The media “spin” has
been absolutely incredible since Hillary Clinton’s “comeback”
wins last Tuesday in Ohio and Texas. Can somebody explain to me
how a net four (4) gains in delegates represents a comeback? Never
mind that Barack Obama is still between 110 and 150 delegates
ahead (depending on whose estimate you believe). Never mind that
45 Super-delegates have committed to Barack since the purported
Coronation day (February 5th) while Hillary has lost six (a 51
delegate swing). Never mind that Barack has won Wyoming and Mississippi
since then and will win more delegates than Hillary will on “Pennsylvania
Day” in April. The media is determined to make a run of the Democratic
nomination despite the obvious. What is the obvious (since the
media does a damn good job of helping lose sight)? First, that
Obama is winning this nomination. Second, that Clinton cannot
catch him before the convention. Three, that Obama is the most
electable in November.
Despite the
effort to convolute the obvious, never have you witnessed so much
hyperbole about a comeback in a race that was fixed from the start.
What was once an inevitable set-up to elect Clinton has turned
into an inability on the part of Barack to “put her away,” if
you let the mainstream media tell it. Three months ago, this wasn’t
even supposed to be a race. Now it’s a “dog-fight” until June.
It threatens to split the convention, and the Democrats who, once
again, threaten to shoot themselves in both feet, limp into the
general election against a clearly inferior Republican opponent,
where they might lose. All because they are not willing to acknowledge
the inevitable, that a political neophyte has captured the imagination
of the nation - and the public seems willing to take a chance
on him. Just what does Barack have to do to win (besides the winning
that he’s already doing)? I can’t help but think what the conversation
would be if the shoe were on the other foot. It certainly would
be much different than the discourse now.
If the shoe
were on the other foot, could you imagine Hilary winning eleven
in a row after Super Tuesday (and the whole primary season was
set up for Barack to be the Democrat’s nominee), and 29 out of
42 contests, and the media (much less the half of the Democrat
Party) suggesting that Barack still had a chance to win the nomination
(or even take the lead). The story would most certainly be, “why
is Barack dragging this out when he knows he can’t win?” There
appears to be a double standard here on who’s dividing the party
in how much string the party is willing to give Hillary to pull
herself up, versus how much time they’re willing to give Barack
to stumble. That’s appears to be the expectation. The “wait until
tomorrow” strategy has failed twice and the Democrats are still
listening to it. That wouldn’t be the case if Barack was in Hillary’s
fix.
If the shoe
were on the other foot, could you imagine Barack making an issue
out of his opponent’s experience when his experience is about
the same (or less - if you assess legislative experience)? Moreover,
could you imagine Barack making a case for most of his experience
being tied to his spouse’s experience without having a shred of
proof that it was truly his experience. It’s called the benefit
of the doubt and someone seems to be getting aplenty. It has framed
the differences in the candidates so far.
If the shoe
were on the other foot, and Obama were losing, could you imagine
Barack being able to (credibly) change the rules in the middle
of the primaries as they relate to Michigan and Florida, after
agreeing to hold them out for moving up their primary? Moreover,
could you even imagine Hillary agreeing to it, knowing it would
cut into or evaporate her lead? The integrity of the Democrat
Party hinges on how they handle this, but clearly it’s a no-win
for the party, a win-lose for Barack (he’ll win on the party unity
tip for agreeing to it, but lose a part of his lead in the process)
and a win-win for Hillary (who gets another chance to claim one
last grab at the power seat). The world would have come down on
Obama if he had ever suggested going back on his word. They’re
already banging on him on his promises at public campaign financing
(not expecting him to be a money machine) and his Iraq pullout
plan. Yet, nobody seems to care about the promise that was made
to which everybody knew the Democrats couldn’t hold. Voter disfranchisement
is the cry.
Speaking of
crying, if the shoe were on the other foot, would Obama have ever
been able to make a media bias claim without seeming like a whiner
(at worse) or race-baiter (at best). There is a media bias toward
Obama (as it relates to his record, his religion and his experience)
but it’s part of the game of being “black in America.” Hilary
gets the news because she makes the news, meaning she has to make
things happen (make claims, say things) to stay in the news. So
when they get the first chance to ask her about many of her controversial
and unfounded statements, she cries about always getting the first
question (or the hard questions).
If Obama had
never been “vetted” as Hillary claims, he never would have gotten
the lead in this campaign. It’s clear the Hillary camp didn’t
find anything on him and so they picked at what Barack did well,
his speaking and presentation. Trust me, if Hillary spoke better
and appeared as authentic as Barack, the “fancy speeches” and
empty promises claims wouldn’t make the news. When has how a candidate
speaks and their sincerity ever become negative campaign issues?
Most people call those attributes - Bill Clinton has them (charisma
and [some] authenticity). But when it comes to Barack, Hillary
calls them flaws and the media calls her criticisms of Obama legitimate.
They are not but the discussion gets ratings, so the media floats
it.
If the shoe
were on the other foot, and Obama were losing, could you imagine
Barack demanding consideration for Vice President, even though
he’s the “dream” in the dream ticket scenario and hasn’t suggested
it even once. Now that it has become obvious that Texas and Ohio
didn’t produce the outcome Hillary thought it would, she’s trying
to open the door for another option. Clinton is not only bold
enough to suggest that there won’t be a ticket without her, she’s
even audacious enough to suggest that Obama should consider taking
the Vice President spot even though he’s the frontrunner. Problem
is, she needs him but he doesn’t need her and we’ve seen this
scenario before. Twenty years ago, when Jesse Jackson created
a new excitement in the party, registered two million new voters
and amassed over 1,200 delegates (more than Hillary has now and
slightly less than she’s projected to get, as both are expected
to split the remaining 600 delegates), Jesse claimed that he earned
a place on the ticket and Michael Dukakis (and the Democrat Party)
ignored him. Yet, twenty years later, Clinton (and the Democrat
Party) find themselves in the same situation and hoping Obama
bows to media pressure. Clinton, on the other hand, is bowing
to nothing other than her own personal interest. It’s now or never
for her.
Obama is expected
to save a party that won’t save itself. Finally, the Democrat
Party has a candidate that is believable, credible and can win.
Only he wasn’t the “anointed one,” so he has to defend the obvious
- his freshness, his authenticity, his winning - all things that
make for a successful candidacy. I can’t help but wonder if these
winning attributes would even be called into question and whether
the issues being raised by Clinton (experience, authenticity/credibility,
winning from behind, the Vice Presidency) would be issues if the
shoe were on the other foot.
BlackCommentator.com
Columnist Dr. Anthony Asadullah Samad is a national
columnist, managing director of the Urban Issues Forum
and author of the new book, Saving The Race: Empowerment
Through Wisdom. His Website is AnthonySamad.com. Click
here to contact Dr. Samad. |