The Political Chase

Kurtz, the media, and Saint Hillary of the Down-Trodden

While I don’t always agree with Howard Kurtz, especially when he places himself in the middle and serves as a scribe rather than a critic, his criticism today of the media’s coverage of Hillary’s never-ending campaign is fitting and appropriate. As Kurtz points out, it’s far more important to continue covering Hillary than it is to focus on the two candidates who will actually be running for president.

When the press, in its infinite wisdom, decides that a race is over, the usual course is to ignore the losing candidate until the person fades from public view.

Heard a lot about Fred Thompson lately? Mike Huckabee? Rudy Giuliani? Bill Richardson? Joe Biden? Chris Dodd?

But while journalists are now treating Barack Obama as the nominee-in-waiting–to the point that no one seems to care that he’s likely to get creamed in today’s West Virginia primary–the Hillary story is still very much with us.

The media, it seems, just can’t let go.

There’s the short-term tactical story: Why hasn’t she dropped out yet? Doesn’t she watch television or read the papers? The news business has decided she’s lost. Why prolong the agony?

But more important, I believe, is the psychodrama story: Is Hillary a sore loser? Detached from reality? Determined to weaken Obama so he’ll lose and she can run in 2012? The stories get increasingly sharp-edged, increasingly speculative, as we put the senator on the couch.

And, of course, there are the legacy pieces: How did the Clintons lose control of the Democratic Party? How did she fumble away the nomination? How badly did Bill hurt her? Has their time passed?

Journalists have been in a co-dependent relationship for nearly two decades with the Clintons, who provided endlessly juicy copy, from their capture of the White House to nearly losing it, from Whitewater to Gennifer to Paula to Monica, from the last-minute pardons to Hillary’s Senate bid, to the impenetrable mystery of their marriage.

So while there’s plenty of media carping about Hillary’s refusal to exit the stage, there are plenty of journalists who want to keep her there.

The point here is how the media creates its own self-perpetuating story and the story is the coverage-of-the-coverage.

The Project for Excellence in Journalism determined in its most recent annual report, The State of the News Media 2008, that the broadcast media dedicates more time to the presidential campaign than any other news story. That’s not reporting on the issues, per se, it’s reporting on what the campaigns are doing, what they are saying, and what’s being said about the campaigns. In other words, we’re watching Insider Edition or Access Hollywood presented in a news format.

But it’s not all-Hillary-all-the-time. They do the same thing with Barack Obama, mostly on matters related to Jeremiah Wright, but will graciously yield to whatever wild tale the Hillary campaign has generated about Obama on a given day.

For a solid week, the great drama has encompassed: what will Hillary do; when will she do it; to what extent will she be the victim (or victimize); Obama must choose her as his running mate; and the uber-critical West Virginia primary. Uber-critical only because Hillary says it is. It is this week’s “game-changer.”

Challenge Hillary directly on those claims? Certainly not. Nor will she be challenged on anything else. The drama must continue.

There is no follow up on Hillary’s gas tax plan, which was her raison d’etre last week. It was so vitally important to the survival of the nation that Hillary demanded every congressional member go on the record as being “with her or against her.” It failed miserably in the eyes of experts and voters last week, but it’s not important that Hillary be challenged on the issue this week to ensure voters in West Virginia are duly informed.

Fear not, the story will repeat itself next week — just replace West Virginia with Kentucky. God forbid the press actually carry out its role as the Fourth Estate.