A Small Request

by hilzoy

During the next Presidential campaign, could we please, please, skip the part, in the fall before the primaries, where we are subjected to a rash of stories about whether one candidate or another is inevitable?

I would have thought that the media might have figured out the stupidity of this back in 2004, when we subjected to an apparently interminable series of articles with titles like "Can Dean Be Stopped?" At the time, I thought: well, duh, of course he can; not a single vote has been cast. And lo: he was, though not by the candidate I would have preferred.

This time round, it happened again. I was astonished, though, to find stories proclaiming her inevitability from 2006 -- two years before a single vote had been cast:

"Former Virginia Gov. Mark Warner's decision not to run for president is a telling statement about the Democratic Party, the strength of its liberal wing, and the inevitability of Hillary Clinton's presidential nomination in 2008."

And here's one from 2005 saying that yes, in fact, she can be stopped:

"The inevitability campaign now underway demonstrates everything bad about modern American politics.

Two months into George W. Bush's second term as president, a cadre of Hillary Clinton supporters is trying to lock up the Democratic presidential nomination for New York's junior senator. One supporter is her husband, former president Bill Clinton, who declares that his wife would make an excellent president. Senator Joseph Biden of Delaware also predicts "she is likely to be the nominee."

So, case closed? No other Democrats need apply? That is ridiculous."

Please, just stop it. Let us make up our own minds. If you do, I'll be so grateful I won't even mention the pointlessness of stories about polling data from a year before an election.

Comments

[HARRY WEAVER]

http://www.israzon.com/Search.aspx?Keyword=stigma

[fostert]

I like it when the media declares a candidate "inevitable." That's when you really know a candidate is doomed. So bring it on, media, it's time to declare McCain inevitable.

[Mike Schilling]

Sorry, hilzoy, but those stories are inevitable.

[Nombrilisme Vide]

Of course we can't! That would undermine the unique and important role that I'm pretty sure the Constitution gives to the media.

[Sean M. Brooks]

Hi, Hilzoy: I hope you are well.

I have my doubts that we will NOT be seeing media stories proclaiming this or that candidate will be the "inevitable" winner. Our media soothsayers and entrail readers will have too much predicting who will win. (Laughs)

Sincerely, Sean

[Curtis]

To be fair, the article in question was from October of 2006, so it was only 14.5 months before a single vote was counted. (Though, since we aren't counting Iowa's in the popular vote because it was a - gasp - caucus, I guess we need to count out from New Hampshire.)

Noone is allowed to be inevitable in 2012 until after the 2010 midterms.

[Matt]

Evan Bayh is the inevitable 2016 Democratic Presidential Nominee.

[Nell]

Two years ago almost to the day, one of my least favorite posters at Balkinization had an asinine post called 'Stop the Stop Hiliary [sic]Movement', which included this advice:

"Maybe the left ought to begin practicing [to] defend its own rather than trying to find the perfect candidate."

My response:

So, more than two years out from an election, it's my obligation to sit quietly and accept the candidate that big donors have anointed for me? No, thank you.

Her position in favor of the Iraq war and on conflict with Iran, not to mention the history that makes her a proven turnout generator for Republicans, combine to make Sen. Clinton a potential electoral and policy disaster for my party.

I'm going to continue to make that case as openly, often, and clearly as possible between now and the nominating convention in 2008. To me, primaries are not some formality; they are a mechanism to test the candidates and come up with the best possible candidate.

Democrats are counting on votes from disenchanted, previously Republican-voting citizens in November 2008. I cannot imagine a candidate less likely to gather those votes.

Because Sen. Clinton has amassed something like three times the amount of money available to any other likely candidate at this point, it is incumbent on Democrats who do not wish to have her candidacy forced on the party to make some noise so that this potential disaster can be averted.

Part of what Graber was responding to was a January 2006 column by the late, great, greatly missed Molly Ivins.

[Prodigal]

I was once fortunate enough to have lunch with Molly Ivins. She was one of the greatest political writers that Texas has ever produced, and the lack of commentary from her in the 2008 election will leave us all the poorer for it.

[Jesurgislac]

Nell: Part of what Graber was responding to was a January 2006 column by the late, great, greatly missed Molly Ivins.

Thanks for the link, Nell. Wow, in all the mess of the primaries, I'd all but forgotten that once there were Democratic campaigners who could attack Clinton substantively, on the issues, rather than just swallowing down the regular mainstream media crap and regurgitating it.

Prodigal: I was once fortunate enough to have lunch with Molly Ivins. She was one of the greatest political writers that Texas has ever produced, and the lack of commentary from her in the 2008 election will leave us all the poorer for it.

Already has. Molly Ivins was a terrific writer - I wish I'd got to meet her, though I loved reading her.