As evidenced by my post below, the press’ acquiescence to the Hillary-is-inevitable narrative bugs the heck out of me. Not because I have any particular animus toward Hillary, but because it’s lazy and condescending to the people who, you know, actually vote. Greg Sargent shares my annoyance and has a smart take on the NYT’s money obsession:
Was Hillary’s fundraising score huge front page news? When Obama announced raising an astounding $32 million back in July, the paper put the story on page 13. The Times piece on Hillary’s fundraising numbers justifies its prominent placement by claiming that it meant that “a major dynamic” in the race had “shifted.” But has this really happened in any meaningful sense? Deeper in the piece it says that Obama has still outraised Hillary in cash for the primary overall, and even characterizes Hillary’s lead in primary funds this quarter, which is only $3 million, as “modest.”
It’s a big stretch to claim that this shows that a “major dynamic” has shifted. Indeed, it’s virtually certain that the $3 million difference in their primary fundraising this quarter will have no appreciable impact whatsoever on the outcome of the primary. After all, we don’t even know how much primary cash the campaigns have on hand — a far more important indicator. And numbers like these — which mean little or nothing to, you know, the voters — will be long forgotten when actual voting begins.
And where the voting begins, Iowa, is Hillary’s other problem. Edwards has lost his lock on the place, Clinton is doing better, but so is Obama (check out his newscycle win yesterday here; it’s also a victory for policy over process!). As it stands, the state is up for grabs. My take on why that’s a problem for Hillary in this SwampCast: