It is a relatively noncontroversial idea that politicians as a class tend to be narcissists with a small "n" (to distinguish from the more technical Narcissistic Character Disorder.) They tend to love the sound of their own voice, their own brilliant ideas, and rarely question their own judgment. They desire nothing more than re-election and the ability to do the people's work, as determined by them in their wisdom, facilitated by the people's money; they love sycophants and fawning adulation more than life itself.
Coincidentally, the MSM is also well stocked with narcissists who have an equal love of their own voice, idealize their own ideas, and rarely if ever question their own judgment. The MSM have done the Republicans immeasurable benefit by focusing their opprobrium on everything and anything Republican. It is not at all an exaggeration to suggest that much of the MSM have suffered from BDS for the last 7 years. On the other hand, the MSM have done a major disservice to the Democrats by not challenging them on their ideas, leaving too many Democratic politicians with the belief that they can, within limits, get away with skating along without the necessity of actually defending their ideas. This has worked out well for both the MSM and the Democrats up until now but it may not ultimately prove to be the optimal combination as we begin the long descent to the 2008 elections.
There are great risks when titanic egos collide.
Hillary Clinton is the overwhelming favorite to win the Democratic nomination for president. She offers an image of brittle strength untempered by significant challenges thus far on her path to coronation. When she was challenged by the 7 dwarfs in the last debate she did not fare well, by all accounts. Her post-debate spin and damage control were notable as well and contained a hint that she could yet find herself in a death match if she is not careful, something I will return to shortly.
The first item to understand from this so far interminable election campaign is that what we have seen so far will almost certainly have nothing to do with the actual campaign for president. There are several reasons for that.
As even Frank Rich understands, (though he shows that as a foreign affairs analyst he doesn't even make a good theater critic) by next summer Iraq will no longer be a particularly compelling issue for the Democrats to run on. The war in Iraq has been won, though the MSM and Democrats have done and will continue to do their best to ignore that inconvenient fact, and Iran will be squarely in the cross-hairs, with the possibility of this being a major problem for Ms. Clinton:
... what happens if President Bush does not bomb Iran? That is good news for the world, but potentially terrible news for the Democrats. If we do go to war in Iran, the election will indeed be a referendum on the results, which the Republican Party will own no matter whom it nominates for president. But if we don’t, the Democratic standard-bearer will have to take a clear stand on the defining issue of the race. As we saw once again at Tuesday night’s debate, the front-runner, Hillary Clinton, does not have one.
There are other issues that may be more problematic for the Democrats than the Republicans as well. Michael Barone consider the import of illegal immigration, an issue where the Democrats reside on the opposite side from much of the electorate:
The last several Democratic nominees could have said that they're just taking the same position as their Republican opponent. The 2008 nominee won't be able to say the same of hers or his (unless McCain gets the nod).
"The centrality of illegal immigration to the current discontent about the direction of the country may be taking us back again to a welfare moment," write the shrewd Democratic strategists James Carville and Stanley Greenberg. Yup.
Yet this may still not be the biggest problem for Hillary. Glenn Reynolds gets closer to the problem in his post this morning:
... I heard a long-term "yellow dog" Democrat say that he would never vote for Hillary no matter what. "I'd sooner vote for a third term for George W. Bush." And another person said that she was hearing a lot of anti-Hillary talk in Boston, which should be pretty Hillary-friendly territory.
I'm not crazy about Hilary, but I don't feel the visceral hatred that some people do. But some people really do feel that visceral hatred, and interestingly quite a few of them are Democrats.
Hillary is not terribly likable. It is her misfortune as well to be married to Bill, that "lovable rogue" who received a pass from the MSM until they found a sex scandal too juicy to pass up. Besides, Drudge was a threat and sex scandals sell papers. However, this time around it will take more than a sex scandal to turn the MSM against Hillary (or even to a more neutral posture in which they place new and unprecedented pressure on Ms. Clinton.)
The great risk for Hillary is that, by virtue of her character, she will find herself drawn into a confrontation with the very MSM she needs to boost her and willingly go along with her image management to enable her election.
The best way for Hillary to arouse the ire of the MSM is for her to question their brilliance and fairness. Her campaign came close to questioning the bona fides of one of the most esteemed members of the MSM, Tim Russert. By accusing Russert of asking her unfair questions and leading an unfair attack against her, Hillary's team inadvertently threatened her own campaign. MSM talking heads may be the only group other than politicians who believe they are above reproach; one does not reproach such people lightly. And if the MSM scent desperation or blood, they tend, as all pack carnivores do, to attack en masse.
Since Hillary has not been closely questioned by the press on her policies and much of her past transgressions, and has been able to use intimidation to quash intemperate questions from those she deems enemies, she was singularly unprepared for difficult questions from Russert, who she thought was her ally. If her response is predictive, it could be most informative to watch how the national press deals with her reluctance to answer questions and her tendency to take a defensive and hostile stance when cornered.
Maureen Dowd has never been a friend of the Clintons but when she turns her snark upon the presumptive Democratic candidate for President, this should be taken as a warning sign:
Sometimes when Hillary takes heat, she gets paranoid and controlling. But this time she took the heat by getting into the kitchen. After trying to have it both ways during the debate, she tried to have it both ways after the debate.
If I may offer some unsolicited advice for Hillary: Be careful with the Press; although they are your best friends now, if you challenge their wisdom and brilliance, make sure you do not then turn your back on them; they love the stiletto in the back.
Recent Comments