Reading The Washington Post op-eds today is like wading into an alternative universe. Aside from the always conscientious E.J. Dionne Jr. and Harold Meyerson, both of whom attempt to dig beneath what have become the cliched and conventional narratives being offered by TV talking heads, the colmnists offering analysis of Tuesday’s New Hampshire primary show little imagination — and even less interest in the fact that the campaign is not a horserace.
David Broder, for instance, often called the dean of Washington columnists (but who might be better referred to as the dean of conventional blathering), offers this bit of nonsense:
The lesson of New Hampshire can be summarized in two simple words: Character counts.
He then goes on to describe the New Hampshire contest as if it were the late innings of a playoff baseball game, Hillary Clinton and John McCain playing the roles of clutch hitters like Kirk Gibson and Derek Jeter.
Then there is this bit of empty bloviation from Robert Novak:
Had the turnout of women there, which constituted an unprecedented 57 percent of the Democratic vote, been plugged in to exit results, a two-percentage-point Clinton victory would have been forecast. The unexpected female support in turn can be attributed to the Clinton style, which may not be pretty but is effective. Hillary Clinton‘s tears evoked sympathy for her, and Bill Clinton‘s sneers generated contempt for Obama.
Novak can’t resist going to the standard anti-Hillary well — “only the naive can believe Clinton was not artfully playing for sympathy from her sisters” when she teared up on Monday, he writes — as he tries to use the Clinton win as an excuse to prop up McCain’s candidacy. McCain, he says, maybe best “equipped to withstand the battering he would receive from the Clintons and to respond in kind.”
Novak’s lesson?
The lesson of New Hampshire for Obama’s campaign should be that rock-star popularity is not sufficient to take on the Clintons, who for a decade have given no quarter to their political foes. When it seemed that Obama would win in New Hampshire, the Clinton camp prepared an attack strategy against him. Since Obama is favored in the next big primary test, in South Carolina on Jan. 26, he can expect more of the same ahead.
This, of course, qualifies as a “no-duh.” The Clintons will go on the attack? Brilliant observation — isn’t that the normal course of politics, for the perceived underdog to try and tear down the frontrunner? Hasn’t this been the approach used in American politics since the advent of polling?
Richard Cohen is convinced that it was the tear, and Barack Obama’s supposedly snarky response during Saturdays Democratic debate — what he calls “patronizing dismissal of Clinton” (it came during an exchange over likeability — a question that, given Bush’s likeability during 2000, should have been consigned to the scrap heap).
George Will plays Capt. Obvious in his column, reminding us that it is a marathon and that a marathon is a good thing.
A marathon would reveal almost everything relevant about the candidates. If, afterward, either party suffers buyers’ remorse, the buyers will have no one to blame.
This would be true, of course, if people like Will, Cohen, Novak and Broder wrote about the important stuff. Alas, given teh sorry state of presidential press coverage, the buyers — meaning you and I — are on their own.
South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick
E-mail me by clicking here.
Hank Kalet 