The incomparable Bob Somerby makes a very astute observation:
Why had Klein reinvented things so? We don’t have the slightest idea. But here’s a possible hint: In 2006, the presumptive Democratic nominee was a certain Hillary Rodham Clinton. And make no mistake: If Clinton had run against McCain this year, this campaign would have been covered quite differently by more than a few major “journalists.”
Oh you betcha! Not that long ago John McCain not-so-jokingly referred to the media as his “base” and they universally portrayed him as a straight-talking maverick. So when did they suddenly decide that McCain was old and evil? It wasn’t until after they declared that Barack Uh-bama was the “presumptive” (presumptuous) nominee and Hillary was forced to suspend her campaign. Then they turned on McCain like a bad dog.
But what if somehow Hillary had managed to win the nomination? After-all, she was the popular vote winner, and won all the big states except Illinois, as well as the critical swing-states. The goofy DNC rules gave Obama a narrow lead in pledged delegates, primarily (pun intended) due to the way his campaign gamed (cheated) in the red state caucuses and the overwhelming (85-90%) support he received from African-American voters in southern (red state) primaries. Neither Hillary nor Teh Precious won the nomination outright based on pledged delegates, it was decided by the superdelegates. So what if the SD’s had voted for her instead of him?
One thing is for sure, the media would still be loving them some straight-talking St. Maverick. He wouldn’t be old, evil, or racist. Assuming he had still chosen Sarah Palin she would be considered a smart, reform-minded candidate who was uncorrupted by Washington D.C. She would also be getting praised as something new and exciting, a conservative, christian feminist.
We would still be hearing a lot about racism though, because the media would be constantly talking about how African American voters would be staying home on election day to protest how Hillary had stolen the nomination with the help of racist superdelegates. Even if Obama was her running mate, voting for McCain (or not voting) would be considered the only principled choice for progressive Democrats (not just AA voters) because the racism and corruption of the DNC could not be tolerated.
If Obama was not her running mate, he would not be out campaigning on Hillary’s behalf. He would be praised for showing party loyalty by not launching a third-party campaign or (publically) criticizing Hillary, and would already be considered the Democratic front-runner for 2012. Meanwhile he would continue to demonstrate his awesome post-partisan leadership skills in the Senate.
One other thing – the recent financial crisis would have been laid squarely at the feet of Bill Clinton, and it would be lamented that no one heeded the warnings given by both McCain and Senator Obama.
So, am I right or am I right?