New Hampshire Revival (updated)

I'm disappointed. I was hoping things would stabilize, but it's clear the situation for the Dems is still pretty volatile.

I think the only way to account for Obama's loss of a double digit lead in the polls is a sympathy vote for Clinton.  The story of the the "mean girls"  on the media bus giving her the cold shoulder, Edwards' debate attack on her, the media's glee in her Iowa defeat [see update below], the endless scrutiny of her eyes welling up. I think a lot of New Hampshireites felt sorry for her and couldn't bring themselves to put the last nails in her coffin.  As far as I can see it had nothing to do with anything Obama said or did.

But I think that however people reacted to Edwards' attack on her in the debate, he's right. Hillary is the Democratic establishment candidate. No matter what she says, she's the one who's most comfortable with the the way things currently work in D.C.  That's what the "experience" mantra means. That's what's behind her "false hopes" dig at Obama:  Shes saying, "I am a creature of the system here; you are not.  I can get things done because I'm more realistic about what cannot be changed.  The system may be sick, but you're delusional if you think you can change it." Maybe she's right about that, but nevertheless I want to put somebody in there who will try to redirect the energies of this system.  Even if he fails, he will have slowed down the way the system is degrading our political life.

I don't think she's a bad person, and I don't think that it would be a disaster if she was elected; it would just be a missed opportunity. It would just be the continuation of the stagnant Democratic establishment same old, same old.

UPDATE:  I don't think it's possible to overestimate the public's revulsion at the media's jaded perspective toward Clinton and toward the whole democratic process. I don't want Clinton to win the nomination, but how ironic if she were to win because of the public's reacting against her unfair treatment by the media.  It's as if the fairminded folk in New Hampshire were remembering how disgusted they felt at the media gorging on the other Clinton during the Lewinsky affair.  Greenwald summarizes this adolescent media malevolence well:

Petty personality-based gossip and speculative, worthless chatter is all they know. Drudge, after all, rules their world. He's their Walter Cronkite. And they wallow exclusively in the Matt Drudge currency, what two of their most revered members -- Mark Halperin and John Harris -- described as their fixation with the "attacked-based, personality-obsessed politics" pioneered by their Ruler. Can one find more compelling proof of all of this than their juvenile, sadistic, lynch-mob savaging of Hillary Clinton over the last several days based on the pettiest and most fact-free assaults and their long-harbored desire to see her crushed?

As is so often the case, Maureen Dowd today unintentionally provides a perfect view of the core sickness of our press corps:

When I walked into the office Monday, people were clustering around a computer to watch what they thought they would never see: Hillary Clinton with the unmistakable look of tears in her eyes.

A woman gazing at the screen was grimacing, saying it was bad. Three guys watched it over and over, drawn to the "humanized" Hillary. One reporter who covers security issues cringed. "We are at war," he said. "Is this how she'll talk to Kim Jong-il?"

Another reporter joked: "That crying really seemed genuine. I'll bet she spent hours thinking about it beforehand." He added dryly: "Crying doesn't usually work in campaigns. Only in relationships."

Bill Clinton was known for biting his lip, but here was Hillary doing the Muskie. Certainly it was impressive that she could choke up and stay on message.

Dowd is describing here the conversation that took place in her "office" -- which happens to be the newsroom of The New York Times -- between what are undoubtedly very Serious Journalists, including one who covers (said with whispered reverence) "security issues." And in this one short passage, on vivid, revolting display is every repellent attribute that defines the Standard Modern Political Journalist:

*Jaded, bitterly cynical coolness masquerading as sophistication (no emotion, no passion, is even real);

* Vapid, shallow stupidity (political matters judged exclusively by Drudge-like personality distractions);

* Mindless recitation of idiotic, Kristol-like right-wing talking points (we need manly Tough Guys, not Girly Crying, for our Wars);

* The basest and most glaringly obvious strain of sexism (no mention of the endless crying episodes from GOP Warrior-Cheerleaders);

* Their self-absorbed and almost-always-wrong belief that their own insulated biases are how the Regular Folk Think (hence, Hillary's "crying," which voters apparently either appreciated or ignored, was going to doom her candidacy, just as Huckabee's press conference would doom his in Iowa);

* Herd-like adolescent malice rituals directed towards the Hated Loser (NYT reporters grouping together to chortle and cackle oh-so-knowingly at the Wicked Witch).

Also from Rebecca Traister in today's Salon:

So no, I have not been a Hillary Clinton supporter. But the torrent of ill-disguised hatred and resentment unleashed toward a briefly weakened Clinton this week shook that breezy naiveté right out of me, and made me feel something that all the hectoring from feminist elders could not: guilt for not having stood up for Hillary. I can't believe I'm saying this, but had I been a New Hampshire voter on Tuesday, I would have pulled a lever for the former first lady with a song in my heart and a bird flipped at MSNBC's Chris Matthews, a man whose interest in bringing Clinton down hovers on the pathological, and whose drooling excitement at the prospect of her humiliation began to pulse from the television last week before most Iowa precincts had even begun to report results. . . . who knows how I'll vote; but I do know that I am happy that I'll now likely have the opportunity to cast a vote for the candidate of my choice and not of MSNBC's.

I have to say that there is a certain frisson of schadenfreude in seeing Chris Matthews, once again, be shown up as an idiot.  But allowing our negative reactions to idiots in the media dictate our choices is as stupid as taking these idiots seriously.

 

Comments

[Matt Zemek]

This moment summarizes and symbolizes my entire life. It would be much too long a story for this space.

All I'll say is as follows:

It's a mighty absurd state of affairs when the fate of this planet--in relationship to the leadership of its richest and most powerful nation--is substantially affected by, oh, 10,000 women in a tiny New England state who, on the basis of a few tears shed, cast their vote.

Once again, we've encountered yet another moment in American presidential politics when being educated, engaged, participatory, studious, hard-working, informed, principled and ethical in the service of democracy and justice comes to mean absolutely NOTHING.

Once again, a New Hampshire Democratic primary (remember 1972 with Ed Muskie's tear drop) is decided by something entirely cosmetic and trivial in nature.

Once again, some strange magnetism creates an improbable revival of the fortunes of a member of the Clinton family, despite an opposing candidate doing nothing wrong or inappropriate.

This is what insanity looks like, writ large.

I cannot write anything more, or I'll vomit.

[Guy Fawkes]

Indeed, although I shudder at the thought of a Clinton vs. Republican defeat (or even a victory) in November, I was really unsettled by the un-objective glee of Big Media at Hillary's loss in Iowa.

Americans are slowly figuring out that Big Media is creating a narrative, instead of merely reporting what it appears to be. The 24-hour corporate news cycle has done damage to our democracy that's fathomless.

Obama needs to show more warmth, smile, and actually appear less "perfect." America is just post-racial enough now that a black candidate for president doesn't need to be a "saint." Obama impresses easily--no one likes a 'try-hard.'

[Matt Zemek]

In light of this updated post, I have just this to say:

WHERE WAS THE SYMPATHY FOR HOWARD DEAN IN 2004, AMERICA? HUH?

NEW HAMPSHIRE: WHERE WAS THE "NOT-SO-FAST, LET'S EXTEND THE DEMOCRATIC RACE AND CONTINUE THE DIALOGUE" DECISION FOUR YEARS AGO? AND, FOR THAT MATTER, EIGHT YEARS AGO WITH BRADLEY GOING AGAINST GORE?

The media is as horrible as horrible gets, but darnit, how come only some victims of media scrutiny get resuscitated by a moved public? Dean got swamped four years ago. Bradley didn't earn any sympathy points in 2000.

I think it's time for another primal scream... I've had about one every two hours today. Another Mount Saint Helens eruption should be due at, oh, about 3 o'clock.

[guest]

Congratulations to Hilary Clinton on her amazing win in New Hampshire. Perhaps now we can set aside this silly socialist Obama character and go on to more important things.

[guest]

In 2004, Howard Dean was a nutcase and was finally exposed as such in his Iowa concession speech; that was the scariest ten minutes in the history of campaigns.

[Jack Whelan]

"Guest" at least realizes what so many conservatives attracted to Obama seem to be in denial about--he's not nearly as conservative or as enmeshed in the corporate capitalist establishment as Clinton is. If such Republicans focussed on issues rather than personalities, they'd have realized that Republican-lite Clintons are about as good as it can get for Republicans if a Democrat sits in the oval office. Clinton 1 balanced the budget, dismantled welfare, and he undermined the unions in pushing NAFTA--just to name a few of the better-known of Clinton 1's Republican achievements. Clinton 2 is cut from the same cloth.

[guest]

"If such Republicans focussed on issues rather than personalities, they'd have realized that Republican-lite Clintons are about as good as it can get for Republicans if a Democrat sits in the oval office."

Many of the conservative opinion leaders (like Sean Hannity in particular) are nothing more than partisan hacks who would hate any Democrat elected to be president. I think Hannity especially dislikes Bill Clinton in particular not because of his policies but rather because he was so good at winning elections and maintaining strong public support. Under this view, politics is more a game than anything else. Go Hilary!

[Guest]

""Guest" at least realizes what so many conservatives attracted to Obama seem to be in denial about--he's not nearly as conservative or as enmeshed in the corporate capitalist establishment as Clinton is. If such Republicans focussed on issues rather than personalities, they'd have realized that Republican-lite Clintons are about as good as it can get for Republicans if a Democrat sits in the oval office. Clinton 1 balanced the budget, dismantled welfare, and he undermined the unions in pushing NAFTA--just to name a few of the better-known of Clinton 1's Republican achievements. Clinton 2 is cut from the same cloth."

We can only hope that Hillary would bring back the peace and prosperity of the 90's, which, after looking back it at it, was a great decade.

[Matt Zemek]

Guest,

When a Democratic administration presides over the increased corporatization of politics, the dismantling of welfare in the wrong direction, and widening income inequality, it's not a great decade. Moreover, one could clearly see that much of the 1990s were built on a house of sand known as the dot-com bubble.