Why do poliical pundits, who clearly know better, promulgate simplistic and unrealistic explanations of the phenomena they cover? Maybe they’d rather raise red herrings than supply answers; once you’ve given the answer what more is there to write on the subject? Or maybe, as T. S. Eliot —a pundit of a different stripe— put it, human kind simply cannot bear very much reality.
John Podhoretz, in a post last night on his Commentary magazine’s always interesting “contentions” blog, tells some home truths about how —and how not— the race for the Democratic presidential nomination is going to play out over the next several months. It’s pure common sense —based as much on human nature as on politics— but I haven’t seen it mentioned anywhere else.
Matthew Yglesias, the leftist blogger, cries to the heavens: “I have to say that I’m getting really tired of this. All the superdelegates should just say who they’re voting for and bring this to the end.” The New York Times is, I hear, going to call on them to do the same immediately.
Yes. Sure. Because politicians with the most valuable votes in America are just going to choose up sides and not spend three months being courted and feted and promised. They are going to forswear having their feet kissed, their backs massaged, their views requested, their wants fulfilled, their needs anticipated. They are going to throw their vote away rather than milk it for all it’s worth.
It’s time for people like Yglesias and other Democrats to grow up and get this straight. The point here is: A thousand or so people are going to decide this primary. It behooves those people to have this go on as long as possible, because that is how they are going to get the most goodies. Maybe this is what Hillary truly understands.