Monday, December 31, 2007

On the virtue of not being Clinton

I think one of the hallmarks of the political naivete Paul Krugman has been talking about is the belief that "this particular Democrat" will somehow have a better time of it than any other Democrat, at least when it comes to facing the GOP and their media enablers.

Those who argue that Hillary will face more partisan opposition than would Obama are falling into the same trap that caught both Gore and Kerry. They also believed that they would have a better time of it by virtue of not having the last name of Clinton.

What they failed to realize was that having a (D) after their name was enough to make them "of the devil" in the GOP's eyes (and enough to automatically put them 50 yards behind the starting line as far as the establishment media was concerned).

Both Gore and Kerry understand this now. But they had to go through the fire before they figured it out.

I fear that Obama and his supporters will be facing a similar awakening.

(And don't think that Obama's generally favorable press now is any indication that the village media will treat him better than they would any other Democrat. The village is notoriously fickle and will turn on a golden boy at a moments notice. Hell, I can remember very early in the '92 race seeing criticism of the media for being to easy on Clinton! The media is a viper you never want to think of as your ally.)


Post a Comment

<< Home