The incestuous relationship between the Democrat party and the MSM may be the Dem's weakest link. Big media are good two things: creating celebrities and destroying them. Think of Cindy Sheehan, Michael Jackson, Howard Dean. The evening news, the New York Times and Washington Post, the entertainment columns and television shows all contributed mightily to the rise and fall of these celebrities.
When Barack Obama threw into the presidential race, the media provided millions of dollars in free advertising. They did the same for Hillary, as they did for Dean in 2004. (Dean's ascendancy was the result of MSM, not netroots contributions.)
When a chink appeared in Obama's armor, the media tore him down. That left Hillary atop the Democrats. And now it's her turn.
CNN's Political Ticker carries a hand-wringing, soul-searching piece on Democrat leaders' worries about Hillary's negatives, just as last week they worried about Obama's political immaturity. The fear is that Clinton's remarkably high negatives will drive Republicans to the polls and independents to the GOP.
Consider these three points by Democrats:
The chairman of a Midwest state party called Clinton a nightmare for congressional and state legislative candidates.
A Democratic congressman from the West, locked in a close re-election fight, said Clinton is the Democratic candidate most likely to cost him his seat.
A strategist with close ties to leaders in Congress said Democratic Senate candidates in competitive races would be strongly urged to distance themselves from Clinton.
If Democrat Congressional candidates--incumbents and challengers--buy the thinking of their party's leaders, Hillary will lose the kind of support that heads of tickets rely on. Candidates won't bend over backwards to appear on a dais with her. Invitations to state and local Democrat events won't reach Senator Clinton's office, at least, not in time. She will be on her own.
The media elite, who pine for a Democrat White House and Congress, will heed these warnings. They will gladly cast Ms. Clinton over the side, as they did Obama, if they think her nomination would give the Congress back the Republicans. They know that during the six years Hillary's husband had to deal with a Republic Congress, the Republicans dominated change. Half of the items in the Contract with America became law, and welfare reform--anathema to liberals--was the centerpiece.
Like the party's back room leaders, editors and producers in the MSM know that liberal action is possible only when Democrats control the White House, the Congress, and the Supreme Court. With the Court now firmly on the conservative side, the Dems need both of the other two branches just to tread water. A loss in either elective branch would be victory for the GOP.
All of this leads me to believe that the next two weeks will see a third choice appear among the Democrat field, and it will likely be Edwards. The guy's suit is a good 50 percent emptier than Obama's, but his negatives are low. He's shallow and self-serving, but so was Bill Clinton. He has no ideological convictions, which will irritate the netroots, but that leaves him able to shift positions with the polls. Like Bill Clinton, Edwards can be a Zelig.
For us on the right, this is great theatre. Enjoy.