(Cross-posted at MyDD.)
I never underestimate the laziness and stupidity of the media. As Stephen Colbert so deftly made clear to the assembled media throng at the Washington Correspondents Dinner a couple of years ago, the majority of the press who call themselves "reporters" are nothing more than "stenographers."
So it is with a certain dark humor tempered with sadness that I have noted press "reports" on Obama and Wright.
The press seems to have swallowed whole the notion that Obama's association with Wright makes him untenable as the Democratic nominee. This despite never having looked at the alternative: Hillary Clinton and her closets, attic, basement and additional storage lockers full to the gills with fresh Clinton skeletons.
(more)
And the Clinton campaign is, of course, among the leaders -- along with their bedfellows at FOX News -- in making the case that Obama is now too damaged to represent the party in November:
Mrs. Clinton’s advisers said they had spent recent days making the case to wavering superdelegates that Mr. Obama’s association with Mr. Wright would doom their party in the general election.
That argument could be Mrs. Clinton’s last hope for winning this contest.
Yesterday, Politico Republican presidential beat "reporter," Jonathan Martin, wrote a piece titled, "GOP sees Rev. Wright as path to victory".
Nowhere in Martin's article does he mention potential attacks against a vulnerable Clinton -- a candidate whose "I-will-NEVER-vote-for-her" number has stood rock solid on or about 47% for the last year. Apparently, it didn't occur to the Martin to ask his Republican sources how potential attacks on Obama stack up against the treasure trove of fresh dirt on the Clintons (detailed in an earlier diary.)
One of the great ironies of this campaign has been the Obama-Rezko story. Obama ended up giving back more than $150,000 in funds tied to Rezko, yet earlier in the cycle, Clinton gave back more than $800,000 in funds tied to Norman Hsu. And that doesn't even include the dishwashers and busboys story that appeared in The Los Angeles Times. But would the media compare and contrast the Obama-Rezko situation with the monumental pile of dirt tied to the Clintons? No. They just spit back what they're fed.
Even a bitter Jerome Armstrong, who, along with Markos, has long railed against the tendency of the Democratic Beltway consultancy class to base their campaigns on fear of what the other side will say or do, penned a pants-pissing post last night, going as far as quoting the derogatory anti-Obama rantings of a wingnut as why all is lost.
Of course, Jerome, like Mr. Martin from Politico, fails to weigh the current attacks on Obama against possible attacks on Clinton, should she somehow pull out the nomination.
As if FOX News and every wingnut pundit doesn't have a file on Hillary and Bill a mile thick, including highly questionable financial dealings like Chinese dishwashers and busboys in New York somehow ponying up $2,300 each for her primary campaign, and god-knows-what about Bill's shenanigans since leaving office.
As I asked Jerome and other Clinton backers last night in Jerome's post:
Hillary and her backers have claimed over and over that she has "already been vetted." And Hillary has made the bold assertion that "there are no surprises" with her.
Jerome, do you believe that?
Do other Clinton backers really believe that Hillary has been vetted this cycle?
Have her Democratic opponents questioned her on Norman Hsu? Have any of her Democratic opponents pressed the media to look into how Chinese dishwashers and busboys in New York could afford to pony up $2,300 to her primary campaign? And have any of her Democratic opponents pressed the media to ask how Bill's questionable financial dealings -- Saudi millions for his presidential library, his trip to Kazakhstan that netted a Canadian billionaire multi-billion dollar profit and Bill's foundation a $131 million donation form the same Canadian -- would pose a conflict of interest to her presidency?
And do you think the enemy has a storehouse of information on Bill's other shenanigans since leaving office?
Jerome didn't answer. And neither did any other Clinton backers except for good, ol' Edgar08 who was honest enough to admit that the Thugs will attack Obama or Clinton with equal vigor.
This fact belies Clinton's oft-stated claim that she's been "vetted" and that there are "no surprises" with her.
Just because her Democratic opponents, including Obama, have had the decency (yes, decency) not to use these stories against her, doesn't mean the Republicans will show her the same courtesy.
So to the superdelegates that Mark Penn and Harold Ickes and Howard Wolfson are pitching with the "We're doomed in Novermber with Obama" scenario, I simply ask that you consider the alternative as well:
A candidate who has huge and stable negatives and who, therefore, would face the daunting task of having to win every other possible fence-sitter to win the election.
Don't buy the hype.
Yes, Obama must prove he can weather this storm. But perhaps the superdelegates and Obama's campaign should be asking the media to weigh all the evidence, including the mountains of fresh, rich dirt on the Clintons.
Is Hillary more electable because Obama is currently in trouble?
Even her campaign doesn't have the courage to make that argument.
Note to the press: Get off your asses and do some real reporting.