This Narrative Has A Flat Tire
Back in the 2000 election, the media created the myth of the Beer-drinking Buddy Bush to gloss over their treatment and hatred of Al Gore. A narrative was created that Bush won because voters would rather have a beer with Bush than the stuffy and rigid Gore, who had suffered numerous mistreatments and lies at the hands of a lazy media fed talking points by a killer GOP misinformation and media management effort. By blaming Gore for his loss rather than the double standards and unequal coverage provided by a Bush spoon-fed media, journalists like Frank Bruni and Richard Berke of the New York Times were given a pass for writing stenography and falling for whatever Drudge and the Rove destruction machine put out. Vanity Fair publishes a major piece on this, and Gore's reaction to his smearing in the current issue.
Fast forward to 2008, and now the media has updated its narrative. No longer will the comparative benchmark be about which of the candidates would you drink beer with. Instead, it has apparently been updated to which of the candidates would voters like to take a cross-country drive with. (I kid you not).
ABC News has actually now polled on this, and I’m sure to their surprise more voters would rather spend a cross-country drive with Hillary than with Rudy Giuliani. Not content with that questionable benchmark of presidential qualifications, ABC News then asked voters which of the two would they trust to run a corporation. Again, Hillary won by a small margin within the margin of error, a margin that will grow as the Clinton campaign hammers Giuliani in the general election for his 9/11 travesties and his actual record while running New York.
I'm willing to bet that ABC News starting out thinking that this poll would show Giuliani as the winner of the "Driving Across America" narrative in the media's first attempt to package their preconceived argument why Hillary cannot possibly win. As in 2000 and again in 2004, the media will look for inane arguments like these to fill out their horse race narrative and coverage, but in reality they will use these arguments and narratives to gloss over their bias against Democratic candidates, and willingness to do stenography for the right-wing disinformation industry in destroying the eventual Democratic nominee. But to their surprise, the poll didn't turn out the way they may have wanted it to, and now they have to find another worthless metaphor to frame their already-written narrative.
But unlike 2000 and 2004, I doubt that Hillary or Obama would let the media get away with it what they did to Gore in 2000 or Kerry in 2004. And neither should we.