So, I am supposed to be bowled over that the Kennedy’s are supporting Barack Obama. I am supposed to find this a pivotal, transcendent moment in American politics.

No, I don’t.

You see, this pivotal, transcendental moment is a total media creation, one born out the fact that the children of the Greatest Generation (whom I like to refer to as the Greatest Navel-Gazing Generation) are still enthralled with the Kennedy family. They all find deep significance in Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg’s paen to Obama in Sunday’s “New York Times” as the hopes and dreams of a generation. Never mind that this generation is about to retire in a few years; they’re still living the dream of the 60s, which many of them sold out long ago to become corporate chairman and profiteers, but that’s another discussion for another time.

I find it deeply ironic that we should listen to Obama supporters describe their candidate as the agent of change; it’s Mr. Smith goes to Washington all over again, in contrast to the outmoded, cynical and tired Clintons. This changing of the guard seems only in reference to getting the Clintons out of town, not actually in changing the old establishment. And the Kennedys are about as old establishment as one can get.

The press seems so eager to promote this endorsement (who says additions to the script aren’t always welcomed?) that no less a sage like David Brooks of the “Times” can get into the heads of young voters and declare the Clintons “as old as the Trumans”? I doubt most self-absorbed young people today have any idea of who the Trumans are, but if an esteemed member of the Media Glitterati says that’s what they’re thinking, well then, by golly, it must be true.

I am a little more than turned off by the media fawning over Obama, much less the continued handicapping of our illustrious media fucks who have turned navel-gazing into a generational phenomena, so they can invoke a dead president to constantly remind themselves of their very much lost youth. I don’t give a damn about whom Ted Kennedy or his niece endorses, whether it’s it Obama or even the Clintons. I am just tired of these turds pushing their opinion down my throat and insisting that I must feel the same way. I understand that their job is to persuade, not report, but once you’ve tuned into their game, you want to find the exit as soon as possible.

Okay, this is how I think the media script will be tomorrow for the following two scenarios:

Obama wins South Carolina: the Media Glitterati will call a win “decisive” and a “blow” to Hillary Clinton and how much trouble she’s really in. Then we get the tally on the race vote, all the while denying that this has anything to do with race because we’re all so beyond such issues that we need to bring it up.

Clinton wins South Carolina: the Media Glitterati will declare it “razor thin,” put the blame squarely on Bill Clinton and a “Clinton backlash” and then talk about the vote along racial lines. And bring up the women vote to explain everything.

In both cases, the media will stoke the racial issue (as they’ve been doing all week with unsurpassed scrutiny of every word coming out of Bill’s mouth) which grows a long way to putting it in peoples’ minds that hey, maybe there is an element of racism going on here and now treat the Clintons more suspiciously. Of course, any member of the Media Glitterati will vehemently deny such a thing, but then switch to a graphic showing black women and white women’s voting patterns.

And that’s how I call tomorrow’s primary. Stay tuned.

Update, 27 Jan
See? What did I tell you? The summary paragraph of a “Times” article states that “he could endure all that the Clinton campaign threw at him last week.” What they’re saying is that the Clintons threw mud at him (and are thus, unfair players and desperate) and that this alone proves he can take it all the way to the nomination. Not to mention the people at Slate, whose Web site is covered with words like “comeback” and “trounce.”

Sure, right: if our Media Glitterati think that the South Carolina campaign if proof that Obama’s got it, I cannot wait for the latter’s bewildered look when they abandon him to take up the Republican tsunami of dirty, sleazy tricks and innuendo. And no, Obama lovers, (and that includes you Caroline Kennedy, whose piece in the “Times” today furthers that media meme that Obama is her dead daddy, Jack) should your candidate get the nomination and the Republican media machine kicks in, people are not “going to see through such stuff” as you ferverently believe.

While the game is set at 2 apiece, let me say this primary result may portend that Democrats can always be counted on to snatch failure from the jaws of victory.

I read an article in today’s “Washington Post” that tries to understand why Bill Clinton is so mad at poor, defenseless Barack Obama, and while doing so, I realized that the Media Narrative about the Clinton campaign has another dimension to it: it’s all about a Clinton Restoration.

In talking about this, we have to remember that it is a given that Barack Obama rides a pony called “Hope,” and that his campaign is one of change, freshness, newness, us-ness, we-ness and a that new day in America. Never mind that his political record is about what you would expect from a junior senator from Chicago (undistinguished) and that he has two claims to fame, namely being against the Iraq War (which he has voted on several times since his election in 2004, and not necessarily against its continuation) and being a pal of Oprah. No, what the public needs to remember is he represents “change” and that any attacks on him are exactly a denial of change in America.

By the same token, we have to take the Clintons to task for being, well, just plain ol’ mean to Barack. I mean, here we have Bill turning on the steam to an uncomfortable degree, so our Media Glitterati asks Important Questions, like “Is he out of control? Is he making this personal because Barack is turning his presidency into a footnote?”

Now, before we fall in love with Barack’s toothy grin and aw-shucks manner, let’s ask ourselves if we want a president with no sense of history at all, who can’t focus the bigger picture of American politics into a cohesive vision and plan of action that is realistic. Hmm, it sounds like I could be talking about Bush, but that would be an unfortunate digression. No, I mean to ask, why are we analyzing Bill Clinton’s capacity to survey the landscape after several years of Republican leadership and want to make the Democratic party “viable” again during his presidential run, while not analying exactly what Barack is going to do? In the aforementioned article by Eugene Robinson, we read the Media Narrative on Barak with the adjectives “change” and “audacity,” but without any specifics. In fact, Mr. Robinson seems to suggest that Barack “given the office, could do better.”

And right there is my central problem with Barack Obama and his supporters: no meat on the bone. Exactly how is he going to do better? What “audacious” plan does he have to turn everything around and herald that bright new day in America so that Washington will follow in his footsteps, Julie Andrews will show up and we’ll all feed deer from our hands? In a way, the media has conflated Bill Clinton’s term with George W. Bush’s, so that readers can say to themselves, “Yeah, Hillary Clinton is a return to the dark days, we need a man riding a pony called Hope to change things around!” So when we read articles like Mr. Robinson’s today, we can identify Barack with change and Hillary with more of the same.

Only thing is, we get no specifics on the former and criticism on the latter, delightfully unaware of the irony.

Hillary Clinton stated that she’s in it to win; that means she can stand up to the Republican slime machine and take it head on. Our Media Glitterati insists that Barack will, might, could, wants to change things, but we just have to believe in the “audacity of hope” and that’s about it. And if columnists like Mr. Robinson think Bill is mean and unfair (with Portentous Significance for Voter Backlash, at least the way they hope it unfolds), can you imagine what the Republicans are going to do? They will crucify Barack Obama, and no matter of lofty adjectives and inspiring this or that is going to change that it will be a very nasty race.

But of course, Democrats and their supporters keep insisting that presidential elections are fair fights, we’re all in together and other assorted horseshit. So they bandy around “change” and think that’s all you need without any specifics. This is not a strategy, this is being a beggar to your own demise. If leftists had any will to power, they’d stop treating Barack Obama like the First and Second Coming and ask themselves a tactical question: can this man win against the Republicans? Democrats and their supporters have cultivated a false sense of security with the chaos that is the Republican candidate field, thinking that no one can possibly vote for any of those old guys at the national level. It’s a familiar thinking disorder that strikes them early and often, and here’s the thing to always remember: Democrats fall in love, Republicans fall in line. Since virtually all of the media handicapping has been woefully off the mark, why should we trust their word that Bill Clinton is really fighting for his legacy against this “upstart” Obama and just ignore him because of the latter’s cute little pony, and that red state voters will ultimately vote for “change”? People don’t like change, they like what’s familiar, and voting in November will bear that out.

My father, for some reason, likes to watch CNN all the time, a habit that often prevents me from sitting in the living room with him for extended periods of time since I can’t stand to watch lazy media jerks sit and ponder deep issues within a short time frame between commercial breaks. If I do manage to sit still, it’s often just for a few minutes before the vapidity that is Media Commentary gets too much and I sprint for the next room.

So it was this Sunday, with the ever vapid Howie Kurtz on “Reliable Sources” (love the irony of the title) just wondering how people can blame the media for fanning a phony racial controversy between the Clinton and Obama camps. I had to strike the back of my own head to keep my eyes from being permanently stuck due to the rolling. As is the case, his two guest commentators deliver a hyper response about the issue in the form of their own personal opinion (masquerading as analysis, mind you) that removes culpability from the media and puts the issue into “larger context.” Of course, along the way, we hear unsubstantiated claims that the Clinton camp was fanning these flames with their own actions, so really, there isn’t much to look at here.

I am still unclear why anyone believes that a half-hour television show broken up into multiple segments actually passes for deep, reasoned debate in this country, but the myth is alive and well. To have the media criticize itself is like a fox promising to consult with other foxes before entering a henhouse. The first I ever heard about the issue of race was brought up in the media, not around the water cooler. There is no chicken-and-egg issue when it comes to manufacturing issues, controversy and a fake interest in analyzing facts. And on that subject, remember that facts have no place in a good story, especially when you have lazy media fucks constantly offering their own opinions. That may be the norm in Europe, but not here in America, although you’d hard pressed to figure that out since journalists are constantly framing stories around their own peculiar narratives.

So it is now with Clinton’s win in Nevada. Once again, the news outlets trumpet that women put her over the top. I can’t argue that’s not true at all, but on the subject of narrative, this is what is taking place: how do explain her winning when she’s been projected (by the media) to lose? Well, it must be the woman vote. Or perhaps it’s the Latino vote. In perusing the newspaper this Sunday, I see the narrative forming this way: she may have won with all these women and Latino voters, but come the primary in South Carolina where half of the voters are black, well, we can resume with our “Obama is Our Next President” meme.

Or, in the event of an upset, the narrative throws this in: Clinton’s campaign organization was better, deeper and more, oh, what’s the favored adjective to describe anything with Hillary? Oh yes, calculating. Never mind that perhaps people are just voting the way the want to, regardless of what union bosses or the Media Glitterati say. No, no no, it must be women voting for a woman, Latinos hating blacks, or the shrewdly calculating methodology of the Clinton campaign staff. Note that there is barely a peep about Obama’s campaign at all; nobody is daring to suggest that perhaps people just don’t want him as the Democratic nominee.

Because to do that would be to ruin the Media Glitterati’s narrative that Obama is The One, that to criticize him is to criticize black America, and we must give him a wide, loving berth while we dissect Hillary’s every move as suspect, cold and arrogant.

Tell me that I’m wrong about this. I dare you to explain why the media is so focused on having Hillary lose. If she loses South Carolina, expect the media to pronounce her candidacy in deep trouble, or needing to re-assess the strategy, or whatever gloom-and-doom scenario they’ve been hoping for since New Hampshire.

Just wait.

Well, there it is, the new media narrative about Hillary Clinton that promises to help derail her campaign with African-Americans since our glittering news readers and professional scribblers still can't make sense of the vote in New Hampshire: she’s insensitive to blacks.

I’ve seen the overplayed video clip of Bill Clinton talking about Barack Obama and the words “fairy tale,” played over and over and over again. The conclusion? That Bill's insensitive to blacks. Add to that the comment that Hillary made about Martin Luther King “needing” Lyndon Johnson to have passed the Civil Rights Act in order to get anything accomplished otherwise nothing would have been done. (For the uninitiated, the news media has declared this to mean that blacks needed whites, period.)

So, as we head into South Carolina with its large black population, our media fucks are doing their best to inflate this into controversy, and they’re doing a good job since the Clinton camp has been needing to explain themselves to everyone within earshot. Now, as a person of color, if any politician described Barack Obama’s entire campaign as a fairy tale (which is not what Bill Clinton did), I would not automatically suspect some latent racism at all. In fact, I believe Barack Obama is a dilettante who woke up one morning and decided that being a junior senator from Illinois wasn’t enough: he wanted to be president. So he called up his buddy Oprah who felt it her personal mission to mobilize her followers and stump for this man. The fact the media has been rather adoring of him and making sure to use the noun “leadership” at ever opportunity when describing him certainly sounds like a fairy tale to me.

Now, that’s probably not what happened in Obama’s decision to run for president, but if you put that into the mouth of our Media Glitterati, I might have sounded like I really want to go to a cross-burning. In the past few days, they’ve managed to get back to their former role of pillorying Hillary Clinton as revenge for getting New Hampshire so wrong. It’s been amazing to watch these self-interested assholes go on and on about Hillary Clinton’s tearing-up moment, or insist that women voted for her, absolutely had to be, no other possible reason. These turds had written her obituary and had the last nail in the coffin when she rebounded and won.

While there’s nothing more amusing than a journalist with his brow furrowed in a vain attempt to understand something he clearly believed he did, it's also a deadly thing since the media is in the prime position of molding peoples’ opinions. As they’ve been rather adulating about Obama and barely concealing their antipathy towards Clinton (shades of Al Gore all over again), they're now on the offensive to reclaim the canned narrative that Obama is cruising to victory and Hillary is sputtering to defeat. Along the way, they’re trying to make blacks into a bunch of reactionaries and already have the outcome of the South Carolina primary at hand: did Hillary's “racial” comments hurt?

Trust me, the graphics are already made on that one.

Updated
Well, it didn’t take long, but no less a news authority than Fox News has this running on their broadcasts: “Racial Tensions High in Democratic Campaign.”

Well done assholes, well done.

Brilliant, just brilliant.

Talk about perfect timing: “The Simpsons” just had an episode that was a perfect satire on the stupidity and all-around emptiness that it the current presidential-election process.

This is how it is in our country in the 21st century: a cartoon makes the most sense of the real-world and skewers the self-important politicians, journalists and most importantly, the voters.

I’ve been bugging the editors at this rag of a Web site to let me write a full-fledged article about the absolute vacuousness of the political climate, but so far they’ve balked. As it stands, I have to limit it to my blog and keep it relatively short. But after watching the last episode of “The Simpsons,” how can I compare? Sure, not everyone watches the program, but it struck such a nerve that I almost feel spent and just repeat points that have been so brilliantly exploited.

In short, perpetually slow-child Ralph Wiggum (son of the perpetually clueless and equally slow-witted Chief Wiggum) somehow winds up a presidential candidate. Journalists and political operatives descend on Springfield (who trumped New Hampshire by moving their primary up, mocking a real-life issue among Democrats late last year about who was going first. The best part? Trying to have it both ways (as Ralph Wiggum is neither Democrat nor Republican), spinmeisters try to morph him into a candidate for everybody who doesn't need a party, because it’s time for “change.”

Ahh yes, “change.” Since I know that cartoon episodes are produced far in advance, it’s impossible to suggest that the producers could have watched the past week and decided to do a show on it. Instead, they benefit from the general stupidity and gullibility of just about everyone, particularly voters who often try to hold themselves above the fray and sound out their self-congratulatory principles when judging the candidates. Along for the ride are the politicos who try to make sense of all this by using the blanket phrase ”needing a change.” That’s the only word I’ve been hearing since the Iowa caucus, as our Media Glitterati tries to explain Barack Obama’s win there. That and ”unprecedented,” or ”stunning.” In other words, these useless fucks are attempting to convince everyone that we should understand the Iowa caucus they way to do, and since that’s the case, we should abandon the other candidates (well, by this I mean only Hillary Clinton) and see this entire process as a referendum on ”change.”

Whether the producers know it or not, the presentation of Ralph Wiggum as untested and inexperienced (quickly spun into a character strength and just what the country needs) is a pitch-perfect description of Barack Obama. I am not saying (and I don’t believe) he is stupid, but he’s inexperienced and has a record that isn’t worth bragging about, yet our media glitterati are overhyping him and the Iowa caucus. It’s almost as if there’s no reason to vote, because they’ve told us that the election is about ”change” and Important Things like white people voting for a black man. Or finding his superficial (but affecting) speeches to be indicative of how deep he really is. And this is all true because They Say It Is.

This bullshit reasoning is also why I will not listen to either NPR or watch the television news until after Tuesday so I can skip the pretentious prattle of journalists and other spinmeisters who want to tell me exactly what the election is not about: change. People don’t like change, they like the familiar, and it takes far more educated and committed people to effect a revolution than voters getting their minds made up by journalist fucks who don’t have a clue. But then again, that would be like a day without sunshine, right?

Now, how can I impugn an entire state of people that I've never met, based on their free choice to elect a presidential candidate for nomination? Easy, when you've discovered that Democrats are about as clueless as their Republican counterparts they love to ridicule so much as being stupid.

Barack Obama, also known to my circle of friends as The Dilettante, has won the Iowa caucus, with Hillary Clinton coming in third. Of course, our Glittering Media Stars will immediately tell us how much she's now in trouble and be sure to mention a variation of the phrase "no longer the air of inevitability" as many times as possible. But for me, while I quietly suspected Obama would win in Iowa, I'm still shocked that leftists, Democrats and Democratic-supporters really do believe that reasoning with people will win them over, and thus choose a candidate who talks a lot of good talk but can't deliver.

And most importantly, how said voters can admit to realpolitik and vote for someone Who Cannot Win.

Democrats have a very simple choice, but they refuse to admit this is the case: who can beat the Republicans in November? This is a point that is fundamental and crucial to winning the White House, yet leftists are enamored of themselves and their "triumph" in November 2006 as proof that the country wants change. No, idiots, people voted against Republicans because they were sick of the GOP's bullshit, not because they fell in love with Democrats or wanted some "mandate" to either end the war or fix the social problems that Republicans were dragging their feet on. Still, Democrats insisted, like the KGB during the Soviet era, that the world was turning their way.

Yes, I am of the opinion that people should vote for whom they want, and if you want a candidate who hasn't even finished one term in office to be president, then by all means, choose him. But Democrats are weaklings, and instead of fessing up that they need a candidate who can beat the Republicans and has the experience of the well-oiled and funded Republican Media Machine, they opt for a lot of platitudes and horseshit about needing change and the like. If there's one thing you can say about the Republicans, it's that when they lock and load, there's no questioning their intent. Democrats, on the other hand, will flip-flop and mouth off their allegedly superior values as pretend as if that action is some kind of strength. Thus, they'll pick a candidate who cannot win; in short, they don't have both hands on the gun because they're still fumbling to hold it straight.

If leftists want a Democrat, they better figure out really quick that strength depends on them to stop acting superior, pull out the brass knuckles and get a candidate who understands the fight ahead. And that ain't a candidate with a talk show host ordering her minions to vote Her way, or can't even know that Canada doesn't have a president, it's a prime minister.

Barack Obama doesn't have enough experience at all to win. Iowa Democrats may think otherwise, but apparently, they failed to understand what they're really up against, and backing him signals that folks on the left haven't learned a damn thing at all.