A media mad dog moment

Mort Kondracke:

This ought to be the last word on the flap over Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's (D-N.Y.) use of the word "assassination": Ridiculous!

Or, if two words are necessary, how about: Enough already! Clinton is being hammered not for anything she actually did or said - or even meant - but because the media and her political critics want to diminish what little chance she has left to win the Democratic presidential nomination.

Clinton has given voters plenty of legitimate reasons to doubt whether she ought to be president, but talking about the assassination of Sen. Robert F. Kennedy isn't one of them.

It's as clear as day what Clinton was talking about to the Sioux Falls-Argus Leader editorial board. Look at the videotape. Her emphasis was all on the word "June" - not "assassination" - and she clearly was citing some history to justify her staying in the Democratic race into next month.

Yet, the media went berserk because she mentioned Kennedy's assassination in recalling the June 4 California primary in 1968. And some can't let it go even yet. Clinton was accused of "breaking a taboo," of committing a "huge gaffe," of "going beyond the pale," of revealing secret, unconscious death wishes for Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), even of inciting nut cases.

Some commentators demanded she apologize to Obama, even though she never mentioned him or alluded to him in any way.

What's going on here? Various analysts attributed the frenzy to the constant feeding demands of the 24/7 news cycle, but this is far from the whole story.

Clinton had cited Kennedy's death as a June marker - and used the "a" word - on several previous occasions. She did so in an interview with Time in March and in a Washington, D.C., speech earlier this month with lots of journalists present. No one cared to make a big deal out of it then.

But suddenly, the media last week seemed to be in need of an "Aha!" moment, when it collectively obsesses on some action, statement or incident to demolish a disfavored candidate with exaggerated attention.

I've seen it happen before. In the first presidential campaign I ever covered - the 1968 race, long before the 24/7 era-the ruling lions of print political journalism arrogantly decided that Michigan Gov. George Romney was not smart enough to be president.

When he went to Vietnam on an inspection tour in 1967 and accused generals there of trying to "brainwash" him, it was his "Aha!" moment. The press and his adversaries had all the evidence they needed that he wasn't up to the presidency and his candidacy collapsed.

There was as little wrong with what Romney said about "brainwashing" as what Clinton said about "assassination." But he was clobbered for it. The consequence - maybe it would have happened anyway - was the nomination (and election) of Richard Nixon.

...

He gives other historical examples of media hysteria. The mad dog moments are those when angry barking is supposed to frighten candidates into dropping out. They are usually for selected candidates that the media wants to go and is looking for an excuse. If there were not so many of them in the tank for Barack Obama, he would be gone by now too, because he has made numerous gaffes that are mad dog worthy, that just have not gotten the barking reserved for candidates the media wants to go away.

If you look at Kondracke's examples candidates from both parties have gotten the treatment. Clinton's statement is no where nearly as disqualifying as Obama's statement that he would meet without preconditions nut job despots. A nutty idea like that deserves much more derision, but instead we get Chris Mathews having a tingle go up his leg.