Tuesday, March 17, 2015

Looks Like Hillary Clinton Has An Opponent--But Does It Matter?

It's probably a foregone conclusion in our bipolar culture that one extreme swing of the pendulum guarantees another in exceedingly short order.  Up until The New York Times' story a couple of weeks ago about her use of a personal e-mail account for official State Department business, Hillary Clinton appeared to be on a glide path to replace her former boss, Barack Obama, in the Oval Office.  Polls said it.  Pundits said it.  And no one disagreed with either of them.

Along came the e-mail story, however, and suddenly everybody started backpedaling on that story line.  In some cases, with yours truly being an example, the backpedaling was not too extreme, merely suggesting that a real primary opponent might better prepare her for the scrutiny of a presidential campaign. But, in other cases, a few people have tried to get ahead of the curve before they have any idea of how steep the curve might actually be.  Take the case of Mike Lupica, New York Daily News sportswriter and part-time political commentator.  I've read his stuff for more than 35 years, and can assure you that there is no better weather-vane of public opinion than Mr. Lupica.  (If that observation sounds like it's meant to cut both ways, then I've done my job.)  Anyway, based entirely on a story that is still unfolding even as I write this, he decided that, in terms of 2016, Hillary is dead meat on a stick.

Think about that for a second.  It's March.  Of 2015, for crying out load.  A full ten months before the Iowa caucuses.  And, according to Lupica, Jeb Bush is going to take it all, based entirely on this.  Bush baggage?  Old news, according to old Mike.  They'll just think of him as that nice guy "Jeb" from Florida--that is, if they can forget about Terry Schiavo, among other less-than-nice-guy moments.  You heard it in the Daily News first, folks.

But, as I said, it's still an evolving story.  And here is the latest evolution--one which suggests that the whole story might be close to a nothing-burger after all.  Not to say that it doesn't raise questions or eyebrows, but one in which it appears less likely that laws were broken.  On top of all that, it appears that all of the brouhaha hasn't damaged Hillary's current popularity at all.  So why did we get all upset?

Apparently, because the press decided that we needed to do so.

As unnatural as politics may be to many people, it has one thing in common with nature:  it abhors a vacuum.  And a vacuum is precisely what's been in place in the 2016 presidential race, up until the e-mail story broke.  Hillary was ahead, no one was seriously challenging her, and the press was wondering what are they going to write about for the next two years, apart from her coronation.  Keep in mind that, by press, I'm talking about the pre-Internet, legacy corporate media, which (unlike the Web) are owned by the 1% and reflect its "thinking."

And so, whether collaboratively or spontaneously, the legacy media reached a conclusion:  We will oppose Hillary in 2016, if no one else is up to the task.  And, if we need to pump a little hot air into our trial-balloon coverage, we'll feel free to do so.  Lest you think I'm alone in arriving at this conclusion, let me reassure you that I'm not.  Let me also reassure you that, for proof that the legacy media are trying to pump up Jeb at the expense of Hillary, you can find substance in the tale of the two Time Magazine covers.  One shows Bush pere along with W and Jeb in soft, nostalgic focus, a sort of GOP Camelot image.  Another shows Hillary as a shadowy, devilish figure.  Fair and balanced?  You decide.  But don't get it wrong.

Does it ultimately matter?  If Hillary can ever learn to get ahead of the media curve, instead of waiting for days and then telling everyone to focus on something else, it may not.  She's definitely her own worst enemy, and she needs to get over the troubled past she and her husband had with the press if she's actually going to break the ultimate glass ceiling.  I'm still rooting for help for her from a worthy primary opponent.

But I'm still rooting for her.  Because I'm not sure we can survive the alternative.  And, in my next post, I'll have more to say about that.

No comments: