Now that we are a few days away from Senator Hillary Clinton's Great Gaffe, the question is "So What?"
Do you even remember that Clinton raised eyebrows -- MSNBC's Keith Olbermann, among a few -- over her reference to Robert Kennedy's assassination when she explained why she was staying in the Presidential race? That she may have hinted that the party could need her if the unthinkable happens to Senator Obama?
Did any of this matter? Maybe not, considering the overall attention that the matter received... which amounted to "not much."
As for Mr. Olbermann, in my view he is a canny, insightful, articulate and often passionate moderator. (Just check out this YouTube clip of his commentary on the fifth anniversary of the war inIraq.) But he really seemed to chew the scenery after Clinton's remark, seeming to be enamored of his own oratorical powers. Yes, he was correct to note other instances in which she shaded the truth or played the race card in this seemingly interminable primary campaign. But it amounted to piling on, with him being the only person in the pile. The media just didn't seem to pick this up the way he expected. An editorial here and there, polite discussion on "Meet the Press." In my home town paper of the Philadelphia Inquirer, the story landed on page 16 the next day, and I still haven't seen any reference to it on the editorial pages.
In light of all this, I do think that the Clinton campaign handled it properly by issuing a apology and then letting it die. They did not fan the flames through a series of overwrought disclaimers, and for that matter, the media let up, too. Obama's campaign said they had "moved on." So should we all. Et tu, Mr. Olbermann? Save your fire for the Scott McClellan story. Having a press secretary state that the build up to a war was "propaganda" is much more worth your prodigious powers anyhow.
Did any of this matter? Maybe not, considering the overall attention that the matter received... which amounted to "not much."
As for Mr. Olbermann, in my view he is a canny, insightful, articulate and often passionate moderator. (Just check out this YouTube clip of his commentary on the fifth anniversary of the war inIraq.) But he really seemed to chew the scenery after Clinton's remark, seeming to be enamored of his own oratorical powers. Yes, he was correct to note other instances in which she shaded the truth or played the race card in this seemingly interminable primary campaign. But it amounted to piling on, with him being the only person in the pile. The media just didn't seem to pick this up the way he expected. An editorial here and there, polite discussion on "Meet the Press." In my home town paper of the Philadelphia Inquirer, the story landed on page 16 the next day, and I still haven't seen any reference to it on the editorial pages.
In light of all this, I do think that the Clinton campaign handled it properly by issuing a apology and then letting it die. They did not fan the flames through a series of overwrought disclaimers, and for that matter, the media let up, too. Obama's campaign said they had "moved on." So should we all. Et tu, Mr. Olbermann? Save your fire for the Scott McClellan story. Having a press secretary state that the build up to a war was "propaganda" is much more worth your prodigious powers anyhow.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment