THE MEDIA'S love affair with the Hillary-Obama slugfest is approaching the heights of total stupidity. On top of the incessant "he said, she said" coverage, there are unfounded worries now emerging that the squabbling among the two top Democrats could threaten the unity of the party. In the middle of this chaos, the best voters can do is to maintain a semblance of sanity while realizing that the battles among the Democrats are generally mild and appropriate, although made to seem so vile and repellent because of the way the media dramatizes the spats.
The press loves a good fight. If they think there's one there -- no matter what's actually true -- they'll beat the drums of war. Pat Buchanan, in his infinite and radiating folly, epitomized the media's reaction lately when he said on MSNBC, "for the last three weeks, this campaign has been about drugs, race, gender and Muslims." Well, most of the campaign has not been about that at all, but the self-titled mainstream media certainly conveys that impression. Droves of news stories and articles about Hillary-Obama squabbles have ensnared media outlets and the blogosphere in a wild goose chase. When Hillary said something relatively innocuous about Martin Luther King, Jr. and Lyndon B. Johnson, people went ballistic. And when Obama did the same thing about Ronald Reagan and the Republicans, there was a resulting furor. All of this over-hyped reaction would normally be fine and even expected, but now it's being accompanied by suggestions that the Democrats may splinter irrevocably before the November election.
Who, you ask, is making such a dim-witted assertion? Why, the media, of course -- the same 'liberal media' interested in seeing a Democrat in the White House next year. The supposition that Democrats will crumble in the face of the Hillary-Obama struggle is beyond ludicrous. All important signs for November -- turnout, fundraising, general enthusiasm -- point to a Democratic victory regardless of the nominee. All Democratic candidates have to watch what they say carefully; Obama didn't help himself when he essentially argued that Hillary's supporters would back him if he were the nominee but his supporters would not back her if she were the nominee. All of that is fantasy: Democrats will solidly rally behind whoever is the final nominee. Party members are as committed as ever to recapturing the presidency this November, and Democrats know that their party is bigger (and hinges upon more than) the personalities of either Hillary or Obama. Whether Hillary and Obama know that, though, remains to be seen.
Fundamentally, voters don't want to deal with this nonsense, and to whatever extent it seems like they do, it's only because the media appeals to our worst instincts as human beings by talking about this "fight" all the time. Bill Clinton -- quite the character on the campaign trail recently -- rightfully blasted the media last week for its obsession with the glitz of presidential campaigns at the expense of substance. His comments drive at the core problem with media coverage of these elections: Nearly everything is viewed through the metaphor of a horse race. Who's up? Who's down? Who won the debate? Rarely do we hear about who had the best arguments in the debate. No, media elites and mavens think such information would be too convoluted for our simplistic minds.
I'll admit that it can be rather satisfying to poke fun at the media, but much of the time they don't deserve it. Their coverage of the Democratic contest is an exception. Whether it's because we're being confronted with two historic candidacies and people are uncertain how to react or because of what those two candidates are saying and doing, the media has continually depicted this campaign season as a heavyweight bout. And like two boxers fighting for the championship, Hillary and Obama reportedly don't even like each other. But the truth is much more mundane, and if the media could overcome its annoying proclivities for drama, maybe it would find that voters can often discern far beyond the scandalous headlines.
Erald Kolasi's column appearsMondays in the Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at ekolasi@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
EDITORIAL: Celebrate the Contemplative Commons and other non-academic student spaces
By Editorial Board | 2 hours agoThe Contemplative Commons stands as a testament to the value of spaces that transcend commercial imperatives, fostering interdisciplinary engagement and experiential learning.
KURTZWEIL: What we lose in the name of efficiency
By Paul Kurtzweil | YesterdayPenicillin was discovered in a moldy petri dish — this government would have it thrown out because it was wasting space on the counter.
RASHID: U.Va. must empower faculty and students through transparency
By Muhammad Ali Rashid | YesterdayBy attempting to contain, or even eliminate uncomfortable narratives, the administration incrementally consolidates power and frays communal trust.
