Losses Aren’t Always Insulting “Snubs”

email Email

After the announcement of Academy Award nominations, countless commentators focused on unexpected Oscar “snubs.” For instance, the Coen Brothers’ over-praised movie INSIDE LLEWYN DAVIS got no major nominations, and Tom Hanks, Robert Redford, Emma Thompson and Oprah Winfrey won’t be finalists for acting awards.

But these aren’t “snubs”—any more than losing a primary election, or dropping a playoff game and not advancing to the Super Bowl count as snubs. When Academy members mark their ballots they think about candidates they mean to honor, not contenders they want to insult. The word “snub” implies that an individual is unequivocally entitled to consideration, but inexplicably didn’t get it.

If Hillary Clinton doesn’t win the Democratic nomination, it won’t be a snub, it would be a defeat—and the right decision, surely, for her party and the country.

email Email

Comments (1)

Leave a comment
  1. T. Ruth  •  Jan 27, 2014 at 12:30 pm

    MM’s desire to launch a pre-emptive strike against Hillary 2016 with an analogy to the Oscar nominations is deeply flawed. Deserving candidates sometimes are snubbed, sometimes because the topic of the movie didn’t have enough “gravitas”, other times because the members want someone previously denied to win the “big one” as his/her career nears an end, even if the current movie involved wasn’t the best performance — being overlooked years earlier, the Academy “owes” them one. Sometimes the Academy creates a special “career” award if there is no current film as a basis for a nomination. There’s always next year for the losers. There is no ”next year” for Hillary if she fails in 2016, it would be more than a snub — a rejection! Dittoheads & Medheads see her as a femi-nazi intent on capturing the white house at all costs. Hillary is actually smart enough to know that even if elected in 2016 she would likely have only one term as the historical odds would be against the same party holding the white house for more than 12 years consecutively, with the rise of the independent voter loyal to no party, always ready for “change”. She will run if she is the only candidate that can keep the party united.
    MM often criticizes Hollywood for creating false historical narratives but in a previous column attacking Hillary Clinton he did the same thing. MM has convinced himself that Hilary’s political rise is nothing but a result of her marriage to Bill Clinton; Hillary had enough political skills to be elected Wellesley student body president and was credited for helping her school avoid the disturbances that were common on many campuses in 1969; if she had never met Bill Clinton at law school she couldn’t easily have gone on to be someone like Elizabeth Warren, recently elected to the U.S. Senate from Massachusetts? No! If only Hillary had pulled herself up by her own bootstraps like that Conservative heroine Margaret Thatcher!
    MM needs to focus like a laser-beam and make an acquaintance with any halfway objective detailed account of Margaret Roberts early political career: despite being president of the debating society at Oxford, it was going nowhere. After losing a few elections, and not liking the politics of her private industry job, she decided to wed and remain home raising young children while her wealthy husband Denis Thatcher provided the bootstraps:
    BOOTSTRAP #1 — Denis paid her way thru law school (and also for someone to take care of the twins when she was hitting the books). Having a law degree gave her “gravitas”;
    the House of Commons is filled with college debate champs skilled at arguing political viewpoints; her legal training gave her the ability to win the argument by discussing all the evidence, winning key support from others less ideological but impressed by good reasoning.
    BOOTSTRAP #2 — as Denis grew even wealthier, the kids were packed off to a elementary-grade boarding school and the Thatchers moved into a wealthier MP district which was safely Conservative, unlike the districts Margaret had failed to win earlier in her career. After narrowly winning a 1959 Conservative primary. Margaret easily won re-election thereafter.
    BOOTSTRAP #3 — Margaret was able to replace Ted Heath as Conservative leader by winning support from others not as ideological as her. Not particularly charismatic (she had to take voice lessons to eliminate her Cockney accent –important in the television age), she had a key advantage over her party rivals: her husband’s wealth. In return for a candidate’s support for leader of the party, she could provide massive amounts of campaign money to MP candidates across the U.K. NONE OF HER RIVALS COULD MATCH THIS FINANCIAL CLOUT.


Tell Us What You Think

All fields required. The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. By using this website you agree to accept our Terms of Use.


Listen Commercial FREE  |  On-Demand
Login Join
Advertise with us Advertisement

Follow Michael

The Michael Medved Show - Mobile App

Download from App Store Get it on Google play
Listen to the show on your amazon echo devices
Michael Medved's History Store Also available on TuneIn