At first the Invisible Man, now it's Tim Geithner everywhere

As a general rule the dullest, least informative, most stultifying public affairs programming has been the Sunday morning shows, especially when administration officials -- preprogrammed themselves and wound up to perform like those little cymbal-clashing monkey toys -- are the featured guests.

During the Bush regime I more or less stopped watching the lifeless line-up, not just because the officials were so wretchedly propagandistic, but because I and everyone else already knew precisely what they'd say. Indeed, as the Politico noted Saturday in a related piece to its "Sunday tip sheet": "Bush officials were so familiar and on-message that sometimes the shows refused to book them."

Yet with a new administration comes new interest. A few of the faces are new, their message not yet lapidary and the hosts still hopeful they can actually wring some news from the unpolished newcomers. Plus, any new administration's newness itself denies the shows' producers the opportunity to say no, thanks very much but we've heard it all before.

Hence notwithstanding the considerable buzz about its "new media" fixation, the Obama administration has been "flooding the zone," as one network interviewer characterized it, of the older medium of the televised Sunday talk show. And yesterday they were everywhere: the president himself on CBS' "Face the Nation"; the treasury secretary, Tim Geithner, in a double-header on NBC's "Meet the Press" and ABC's "This Week"; Defense Secretary Bob Gates on "Fox News Sunday"; David Petraeus and Richard Holbrooke on CNN's "State of the Union."

A proper p.r. dazzler it was meant to be, on everything from the cataclysm called Afghanistan to Kalamazoo's unemployment rate -- the whole bloody mess and altogether unnecessary legacy of the cymbal-clashing monkeys.

Still, as the Politico also noted, Monday's "inescapable storyline will be how Geithner" -- and pretty much Geithner alone -- "does, after good reviews this week and shaky ones before that."

Shaky? He was damn near tarred and feathered and banished from the Beltway. And for good reason, right? After all, there he had sat, virtually undisturbed by anything resembling a staff, for almost 60 days and with nothing to do but reverse 30 years of entrenched economic depravity. That, he failed to advance with unblemished gracefulness; the chattering-class vultures were in full descent.

But how did he do yesterday? That question, of course, is quite aside from how his policies are doing, since their true effects won't be known for another half-year or so, at minimum. But one could tell he's a 60-day-wonder study as far as the Washington media-culture goes: He often dodged and evaded and obfuscated with the best of them.

For instance in response to David Gregory's rather direct question about what "securitization" means, Geithner passionately explained -- passionate for Geithner, that is -- that systemic financial meltdowns are "brutally indiscriminate" in their victims, American families are "frustrated and angry," therefore the Obama administration is reacting "aggressively." Got that? Clear enough?

Even better was when Gregory was forced to take three-and-half stabs at some, any comprehensible explanation of the investment-percentages breakdown in Geithner's public-private banking plan. After wringing nothing from Geithner but that they're "appropriate terms," Gregory withdrew, a defeated man.

Yet Geithner also accomplished precisely what he intended, no more, no less. On "This Week," for example, he blew past Paul Krugman's much-ballyhooed criticism, framing his alternative as both unrealistic and one carrying "all the risk." Repeatedly, on both shows and in one form or another, Geithner rammed the message that the Obama administration has "had no good choices" -- that in the real-world arena there are political constraints on what can be done; Platonic Ideals don't apply, not when you've 300 million plus 535 bailout-weary spectators.

So, all things considered, in answer to the "inescapable" question of how Geithner would do, the inescapable conclusion is that he not only survived what amounted to his third or fourth national debut, he did a rather bang-up job of it.

He's no natural, but he's learning how to b.s. with the pros -- how to avoid the debilitating luxury of academic, "on the other hand" muddle and frame his position as the only possible position. And in this case -- the banking-plan case -- he's almost certainly right, however wrong he could, in time, prove to be.

And the better he becomes at the Washington art of talk-show b.s., the safer and more secure in his Treasury job he becomes as well. Before long, if yesterday was any indication of future performance, he'll get so good at it we can all go back to watching "Gilligan's Island" on Sunday mornings.