Hold Your Horses! And Obamas: Huxtables:: Clintons: Carringtons?

The Potomac primaries just ended, and I'm still a little annoyed at how the mainstream media seems to have all but called the race for Democratic nominee in favor of Obama, who leads with a delegate count of 916 (NYT)/1,275 (AP) to Clinton's 885 (NYT)/1,220 (AP) as of this posting. Yes, I'm an Obama supporter. But MSM, can you just calm the heck down for a second? Going by the NYT's figures, Obama leads with 31 delegates. Going by the Associated Press' counts, Obama leads with 55 delegates. Though undeniably significant, to me these are still small margins. To put it in perspective, a candidate must win 2,025 delegates to be nominee.

Maybe let the remaining primaries and the whole superdelegates mess play out before you nail it down, MSM? Wasn't it embarrassing enough when Dan Rather called it live on tv for Gore back in 2000 with some witty Texasisms, and then had egg on his face when, to his and everyone else's horror, he was So. Very. Wrong?

I mean, Clinton would have to pull off a minor miracle to close the gap in delegates, but you never know. She could do it. Let the lady take her shot, you know? (Yes, I am the one who held Clinton's feet to the fire about her un-recanted Iraq war authorization vote in "Feminists for Obama," linked from MOMocrats here. But I feel for the people who have yet to attend a primary in the remaining states; as a resident of California, I've often rued the "Disenfranchisement by Time Zone" effect of having elections called on the east coast before our west coast polls have closed. So give those folks some breathing room, and give Clinton a little breathing room. Let some more people who have yet to vote, vote already.)

However, because the MSM in "kingmaker" mode has seen fit to anoint Obama, we're starting to see more personal profiles of the candidate's family members. As the election wears on and it just gets all too tiresome to rehash silly old policy points, I bet we'll start seeing predictable profiles on the frontrunners' family pets.

For now, I'm talking about the snuggly piece in the NYT, "Obama's Edge: His Wife Michelle." I defy you to read it and not be instantly charmed by Michelle Obama. And I absolutely believe she is that unassuming, refreshingly honest, and grounded.

That aside, can't you sort of see the meta-narratives forming here? The Obamas are the loveable, well-adjusted, cozy-sweatered Huxtables of The Cosby Show fame. By contrast, the Clintons are the new-money, slightly sketchy, intrigue-filled* Carringtons of Dynasty (appropriately enough in some regards and inappropriately in terms of the oil-baron setting). Hmmm. Which family would you rather spend time with?

I am mostly trying to be humorous here, and critical of MSM "horse-race" journalism. I do think the MSM can easily get ahead of itself and start believing it's the horse, not the cart.

Let's hope people who have yet to vote still turn out with equal enthusiasm and in large numbers. You still have a voice. Nothing's been pre-ordained and no numerical lead in delegates is so decisive that a big upset--like Edwards' rumored-to-be-imminent endorsement or some other unforeseen factor--couldn't still change things.

* George Packer's New Yorker article, cited above, is more subtle than most at getting at what many would say is Hillary Clinton's taste for intrigue. This is the passage I'm thinking of:

If there’s a flaw in Hillary Clinton’s character which could keep her from becoming a successful President, or President at all, it is what Carl Bernstein, her best biographer, described to me as a tendency toward “subterfuge and eliding.”

Cynematic's personal blog is P i l l o w b o o k.

Comments

[PunditMom]

Welcome to the MOMocrats and great piece! Although I disagree on one thing -- I don't think Michelle Obama is unassuming. She wouldn't be where she is today or have accomplished the things she has if she was unassuming. I think Michelle Obama is just as shrewd and calculating as anyone else in the professional world.

As for Clinton and subterfuge -- Clinton isn't the only politician in this game that that can be said for -- it's just that the MSM is only focusing on that quality as it relates to her.

[Glennia]

Great first post! Welcome to MOMocrats!

So, would this make the Bushes the Ewing family of "Dallas"? If only we could wake up and find out that the last 8 years had all just been a dream.

[cynematic]

@PunditMom: I meant 'without pretension' as opposed to 'unassuming's' synonym of 'shy or retiring.' I have no doubt that Michelle Obama's ambitious or driven and agree with you that she couldn't have gotten where she is by being a doormat.

@Glennia: I think the Bushes are a mean version of the Beverly Hillbillies! Didn't they discover oil in their backyard? Wish they'd rattle off back to wherever they came from.

Thanks for the welcome!

[LawyerMama]

Welcome to MOMocrats!

I'm with Glennia. I'd give anything to wake up in the morning and find Patrick Duffy in my shower. (-;

[KL]

Huxtables vs. Carringtons? Now that is one interesting match up. Didn't they try that on ABC with Dirty Sexy Money (minus the minority part)?

I don't know why the MSM feels the perpetual need to make unsupportable declaratory statements like "all but won the race". I believe they were the same folks who declared Ms. Clinton the shoo-in candidate before the primaries had even started. Is it my imagination, or have y'all noticed that at the same time that MSM increasingly insists on jumping the gun, the pollsters are increasingly just dead wrong about everything they poll.

It's irritating, it's not news, and it's dangerous.

For example, it is entirely possible that as people begin to get the impression that one candidate has won, it changes the voting patterns of states that have not yet participated. This is not kingmaking, it is pure and undemocratic manipulation. If the MSM was going around handing out money to prevent people from voting, they would be jailed.

But it sells the paper, and I guess who needs democracy if you can sell more ad space?

[cynematic]

Great comment.

That overblown, hyperbole-filled, noisy echo you hear? Is the giant sucking sound of the 24-hour news beast needing to be fed.

So here we are, both over- and under-informed by MSM. I'm hoping people's excitement at voting persists through June to November, in spite of polls and premature proclamations.