit Barrack-- and they've failed. If you're looking for a vetting, I'd say surviving the Clinton attack machine unscathed is a pretty good one.
This was Hillary's election to lose; and she's lost it. Each retooling of strategy reminds voters that she will change her message to suit the popular sentiment; which was her husband's greatest foible. She keeps harping on her experience, but fails to offer up a vision. What Barrack Obama offers voters is a clear mandate. When he is elected, there will be a very high bar he will have to clear, but he's the one whose set it. If he fails, the country will turn on him, but they are supporting him now because he isn't hedging bets, playing strategies or making deals. He speaks plainly (lofty speech is the speech which cuts to the truth the fastest) and he offers up hope. Kennedy? Nah. Try the Democratic version of "Morning in America".
Labels: politics
