More Media

This from a Jason Linkins account of yesterday’s This Week roundtable is another example of missing the larger picture:

Brazile, who was taken aback at the lack of effort made by the Clinton campaign to “cut a deal” or otherwise “come to the uncommitted superdelegates” in the room, said: “He also could have won on a crucial vote on this Michigan proposal to split the delegation 50-50. And rather than cause a ruckus they gave in. He had the votes. and the Clinton campaign never took the olive branch.”

Naturally, George Stephanopoulos immediately interrupted Brazile and changed the subject, because he has the worst news instincts of any carbon-based lifeform walking the face of the Earth.

It’s not that Steph has bad “news sense,” it that Brazille was getting to close to defusing a conflict. One thing that seems excruciatingly absurd is the way the RBC meeting has been framed as Clinton vs. Obama. In fact, it was Clinton vs. Florida and Michigan. Obama had supported the Florida position, but in Michigan his campaign wanted a 64-64 split, the 69-59 split was proposed by Michigan.

But that’s neither her nor there. The point is that what Brazille was letting on, that the RBC meeting wasn’t all that contentious, that the race isn’t close enough for the Obama campaign to take a hard-line stance, even when they have the votes to do so, and that the Clinton campaign was a small minority in being unwilling to make any deals whatsoever, doesn’t make for good copy. It sells much better, and lets talking heads like Steph bloviate all the more, if people think it was some Obama-Clinton showdown with high emotions all around polarizing the Democratic Party, which it obviously wasn’t.