It seems that the New York Times has already finished covering the 2008 Democratic primary race and declared the winner--Hillary Clinton. In the lead in to a cover story in last Sunday's Times Magazine by Matt Bai, the Times proclaims, "There are 2 ½ years until the 2008 election and Hillary Clinton already has a lock on the nomination." Well, now that the Paper of Record has told us the future, I guess we may as well all go to sleep and wake up in early November 2008 to find out if Hillary was really unelectable. (While the article does not come directly from the Times editorial board, by featuring this article on the front page of the Magazine, it seems fair to think that the Times is generally in accord with hi arguments. After all, this isn't an op ed piece)
In declaring Hillary the 2008 primary winner, the Times does raise some questions about her electability, pointing out that in a January Gallup poll, 51% of the respondents said they would never vote for Hillary. Maybe the Democrats really do have a death wish. But does the Times actually think it's inevitable that Democratic primary voters will nominate someone who is already opposed by a majority of the country? Well, the Times doesn't really consider Democratic primary voters at all in their coronation of Hillary. The reason that Hillary has already won, according to the Times, is that she has wrapped up most of the big money donors and Democratic political consultants and there won't be enough money or advice left for any other Democrats. The Times dismisses the rest of the Democratic field as the Pips to Hillary's Gladys.
The Times then goes on to argue that the only Pip with any chance of catching Hillary is Mark Warner. (Many of you political junkies who read the Huffpo may be scratching your heads asking who exactly is Mark Warner--You may even be confusing him with Republican Senator John Warner of Virginia. I'd put down good money that if you asked Democratic primary voters around the country who Mark Warner is, not one in 10 would know, much less be able to pick him out of a lineup.) For the record, this Warner is the recently retired one-term Governor of Virginia.
The Times tells us that Warner is "an unapologetic pro-business Democrat [who] rejects the reflexive anti-corporatism that permeates much of the populist fervor online". The Times indicates that besides being a darling of the Democratic Leadership Council, Warner doesn't really stand for much in particular. When asked by George Stephanopoulos on ABC's "This Week" whether he supported the Iraq invasion in 2003, Warner couldn't really say. He also couldn't tell Stephanopoulos whether he thought Samuel Alito should be confirmed or whether the president has the authority to order warrantless wiretaps.
From the Times description, it seems as though Warner is a bit of a cipher, waiting for the DLC and a bunch of fingers-to-the-wind Democratic consultants to fill his head with poll-tested positions. Or maybe that's the point: the Times wants to be sure that if DLC darling Hillary Clinton should falter, that the Democratic Party still nominates a DLC stalwart.
We'll have to see if actual Democratic primary voters see it the same way as the Paper of Record. As for me, I think I'll just delete the Times article from my computer and get back to work.