::::::::
Eugene – as a legendary politician once said with a sideways bob of his head followed by a prim, almost-imperceptible upper-body wiggle – there you go again.
Homerism is a terrible thing, Mr. R. Maybe not so terrible, but insidious and disorienting. (I'm not talking Homeric, unfortunately.)
The late, great announcer of the Lakers during their Showtime heyday – Chick Hearn – who died pumping gas – the ultimate, fitting LA death – was the shining example of a man – a professional – who abhorred homerism.
“Ladies and gentlemen, the Los Angeles Lakers are playing horribly. My mother’s sewing circle could dunk over them tonight and not drop a stitch.” Get it? When a Laker would be charged with a foul on a close call – and the home crowd would erupt in a chorus of booing, Chick would say, dripping with distain, “He fouled him, no question. Easy play to call.”
Which brings us back to your Einsteinian (not) “thought experiment” entitled, "A Fair Question." For starters, isn’t that for your readers to decide? At least put a question mark at the end, Gene. [Note: "A Fair Question" was the title of the piece as it appeared in Truthdig. In Wapo, it is called If Obama Went 0-for-10 . . .
Here’s your premise: What if Obama had lost ten states in a row? Unlike Hillary, he would be written off and have to face withering questions as to why he was still in the race. That “…nobody is forcing her to respond publicly to these painful questions.”
Sorry. You’re an Obama Homer, Eugene. (I’m playing Chick here, since I’m both an Obama supporter and a big fan of yours.) Hillary has been asked this question all week. Not just on morning shows but in Thursday night’s debate in Texas. You were a beat reporter, Gene – what happened? Take ten minutes to do a little research.
Your premise has flaws that any reasonably bright high school student could spot. For your “thought experiment” to work, it will require that there must be an equivalent reversal. We must say that our fictional Obama has had a twenty-year, high-profile political life, and that Hillary is a young, virtually unknown, two-year senator. In addition, Obama, despite his ten-state losing streak has had, until the last state or two, a clear lead in delegates. Ok, now go.
Would Obama be written off in the above scenario? Toast? Of course not. Spared tough questions and given the benefit of the doubt? As much as Hillary is – if she really is.
“The reason is obvious,” you say. “She’s Hillary Clinton…”
Is that really the difference? That she’s Hillary and he’s not? Or is it that Barack is… um, what? Young? Tall? Skinny? Eloquent?
Then your piece gently slides in a totally different direction – no longer examining, suddenly, why he would be held to a different standard. Maybe the piece should have been entitled “Media Unfair to Obama Because He’s not Hillary.” Huh? So you veer away from where the logic is heading and land on a safe topic that has absolutely nothing to do with the premise of the article. What happened to the ol’ Thought Experiment? When you were a managing editor at the Post, what would you do if an aspiring Opinion columnist had handed this in to you?
Did you not imply what you implied? That Barack is being held to a different standard because he is black? And? Maybe he is being held to a different standard. So why not say it? You’d think he would be, and yet, despite the fact that he’s young and black and he’s not Hillary Clinton, he doesn’t seem to be getting much chin music from the press – not too many fastballs up and in.
Ok. I lopped off your line in mid-sentence. Here’s the whole quote:
"Yet nobody is forcing her to respond publicly to those painful questions. The reason is obvious: She's Hillary Clinton, and history suggests it's foolish to count out a Clinton until the last dog dies."
Wha happen? You looked over the edge and stepped back. The reason she’s being held to a different standard is because she’s a tough old dog? Not for any other reason? I’m confused, Gene. Does that mean that Obama wouldn’t get same the benefit of the doubt because he’s not a fighter you shouldn’t count out? That he’d fold like Harlan Elison’s Texaco roadmap?
No. What you meant to say but realized how whiny and wrong it would sound is that Obama doesn’t get the benefit of the doubt because he’s black. But instead of saying that Hillary gets special treatment because she’s white, you pulled a sleight of hand and gave Hillary a compliment instead. Which only makes sense if the whole point of your piece is to heap praise on Hillary. Uh, I don’t think so.
The safe LZ which you dropped into is the notion that Hillary’s campaign strategy and execution has been klutzy and clueless. Which it has been. At best. Not exactly breaking news – and so much for the supposed benefit-of-the-doubt she's getting. I actually offered my own Narratives-Are-Us services but have heard nothing back. (Mark Penn -- Meet Bob Shrum.) The Clinton team remind me of a group of great studio musicians playing a god-awful song. Everything seems amazing except the crap coming out of the speakers.
So unless your train of thought-experimentation has jumped the rails (which it has) are you saying that the brilliant, fabulous Hillary Clinton has been undone by her unworthy minions?
As far as her handlers not understanding Joseph Campbell’s “power of the mythic narrative –“ sorry but I just threw up a tiny bit in my mouth. I admit, I only made it as far as The Crossing of the First Threshold – or maybe it was The Meeting with the Goddess – about halfway through his tedious, humorless magnum opus. It seemed to me that Campbell’s favorite narrative was Joseph Campbell.
Robinson – you clever last dog! You got me thinkin’ about Joseph Campbell instead of something about Obama being unfairly treated because he’s black. Maybe.
Which brings us back to Homerism. The ghost of Chick may be visiting you soon if you don’t turn this thing around. Three visits. Mythic as all get-out.
