The Ultimate Punishment

By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, May 9, 2008 8:50 AM

The media have figured out how to end the Democratic race.

Declaring it over doesn't work. Urging Hillary Clinton to drop out doesn't work. Putting Barack Obama on the cover of Time as the nominee doesn't work.

What does work--ah, this is fiendishly clever--is to simply ignore the race. Many journalists are just moving on. What will become a tsunami of speculation about whom Obama will pick as his running mate is already under way.

That's not to say the MSM isn't reporting on Hillary's campaign stops, her $6-million loan to her struggling operation, the trickle of superdelegates toward Obama and similar developments. But we are now treating Obama as The Man. That's why Brian Williams and Wolf Blitzer interviewed him yesterday. Psychologically, the focus is on the fall matchup. The media have moved from Will she drop out? to Does she want to be veep?

It is the ultimate sign of the speeded-up news cycle. Obama's media coronation lasted about 24 hours. If he formally wraps up the nomination in the coming weeks, everyone will play it up, but the truth is it will feel like old news. We will already have done our anatomy-of-an-upset pieces. And, with summer-like temperatures soaring, the fall campaign will be under way.

Tom Bevan nails the dynamic at Real Clear Politics:

"Hillary Clinton's biggest problem right now isn't her lack of money, and it isn't that undecided superdelegates will suddenly move against her. Indeed, yesterday was notable for the fact that so few superdelegates declared, and that multiple Democratic party bigwigs went public saying Hillary has every right to stay in the race and shouldn't necessarily get out just yet.

"The biggest threat to Clinton's candidacy right now is the media, and the instant (and almost universally accepted) conventional wisdom among the pundit class that it's over. Wednesday, Clinton suffered through a barrage of political obituaries, from talking head heavyweights like Tim Russert and George Stephanopoulos to opinion columnists from across the political spectrum . . . The CW [is] nearly set in stone."

And to further prove my point, the Philly Inquirer's Dick Polman:

"While Hillary Clinton runs around West Virginia, doing her best impersonation of a Japanese kamikaze pilot who is cognitively incapable of acknowledging defeat, there is a sense that the general election phase is about to begin."

Roger Simon makes the point with much more colorful metaphors:

"Rats don't swim toward sinking ships, and pols don't back no losers, and this is why Hillary Clinton is in such trouble.

"In a relatively short amount of time, Clinton has gone from being the inevitable winner to being the underdog to being a dead woman walking."

Since Time is the magazine that pronounced Obama the nominee, albeit with an asterisk, let's check out the Joe Klein piece:

"The formerly charismatic Obama had undergone a transformation of his own: from John F. Kennedy to Adlai Stevenson, from dashing rhetorician to good-government egghead. He derided the gas-tax holiday as the gimmick it was, gambling that Democrats would see through the ruse. He trudged through the Wright debacle, never allowing his impeccable disposition to slip toward anger or pettiness. On the Sunday before the primaries, he gave a dour, newsless interview to Tim Russert, enduring another 20 minutes of questions about the Reverend Wright. Meanwhile, Clinton was spiky and histrionic in her simultaneous duel with George Stephanopoulos. She made alpha-dog power moves, standing up to talk to the live audience while Stephanopoulos remained seated, forcing him to stand uncomfortably beside her and then, later, embarrassing her host by reminiscing about his liberal, anti-NAFTA, Clinton-staffer past . . .

"Clinton's apparent loss of the nomination was a consequence of her campaign's incompetence, but it was also a result of her reliance on the same-old. The shameless populism that seemed a possible game changer to media observers, micro-ideas like the gas-tax holiday, the willingness to go negative -- which Obama tried intermittently, in halfhearted reaction to Clinton's attacks -- appeared very old and clichéd to Obama's legion of young supporters, who were the real game changers in this year of extraordinary turnouts."

This is getting major pickup:

"As talk swirled this morning over when Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton should end her quest for the Democratic presidential nomination," says the L.A. Times, "her campaign chairman predicted the party would have a presumptive nominee in June and, if it's not Clinton, she would campaign for Sen. Barack Obama.

"The comments by Terry McAuliffe seemed aimed at persuading superdelegates and Democratic Party leaders that Clinton would not hurt party unity by pressing her campaign through the final June 3 primaries in Montana and South Dakota."

Doesn't seem that different to me than the past rhetoric, which is that the superdelegates, obviously, will decide.

"Even as Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton persisted with her campaign for the nomination, Mr. Obama made a celebratory return to the Capitol, where he received an enthusiastic reception on the House floor in an appearance staged to position him as the party's inevitable nominee," says the New York Times.

All right, the veep chatter is under way. Here's the first of 5,000 posts on the subject:

"The notion that Barack Obama should pick Hillary Clinton as his vice presidential running mate is crazy," says Fred Barnes. "She passes the first test of a veep selection: she's a plausible president. But she fails the second. She doesn't qualify as a partner on the Democratic ticket (and possibly in the White House) that Obama would be comfortable with--far from it.

"But there is someone who does meet these two requirements, plus a third one and maybe a fourth. That person is Democratic Governor Edward Rendell of Pennsylvania. Yes, Rendell was the leading supporter of Clinton when she trounced Obama in the Pennsylvania presidential primary last month. But he's a smart, tough, and respected politician who would no doubt embrace Obama eagerly, fully, and loyally."

Well, he wouldn't be the first Jewish nominee for VP.

An alliance with Hillary "would be a nightmare ticket, both dysfunctional and illogical. Opposites usually don't mesh in politics," Barnes writes. "Sure, LBJ helped JFK win the presidency in 1960. But Clinton isn't LBJ. Rendell comes closer to the LBJ model."

But, asks Atlantic's Marc Ambinder, could she really turn it down?

"Horribly premature to ask that question, perhaps, and the conventional wisdom everywhere in the political world is, basically, no way, not Hillary, never . . .

"A very close friend of Clinton's told me that accepting the vice presidential nomination in theory was very different than actually being given the chance to become vice president in reality."

But she doesn't really need it, Josh Marshall opines:

"Does Hillary Clinton really want the vice presidency? It seems to me that the senate offers her a better venue for achieving her ambitions and goals personally, politically and in public policy -- and a future in public life with much greater longevity -- than anything she'll find as Barack Obama's number two . . .

"If Obama wins the presidency, Hillary would not be able to run in her own right until 2016, when she will turn 69. As John McCain is showing, that's certainly not too old to run for president. But she will be nearing the age when 'age' becomes an issue in her candidacy.

"Most people who accept the vice presidency do so either because they believe it will line them up to succeed to the presidency or because it brings them to a level of power and honor their careers held little prospect of bringing them otherwise. But neither applies to Hillary Clinton. She's already of the stature and standing to run for president. She's a genuinely historic figure. And she's already been heavily involved in a successful two term administration."

HRC might have her eyes on another prize, in the estimation of Tom Edsall:

"Democrats, both those who are loyal and those who are opposed to her campaign, say the odds of her winning a top leadership spot in the Senate would improve dramatically if she gracefully conceded now. The icing on the cake includes an improved political climate, giving Hillary and Bill Clinton the opportunity to heal the rift with the black political community . . .

"While Clinton currently has her eye focused on only one thing, the presidential nomination, if she loses -- as appears increasingly likely -- her stature in the Senate will depend, in part, on whether she is ultimately seen as helping or hurting Obama's chances in November.

"That stature, in turn, will be crucial in determining her success if she decides to try to climb the Senate leadership ladder. This year, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada faces what could prove to be a tough re-election fight."

In the New Republic, S.V. Date sees a potential pitfall for Obama:

"No point denying it: Barack Obama has a Jewish problem. Because of his sympathy for the Palestinians, his willingness to meet with enemies, perhaps even his Arabic middle name, he averaged ten or more percentage points worse among Jewish voters in New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania than he did in those states overall. And then there's been the ongoing Reverend Wright saga, tossing gasoline on the whole situation. Still, come November, simple demographics suggest that his 'Jewish problem' will be significantly less problematic in the general election.

"Here's why: Jewish voters made up three percent of the national electorate in 2004, with their numbers concentrated in a handful of states where they constitute significant voting blocs. The states that have the highest Jewish populations, however, also tend to be reliably Democratic. Which means that even if McCain and the Republicans could somehow pry away most of the Jewish vote in New York, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and California (or if a lot of Jews were to decide to sit this election out), it's likely that those states would nevertheless deliver their electoral votes to an Obama ticket. And most swing states, such as Ohio and Missouri, have too few Jewish voters to make much of a difference either way. Which, naturally enough, brings it all back to Florida."

Florida, Florida, Florida. It's always about Florida.

Hillary has touched off a mini-uproar with her latest interview, with Andrew Sullivan leading the jeers:

"She goes there:

" 'I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on,' she said in an interview withUSA TODAY. As evidence, Clinton cited an Associated Press article 'that found how Sen. Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me.'

"Does she hear herself? 'Working, hard-working Americans, white Americans.' 'Whites in both states.' If a Republican said this about a black opponent, his career would be in jeopardy for racism."

Americablog's John Aravosis is also upset:

"Hillary is race-baiting again. Gee, no one could have predicted that one . . .

"There sure is a pattern emerging here. The Clintons are using racism to try to win the nomination against a black man . . . Is it any wonder blacks aren't voting for Hillary? They shouldn't vote for Hillary, ever again."

I think the remarks were remarkably clumsy, but if a trailing black candidate said he wanted to stay in the race to make sure the voices of African Americans are heard, no one would care, right? Is it impermissible to talk about it in reverse?

National Review's Jim Geraghty makes this point:

"African-Americans are voting overwhelmingly for a candidate who shares their skin color, but it's being repeatedly suggested that white working-class voters are motivated by racism."

Some conservatives are candid in seeing a rough road this fall, John Podhoretz among them:

"Between them, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have generated more than 30 million primary votes. To say there has never been anything like this is to understate the case.

"In 2000, when George W. Bush and John McCain were fighting it out for the GOP nomination, a total of 20 million votes were cast. The Democrats in 2008 have bested that by 50 percent.

"What this means is that, even if a third of Hillary's voters absolutely refuse to vote for Obama in November, that will leave him with a probable 30 million votes in the bank. In May. Six months before the November election."

In case you had a hankering for the latest assessment of Karl Rove, here it is:

"As much as Mr. Obama's cheerleaders in the media hate it, Rev. Jeremiah Wright remains a large general-election challenge for Mr. Obama. Not only did Mr. Obama admit on 'Fox News Sunday' that Mr. Wright was a legitimate issue, voters agree. Mr. Obama's favorable ratings have dropped since Mr. Wright emerged as an issue. More than half of Mrs. Clinton's supporters say it is a meaningful reflection on Mr. Obama's character and judgment.

" This will be a very difficult year for Republicans. The economy's shaky state, an unpopular war, and the natural desire for partisan change after eight years of one party in the White House have helped tilt the balance to the Democrats.

"Mr. Obama is significantly weaker today than he was three months ago, but Democrats have the upper hand in November. They're beatable. But it's nonsense to think this year is going to be a replay of George H.W. Bush versus Michael Dukakis or Richard Nixon versus George McGovern."

Hey now: another member of Congress with a sex scandal! And the Republican lawmaker just had a DWI incident. Is there anyone out there who can keep his pants on?

"He's the baby daddy!

"Disgraced Staten Island Rep. Vito Fossella admitted Thursday he fathered a 3-year-old love child in an illicit affair with the woman who rescued him from a Virginia drunk tank," says the Daily News.

" 'My personal failings and imperfections have caused enormous pain to the people I love, and I am truly sorry,' the married congressman said in a four-sentence statement e-mailed to reporters.

"Fossella, a conservative Republican who always stressed 'family values,' confessed to an extramarital affair with retired Col. Laura Fay, 45, who paid $2,500 to pluck him from jail after his arrest in Alexandria, Va., May 1. Fossella, the city's only Republican congressman, did not address his political future."

Let me address it for him: bleak.

Finally, this question: Is "The Daily Show" (which hosted John McCain on Wednesday) fair and balanced? Would Jon Stewart make fun of the question itself? A study by the Project for Excellence in Journalism says:

"Republicans in 2007 tended to bear the brunt of ridicule from Stewart and his crew. From July 1 through November 1, Stewart's humor targeted Republicans more than three times as often as Democrats. The Bush administration alone was the focus of almost a quarter (22%) of the segments in this time period.

"The lineup of on-air guests was more evenly balanced by political party. But our subjective sense from viewing the segments is that Republicans faced harsher criticism during the interviews with Stewart. Whether this is because the show is simply liberal or because the Republicans control the White House is harder to pin down."

I'd like to see the figures for 2008, when the Dems clearly dominated the campaign news.