Oliver Willis

I’ve followed the media intensely in an amateur and professional capacity for about 10 years or so, and even so I am just kind of slack jawed when they all start aping the same lines in pursuit of a common goal. Not on an idealogical basis, unlike those on the right I do not believe there is a vast alliance of idealogical warriors hiding out in the mainstream media, dying to take on one candidate and fluff another (although they get really sloppy with Bush). No, the media is a stupid machine in pursuit of ratings and money and they are on nobody’s team in the quest to make that happen.

Today’s example is the drumbeat against Sen. Clinton’s campaign. Here are the facts: some of her rival’s complaints against her are exceedingly legitimate – I personally don’t know what she was thinking to vote on the Kyl-Lieberman warmonger bill – and her answer on the illegal alien licensing issue was unclear at best (I don’t know where I stand on the issue, but its clear candidates have to have a position), but I do think that the “secrecy” allegation is idiotic.

That said, the way the press is treating this is as if she had broken down in tears and run crying from the stage! It’s like a steady hitter coming up to bat but because she struck out at 1 at-bat out of 10, she supposedly is washed up. I don’t blame Sen. Edwards and Obama for taking advantage of it, I’ve been arguing that they’ve been too deferential to her for too long, but the underlying facts do not show a campaign in crisis of any sort. The Edwards and Obama campaigns have to date not taken advantage of cracks in Sen. Clinton’s campaign, to their deficit.

Hillary haters like the idiotic Andrew Sullivan bought the story hook, line, and sinker that her campaign was panicked because they’re using the attacks as fundraising fodder. Um, anyone who has a rudimentary knowledge of U.S. politics knows that you use attacks to fuel fundraising. Ask Sen. Edwards – who made smart hay out of right wing smears of his character.

The media is more than willing to carry water for this line because they thrive on conflict. It’s boring to report that Sen. Clinton has a 30% lead on the rest of the field. It’s juicier to have them “neck and neck” as the caucuses and primaries come up. Ask Howard Dean about how the press is a willing participant in tearing down a frontrunner, or Bill Bradley and John McCain about how quickly they can build you up to being a “legitimate” challenger.

My guess is that beyond the chattering class, this won’t really affect Clinton’s position, and the only true determinant will be how she interacts with the rest of the field and how they choose to prop themselves up and compare their records to hers. I don’t know if the media is going to get the close race they want so badly, but if it does occur I think the voters will be the ones to determine that – no matter how hard the press tries.