Internal bleeding

The New York Press' Russ Smith ponders the amusing possibility of schizophrenic media reactions sure to come in the face of being forced to make a choice between McCain and Clinton in '08.

More intriguing, however, should a Clinton-McCain race emerge, is what side the media elite will line up on. This is the sort of decision that can't be made lightly by journalistic sycophants, a battle that'll pit husband and wife, children and parents, Harvard alumni and cable television buddies against one another. Sort of like a Civil War, without the blood and guts and yucky stuff like people being killed. It's a quandary that makes a longtime McCain opponent like yours truly hope that he prevails in winning the nomination; one, because he's the most likely to defeat Clinton; and two, not to be flip, the entertainment factor can't be beat.

Just imagine the tsouris at The New York Times alone: Maureen Dowd lines up with then-septuagenarian McCain, while Paul Krugman (on the assumption he's not fired by then for any number of actionable offenses, such as referring to "Indians" instead of "Native Americans" in a column) is certain to unzip for Hillary. David Brooks is already a McCain whore from 2000, so that's easy, and John Tierney, currently the only Times op-ed writer who seems to possess a conscience might be disgusted and ask for reassignment to the paper's Buffalo bureau.

Smith eventually asserts that they'll have to come down on the side of Clinton, which is true, if only for the fact that no elite media organization would want to get behind what will become the"I guess I have to" choice for white, Southern evangelicals. For these liberal types, God is ok, but only if he doesn't have any influence on someone's life.

Smith's major mistake, though, is that he seems to think McCain's nod is all but inevitable.

There's really no way for Republicans to avoid a hold-your-nose vote for McCain. If Clinton wins it's likely she'll carry along additional Democrats to Congress, possibly even regaining both chambers. And with so many elderly Supreme Court justices refusing to stand down today, President Hillary could dramatically shape the judiciary in her own image, a cause for recurring nightmares.

Smith acknowledges how distasteful many Republicans will find McCain, and in doing so, he underestimates the power of the party's culturally conservative base. Despite the good press McCain will get in the primaries and the inevitable support from moderate wings of the party, the most unified block of conservative voters are religious conservatives who place cultural issues at the fore. Whether its James Dobson and his over-touted band of Christian footsoldiers or a coalition of churches that have, through all the hulabaloo about "values voters," finally become (too) aware of their own political clout, the right simply doesn't seem to have the choice to nominate a cultural moderate.

Look at the Schiavo case, in which a fairly small portion of the party grabbed the leadership by the balls and forced Republicans' hands in the matter. The Christian right is too strong to allow a candiate that doesn't fit their profile, and McCain, liberal sympathizer that he's percieved to be, doesn't fit the bill.