I try not to let the MSM’s agreed-upon national news narrative upset my plans to have a good time, but many more times than not, I find the mass stupidity of so many putatively smart people, marching in unison to a destination that invites–nay–allows no logical point of entry. If you read today’s Note, which is how I submit myself to this torture in as short and relatively painless form as possible, you can find any number of literally nutty notions.
The dead horse of supposed dead-end Hillary supporters is flogged into a pulp by the authors. They begin on a note that had me hopeful: “Neither Sen. Barack Obama nor Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has any possible sane, rational reason for wanting tensions to continue.”
How true–but then the authors take a 180-degree turn toward insanity. Take a look at whom they cite when it comes to evidence of this supposed disunity: other journalists. There’s John F. Harris of The Politico, the AP’s Scott Lindlaw, Susan Page of USA Today, Patrick Healy of the New York Times, Anne Kornblut of the Washington Post, Geoff Earle and Maggie Haberman of the New York Post. Each offers evidence that is either purely editorial and unsourced, or sourced anonymously. For example, Harris: “For the next two days, a convention that belongs to Obama will be dominated by the same two people who dominated the Democratic Party for the last generation and who have come to Denver in much different roles than they wanted”; Page: “Clinton-watching has become the mesmerizing sideshow of the Democratic National Convention that will nominate Barack Obama”; Kornblut: “Obama’s decision to pass her over [for Vice President] remains central to the ongoing story of their strained relationship. It has also contributed to what associates say has been a difficult emotional period for the former first lady in the two months since ending her bid.”
It’s all “associates say,” or “some Clinton delegates,” or “an official familiar with conversations,” or “one adviser.” Can we actually get some names and positions, so that we can judge the (dubious) veracity of a Clinton-Obama war? Mostly, all we have are the mealy-mouthed assertions from other journalists–“Clinton, if sour, is pouting passively,” write Earle and Haberman. That means, Hillary is acting normal, but we’re pretending that maybe she’s mad on the inside.
The only non-journalist voices expressing anything close to a sense of disunity belong to Mary Boergers, a Maryland delegate who wants to cast a vote for Clinton; L. Douglas Wilder, the mayor of Richmond, Virginia (“The question is, are the Clintons ready?”), and Leon Panetta (“Sometimes dealing with the Clintons is like dealing with Brett Favre”). Wilder and Panetta’s comments are somewhat obtuse, and then there’s one delegate. This is what The Note describes as “the rivalry for the ages”?