Over the past several weeks, especially in the lead-up to the Pennsylvania Democratic Primary, it became clear that there was a concerted effort to destroy the candidacy of Barack Obama for the office of President of the United States. We know enough now to definitively state the particulars of this onslaught. We know what the goal of this strategy was: to portray Obama as, by parts, ultra-radical, ultra-liberal, ultra-elitist, and ultra-lame, just for good measure. This is all easy to verify with the sorts of attacks one sees levied: from the trivial, like a flag pin or a bowling score, to the more serious, like Jeremiah Wright and William Ayres, people whose statements have been utilized to make Barack Obama seem guilty just by virtue of having associated with some potentially shady characters. To some extent, this is acceptable: looking at past associations in an individual's life can reveal details about said person's character, though this theory only goes so far. By this criterion, Jesus Christ, a man who hung out with lepers, dishonest tax collectors and weird cultists like John the Baptist would probably be tarred and feathers in absentia. Associations matter but are not always the sum of an individual's character.
However, as the primary came closer, such questions became the sum total of the media's coverage of the campaign. Scandals that had long since been put to rest that nobody had much cared about came to light once again. The media found itself, as it seemingly prefers to, in the business of gossip peddling and tabloidery rather than in investigating policy and reporting facts. This became starkly apparent in the ABC debate between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, which featured nearly an hour of "character" questions (how again does wearing a flag pin indicate one's character?) out of a two hour debate. It eventually became known that Fox News's own Sean Hannity had fed George Stephanopolous a question to as of Barack Obama about Ayres, a former terrorist whose connection with Obama was tangential at best. I wasn't wild about the Wright controversy, but I was willing to concede that asking some questions was appropriate because of the deep, long-standing relationship between the two men. The Ayres question, though, is manifestly silly, especially when one considers how quickly John McCain and Hillary Clinton, both of whom have had to deal with huge scandals involving campaign finance-related issues, jumped on board this particular train.
It should come as little surprise that the Hannity wing of the GOP was behind this strategy. It's disgusting, of course, but understandable: they want to win, and the formula they are using is old and has often proven effective. I have found Obama's campaign refreshing because of his unwillingness to resort to such measures, but at some point you can't get alarmed by a leopard's refusal to change his spots. Hannity and his ilk are doing what they do.
What has come as a surprise is how willingly the mainstream media and the Clinton campaign have gotten on board this particular crazy train. One understands the motives at play here: the right wants to win in November, the media wants big ratings, and the Clinton campaign wants to win the nomination and then win in November. All three groups have converged on this strategy because it suits their particular needs. Ultimately, though, not all three groups can have their goals met. The media will win higher ratings in the short term regardless of what happens, although one wonders if their defenders on the left will continue to defend them after Charlie Gibson's capital gains tax question, among other things. In the long term, the MSM will continue to lose its legitimacy, and viewership, and will continue to breathlessly complain about how nobody in America reads newspapers or watches the news without thinking to realize that its more the result of an inferior product than anything else.
What is striking is the Clintons' willingness to hop on board. We've seen this so often this cycle it isn't funny: from Bill Clinton going on Rush Limbaugh to implore Republicans to vote for Hillary, to Clinton herself buddying up with Dick Scaife, to Clinton surrogates like Ed Rendell and Terry McAuliffe praising Fox News's coverage of the race. High-information Democratic activists and voters have been rightly appalled by the convergence of these two forces, and it has only made such people more likely to support Obama. Unfortunately, Obama's base is heavy on these types of voters at this time. Low-information voters who support the Clintons based on residual good feelings from the 1990s (which must inevitably be based on a revisionist account of that decade) have not heard about this stuff, and thus the biggest story of the cycle--and one that validates Obama's entire message--has made zero impact.
Some have speculated why this convergence has occurred. Some might say that the GOP is supporting Hillary because they think she'd be easier to beat (indeed, this is Rush's stated reason for interfering). Some others wonder if the right wouldn't prefer Hillary in office because she makes a better foil, is more polarizing and more suceptible to being demonized. My opinion is that the GOP is tacitly supporting her because they want to bloody Obama, just like they professed love for Obama when Clinton was the favorite. Then again, maybe they just think Clinton would be a better president. I don't know. But I do know that, ultimately, both the right wing and the Clinton campaign are comfortable with the blue-red paradigm. They're comfortable with the tribal politics we've seen in America the past few decades. And they're going to fight like hell to keep the status quo, because that's what they know. I got caught up in the euphoria of the Obama campaign without thinking about how hard the task at hand was going to be. Little did I know...
Still, all of this nonsense is no reason to abandon the cause. In fact, it underscores the urgency of what Barack Obama is trying to do. For too long we've been electing presidents based on things like flag pins, or whether or not they "looked French", or based on whether or not one might want to have a beer with them, and so on. It's about time that we as a country grew up. I still support Barack Obama for President, now more than ever. This battle is going to be harder than we ever thought it would be, but it is still a battle I believe we can win.
