This article by Salena Zito has a point that is important to make:
Right now, all of the talk is about what Hillary will do at the convention; quite frankly, that undercurrent exists mainly because so much of the political media are bored without her in the race.
“The Clinton drama is gone,” one Democrat insider explains, and political reporters “miss it, and they will look for any grain of sand that might resurrect it.”
There are some other points in the article that I don’t think are wholly true. The point about Obama needing Michigan, Pennsylvania and Ohio to win - there are other ways he could win the necessary 270, and he has many other electoral routes to get where he needs to be. (Although if he’s not winning M, P and O, I’m skeptical that he’ll be in a place to win Virginia, Colorado, etc).
Digressions aside, I think that any talk painting Hillary as a drama queen (or someone who wants the convention to be all about her) is just made up by the punditry. They [the punditry] want her to be dramatic because they miss her, drama is exciting in this excruciatingly long campaign, and exciting sells (or at least is a little more fun for them to talk about).
My only worry is that what the pundits are saying may eventually be accepted by society at large as the truth. Hillary is doing a great job stumping for Obama, and I’m getting pretty sick of the the pundits referencing one comment she made about what a ‘catharsis’ it would be to have a roll call vote at a California event (where she was stumping for Obama).
Point is, she’s ding a great job stumping for Obama. Even if it is through gritted teeth, she’s doing what needs to be done. Despite the press’ obsession with digging up dirt on Hillary, I hope the dust settles by the time November rolls around and Obama kicks some “maverick” arse.
Also, Frank Rich’s column today is a must read.
And why not include Taylor Marsh’s dig at MoDo, too…
