Deep Thought of the Moment

If it's true, as Clinton supporter James Carville says, "No one has ever lost a media war with the Clintons," and that it's a "loaded deck" against them, wouldn't that be a strong argument against nominating Hillary? Because the fact is, I entirely agree with that. The media hates the Clintons, as does the D.C. Village. And that was the biggest problem we faced in the 90's, and is a problem that continues to this day; the media just enjoys ripping Democrats apart, and the Clintons most of all.

And while it's possible that'll happen to any Democrat, I don't see how it's smart for us to be starting off with the ball deep in our own territory, setting them up to sack the quarterback and score a safety on us. It just seems smarter to me to acknowledge that this bias is real and to pick someone the media likes a little better. And if Obama is as smooth in Washington as he is on the campaign trail (and was paying attention during the 90's), I could see him wooing over the Village with the appropriate lip service that they desire. Because they don't really understand results anyway, and just want to be liked and respected. And as long as they don't already hate you, that's a fairly easy thing to do.

So while I understand what Carville is saying and can imagine that media reports siding with Obama might just be due to anti-Clinton bias, I don't see how this is a particularly compelling argument in Hillary's favor. If anything, this is the bigger story than who won this particular battle. The media already loathes Hillary and will certainly do everything in their power to destroy her. And that's the best reason I can think of for rejecting her. Not that I think they should be picking our nominee, but if we've already got a strong candidate who they might like better...