Although no one yet knows anything of any verifiable substance -- especially the haplessly in-charge Condoleezza Rice, which naturally is just par for the course -- Barack Obama really needed this.
Thank you, oh "-gate" giving gods, for in all your mysterious playfulness we see that you do indeed giveth what you taketh away. And these days really quickly, too.
This is politics, so imagination and suspicion are happily permitted to substitute for material reality and facts. We watched this axiomatic sordidness unfold with splendid exactitude in the aftermath of the Rev. Wright fiasco -- 1) a "scandalous" story breaks ... 2) a thoughtful, convincing response is offered ... 3) the punditry crowd ensues with half-baked speculations and recriminations about number two, not one. We can rest assured, I trust, that irresponsible network jabber will dominate now, as much as before. It's only fair.
Like I said, this is politics, and that pretty much says it all.
When Watergate was in its infancy, the indefatigable services of two obscure but intrepid reporters were required to convince the big-boy media that some serious skulduggery was afoot. It's rather stunning now to think that after watching Dick Nixon in action for 30 criminal years that the media would have had to be prodded into investigative action, but in that era the nation was still clinging to its last, thin vestiges of innocence.
Surely the president of the United States wouldn't, couldn't be so dumb as to authorize or cover up a felony committed for utterly blockheaded gain. But he was.
And although the investigative subject material was about as serious as it then could get, only a few noticed that a burgeoning media circus was being conceived, and would soon be in need of regular feedings.
It began with some gravitas -- the nightly network coverage of an overseas crisis and then the 24-hour cable procreation of Carter-watch; he could do this, should do that, he didn't, end of presidency.
In his place -- no surprise -- a slick, photogenic, media-indulgent political entertainer. Before long, we were down to tailing a serious but horny senator in his quest to replace said entertainer, and not long after that our current-events education derived almost exclusively from other bimbo eruptions and the occasional, unsubstantiated financial scandal.
A big and booming business was here to stay -- the obsessive, profitable feeding of the unenlightened masses with heaps-more unenlightenment.
In our unaware darkness we never stopped to consider, for example, that the private and not entirely uncommon act of adulterous fellatio could alter if not end the course of Western civilization, but by golly it could, it just could. All we needed, as good citizens, was the proper news and information and truckloads of partisan, talking-head humbug.
We were not disappointed. "They" were happy to oblige, because this puppy needed feeding. It was the stuff that future political careers were made of, as well as craven cable-network saturation, network-correspondent face time, and scads of speculation-peddling opportunities for otherwise idle commentators.
By the time a monumental issue of actual Western civilization-altering concern rolled around -- you remember, that little unprovoked war we launched in the world's most volatile region -- it just wasn't sexy or squalid or scandalous enough to merit our full attention. Besides, it was all so damn ... complicated. Dry, objective, straightforward network analyses wouldn't do, because those are so damn ... unprofitable.
Fast forward to the present. Is he black enough or too black? Is he a secret Muslim? Does he hold hand over heart? Does he wear a flag pin? Was he sitting in the pews? Is he, in short, as gullible as we are?
Now that's news, and rightly the kind of crapola we can base our presidential preferences on.
There's only one antidote for the political victim and only one balancing act performable by the media: any other shrill speculation about any other possible scandal will do nicely as a tiring-scandal substitute. Odds are, Condi Rice's operation was merely performing as incompetently as always, but let us jump to every other possible conclusion first. That's far more entertaining.
So for the next 48 hours, sit back and enjoy. And watch for any sign of Barack Obama folding his hands in prayer, for that's a surefire indication that he's thanking God for these little tidbits of counterbalancing media hysteria that determine our national leadership. We're too shallow not to love them, as well as too shallow to grasp the authentic reasons behind his candidacy.
Maybe we'll just stumble our way into salvation.


Contract Passport Workers?
Hey, Dey Gotta Feed Da Beast....
Was Condi in the Loop?
Thank you o' great political gods....
Speaking of Edwards
Obama--the New Teflon Man
Popo:
You wrote: "I want to believe that this country deserves presumptive nominee Obama..."
Me too, but sometimes you have to wonder----does this country really feel that way? It seems to sell so much bluster that its full of its own B***S***! I have seen the last few weeks one phony little scandal after another.
ALL created, perpetuated and denied by vapid, vacuous little 'lesser' lights who only bring discord and strife to the intercourse. He has remarkably handled it with a cool, deliberate aplomb that certainly seems to indicate what type of President he'd make. Its somewhat interesting that this fact goes unmentioned in the media. Very much like their failure to comment on his outstanding organizational abilities reflected by his campaigns ground-readiness and budgeting capabilities. I also find if morbidly fascinating how the Right constantly questions his 'wimpiness' or lack of courage. This, to a BLACK MAN running for President!! With a 24/7 target around his neck--its AMAZING!
Anyway, I hope this country does awaken and arise to the fact that, as Richardson stated, that he may be that 'once in a lifetime president'----we so direly need.
When MSNBC was 'breaking'
Yeah - I Expect Better of Olbermann
The Lizard of Oz
The hack reporters of main steam media, talk-radio blowhards, and TV talking fat-heads have a job to do. They're working for the special interests, who don't want American voters to look behind the curtain and see the lies of their hand-picked, puppet politicians.
That's why Hillary and McCain are so successful in getting the media to focus on Obama's skin color and talk about his black church, the possibility of his being a (wink, wink) secret Muslim, his not being patriotic enough to wear a flag lapel pin, and anything else, but what they are hiding behind their curtains.
Thanks to an FOIA law suit against Clinton's Cheney-like demand for secrecy, we are now getting a peak at some of the lies Hillary fought hard to keep hidden. Yesterday, we learned she's been shamelessly lying about her opposition to NAFTA -- the lie that helped her win big in the Ohio primary and may help her win in Pennsylvania next month.
Clinton wants the news media to stay focused on what Obama's former minister said and not look at the records she's been hiding.
Writing in The Nation yesterday, John Nichols raises the question, how can anyone now believe anything Hillary Clinton says?
Clinton Lie Kills Her Credibility on Trade Policy
by John Nichols
http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20080320/cm_thenation/1300860_1
The Nation -- What is the proper word for the claim by Hillary Clinton and the more factually disinclined supporters of her campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination -- made in speeches, briefings and interviews (including one by this reporter with the candidate) -- that she has always been a critic of the North American Free Trade Agreement?
Now that we know from the 11,000 pages of Clinton White House documents released this week that former First Lady was an ardent advocate for NAFTA; now that we know she held at least five meetings to strategize about how to win congressional approval of the deal; now that we know she was in the thick of the manuevering to block the efforts of labor, farm, environmental and human rights groups to get a better agreement. Now that we know all of this, how should we assess the claim that Hillary's heart has always beaten to a fair-trade rhythm? ...
As she campaigns now, Clinton says, "I have been a critic of NAFTA from the very beginning."
But the White House records confirm that this is not true.
Her statement is, to be precise, a lie.
When it comes to the essential test of the trade debate, Clinton has been identified as a liar -- a put-in-boldface-type "L-I-A-R" liar.
Those of us who covered the 1993 NAFTA debate have frequently expressed doubts about the former First Lady's recent statements. We never heard anything at the time about her dissenting from the Clinton Administration line on trade policy. And we knew that she had defended NAFTA in the years following its enactment. But fairness required that we at least entertain that notion--promoted by the lamentable David Gergen, himself a champion of free-trade policies while working in the Clinton White House--that Hillary Clinton had been a behind-the-scenes critic. We had to at least consider the possibility that, at the very least, Clinton had been worried that advancing NAFTA would trip up her advocacy for health care reform, that she had made her concerns known and that she had absented herself from pro-NAFTA lobbying.
This was certainly the impression that Clinton and her supporters sought to create as she campaigned in Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Indiana--states where worried workers want to know exactly where the candidates have stood and currently stand with regard to trade issues.
But that impression was a deliberate deception.
And we must all now recognize that when Hillary Clinton speaks about trade policy, she begins with a lie so blatant--that she's been "a critic of NAFTA from the very beginning"--that everything else she says must be viewed as suspect.
IF She Only Had a Heart !!
ASK---thanks for the heads-up from the Nation. Its slowly, but surely, all beginning to unravel. With Richardsons endorsement today, the twin losses if Florida and Michigan (which is directly creditable to Pelosi's rising opposition), and more revelations yet to come from her overly-redacted records....I think by the end of the month, many of the super-delegates will be getting off the fence. They know we can't wait 'til Pennsylvania, because she'll only take that certain win there (crafted by her constant focus on Obama and the race-card) and transcribe it into another month of futile bickering.
What will be of real interest to me will be what her partisans do who have ignored all obvious evidence of her mis-deeds and lies. I fear they'll ignore everything brought forth from her records-----they simply do NOT WANT to know or believe.
Maybe they'll finally realize her cause is mathematically (and politically) lost, and then move on and look past the divisive practices of the last few months. One can ....hope.
Richardson's Endorsement = Kiss of Death for Hillary
I'm going to go out on a limb and make some predictions over what I think is the major turning point in the race for the Democratic Presidential nomination.
I believe Gov. Richardson's endorsement is the kiss of death for Clinton's plan to persuade the party's superdelegates to forget about Obama's compelling lead and give her the nomination.
Richardson is one of the most experienced and shrewdest politicians alive today. He owes a lot to President Clinton for many of the highlights on his impressive political resume.
Richardson had a choice of endorsing either Clinton or Obama. Today, he surprised virtually everybody by choosing Obama.
Had he chosen Clinton and she wound up losing to Obama, Richardson would not suffer much, since Obama understands how much he owes Bill Clinton.
But now that he has endorsed Obama, Richardson faces almost certain and terrible pay back, should Hillary wrest the nomination away and go on to become President.
Such a shrewd politician would not put his future in Clinton's crosshairs, unless he is confident that she is not going to get the power to punish him for what she no doubt views as an unforgivable personal betrayal.
Therefore, I suspect:
1) Richardson believes Pelosi and other Democratic leaders are about to stop Hillary from further damaging the party's chance to retake the White House (plus scores of more Republican seats in Congress!).
2) Richardson has been offered something equal to the risk he is taking: Obama may have promised him the VP spot on his ticket.
I think that would be a brilliant move for Obama. As the Hispanic governor of New Mexico, Richardson would help him win New Mexico, Florida, and perhaps Texas in the general election. His strong record in foreign affairs would help Obama offset the inflated foreign affairs experience McCain is claiming.
It's amazing to look back a few days and think how awful this week began for Sen. Obama. With no more good cards left to play, Hillary may have nothing left but to kick over the card table. The party leaders now appear ready to stop her from doing that.
In other words, Spring has arrived.
Another Thought
Only Puerto Rico, I believe
Only Puerto Rico has a large Hispanic population among the remaining states. However, the Caribbean island is quite different from U.S. states with large Hispanic populations, such as Florida, New Mexico, Texas, California, etc. So it's hard to predict how the voters in PR will react to Richardson's endorsement.
Clinton Has Her Heart Set On Power
Amen