On Huffington Post right now you can find a piece by Thomas B. Edsall entitled "Media Jump Ship from Obama to Clinton." The author claims that the media have "become a crucial Clinton ally... a potential lifesaver," and then goes on to talk about the recent flurry of McGovern comparisons, at which point my mind begins to wander, because really. The phrase "Reagan Democrat" is yellowing at the edge already. McGovern? Before my time.

And I'm middle aged.

ANYHOO--I'm not here to criticize Edsall's piece which is well-written and probably even true.

Today.

Instead, I want to thank him for whiplashing me into a realization that many have stated, but which perhaps must instead be experienced to really grasp. See, for a few minutes there, as an Obama supporter, I was worried. The media is embracing Clinton? I mean, I've seen it myself (9.2% is not 10%, and let's see some support on that $10M figure, and oh yeah--OBAMA WON TEXAS). But to see it announced like that in headline font on my big, bright computer screen? The media deserting the man I think can help save this country? Noooo!

Except--why wouldn't the media be dancing and singing Hillary's name? (Figuratively speaking... I mean, there are images of Matthews and Olbermann that don't bear conjuring)  She just won a primary! The media danced and sang Obama's name after the Iowa primary. They danced and sang Clinton's name after the New Hampshire primary. Super Tuesday? La-la-la Obama! Super dooper Tuesday? Li-li-li, Hillary! (To the point that few of them can bear to revise the memory of that celebration to admit that hello, OBAMA WON TEXAS).

Things change.

The media is a soulless entity without loyalty. It will support the star of the hour, a position which not only will but must pass from candidate to candidate lest the goldfish-like attention span of the 24/7 news-viewing public lose focus. The flicker of media attention should hardly cause the supporters of one candidate or the other to celebrate or mourn, lest we train ourselves into nervous breakdowns. More nervous breakdowns.

And here's the real revelation: IT'S NOT JUST THE MEDIA THAT CHANGES.

You know all those troublesome polls where almost 30% of Clinton supporters (supposed true blue Democrats) say they'll vote for McCain over Obama, should he win the primary, or almost 20% of Obama supporters say they'd just not vote rather than supporting Hillary, should she wrest the primary... er, sorry, I mean, gain the nomination? NOT TRUE.

Not exactly.

I say this as someone who's muttered the same thing--"She's gone too far! I wouldn't vote for her if [fill in ugly incentive of choice]"--in more than one fit of pique. NOT TRUE...ish.

Which doesn't mean I was lying, or that I think anyone answering the polls lied, even if there IS an edge of rug-rat level, "hold my breath until I turn less blue" blackmail to the statement. Oh, we mean it. But just because we aren't lying now doesn't mean it will be true.

Not in November.

THINGS CHANGE.

That's the truth that such polling questions completely ignores. Who we are now, this wonderfully, passionately diverse Democratic spectrum of so-called Clintonistas and Obamaniacs? Of COURSE we mean it. We are furious and frustrated, and we cannot understand why the other side can't see the clear wisdom of our side. Uncertainty--especially in the hurry-up-and-wait primary-sized parcels in which it arrives of late--is a superhighway to stress. We marinate in the midst of a competition with lives and history at stake, pouring our donations and hearts and souls into our candidates, and damned RIGHT we wouldn't vote for "the other side," even at the threat of a hug from Rush Limbaugh.

TODAY.

But none of us--none--knows where we will be or how we will feel once November arrives. It's ridiculous for the pollsters to assume we do. It's even sillier for us to assume it. We will grow. We will learn. If there's a dramatic walk-out by either side at the convention in August, then it may be too late for the Democrats to regroup... but I don't think that will happen. More likely, some compromise will be reached that almost-but-not-quite splits the party in June. The figurehead of the disenfranchised will prove her (or his) leadership skills by calling for unity. People will mutter, and drink, and hurl invectives at the nominee. BUT, as the general election draws close, we will consider the situation on the Supreme Court. We will growl at the gloating on Fox News. We will watch the death tolls from Iraq climb, and roll our eyes as the Democratic nominee is called "tax and spend" while hardly anyone ever calls the Republican nominee a "spend what you never had in the first place, oh, that's a lot better" candidate. And while a handful of us may still be cherishing hard feelings, I suspect the majority of us will suck it up and vote for a Democrat.

Any Democrat.

I'm not saying I don't have hopes for a conclusion to the crazy, sooner rather than later. I'm not saying it does the party good to allow McCain this much time under the radar. But seriously? Since figuring this out, I'm a lot more at ease, with the necessary tension release of the Obama and Clinton camp spitting some venom at each other, while the mainstream media works as our great enabler.

This, too--the spitting, if not the media--will change.

Just like, eventually, out-of-date political references to before-our-time candidates.

And the numbers proving WHO WON TEXAS (I know. I was there).

Just saying.

Link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/24/media-jump-ship-from-obam_n_98545.html