The NY Times has an article recapping how Obama defeated Clinton in the Democratic primary. The article is a prime example of the myopia that afflicts our political press. And it’s not what’s in the article, but what’s missing.
In a story of over 4,000 words purporting to describe the campaign, the word Iraq does not appear once. For a fair number of Democrats, the Iraq War featured prominently in their decision to support Obama. More accurately, Clinton’s support for the Iraq War* gave Obama an opening. It might not have been a deal breaker, but it certainly encouraged Democratic voters to look around (and there was a significant minority who never support her in a primary because of her stance on Iraq).
If Clinton had been strongly against the war, like the majority of her Senate and House colleagues, most Americans wouldn’t even know who Obama is.
The mainstream press corps’ inability to comprehend what Iraq meant to much of the Democratic base approaches a clinical psychological disease. Many Democrats remember the cruel and demogogic (not to mention, utterly ridiculous) rhetoric hurled at us for opposing this war–and we were right on every count.
It wouldn’t be that hard to find a few of the 18,000,000 Obama supporters and ask them about Clinton’s support of the war.
Of course, that would require committing journalism.