Well, predictably enough, the white media are falling over themselves to praise Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama for his speech on Tuesday, the one where he spared a few moments to slam Palestinians and “Islamic radicalism” in a bid to save his political career from the long-standing beliefs of his pastor Jeremiah Wright.

The swooning has reached new levels, but then again, you need to remember that the speech is pure propaganda. And when I say that word, I mean it in the broadest definition, not the evil, sinister definition that’s often employed.

Why propaganda? You can see it in the media response, who can’t find enough superlatives to consider it “pitch perfect” or the “best speech since JFK’s talk on religion.” Ah yes, JFK. Again, the media (and I’m referring to the aging baby boomers who I am convinced are stuck in their 60s flashback, never mind that most of them are corporate whores) has latched onto JFK and this gets to the heart of why I used the word “propaganda.” Rather than get the core of the problem with Mr. Obama’s church and his decades-long attendance where “black liberation theology” appears to be the guiding principle, the media has focused on the delivery and the Bigger Themes that we’re supposed to be concerned about. And using JFK (again!) is a way of framing the debate and invoking certain narratives that are positive, hopeful but have nothing to do with the problem. Sorry, media fucks, I don’t buy your invocations at all.

Propaganda allows one to create a diversion from the core issue by addressing issues around it (in this case, long-standing racial prejudice) and insisting those peripheral discussions are The Problem. The side issues can be very real, but aided by a complaint media, they take center stage, so we are hearing endless commentary about the delivery and style of the presentation, along with these assumed Bigger Issues. If you take our Media Glitterati at face value, the real thing haunting America is race and we need to focus on that, not the central issue of Mr. Obama’s beliefs.

And there it is: what does this man believe? If you paint yourself as a healer, a wonderful person, etc., then why are you part of an organization that has pure anger at its core? Put another way, if you put any of Mr. Wright’s speeches in the mouth of a mullah or a sheikh, we wouldn’t be having this conversation at all. We would all be puzzled over the hatred coming from the pulpit of the mosque, or stroking our chins in Deep Concern that such messages of intolerance and hate might have influence over impressionable young men. You wouldn’t find any bogus soul-searching in the media about the Bigger Theme of the message at all; you’d all be shocked, horrified or at the very least, uneasy.

Don’t believe me? Go and ask Tariq Ramadan, a very thougtful and eloquent speaker about Islam, the West, secularism and issues facing the Muslim community. Never heard him speak here in the US? Well, that’s because he’s had a running fight about obtaining a visa to even come here. There’s a lot of the aforementioned chin-stroking over his politics, what he really believes, is he really an anti-Semite, blah, blah, blah. But I don’t hear any media fuck rushing to his defense so we can all talk about the Bigger Issue of Muslim Disaffection, discrimination or anything like that. I don’t see a free pass being given to him over what he says or how how says it, as long as get to examine the Bigger Truth. I wonder why that is: oh yes, he’s a Muslim, that’s why.

So you see, in a nutshell, that’s how propaganda works, and that’s why the Great Speech of the Ages really is just a diversion from the problem of what Barack Obama actually believes. It’s too bad Americans are too afraid to admit that and would rather appear Serious and Introspective with their blathering about racial issues. But, like finding Jesus in a tortilla, the mind sees what it wants to see.

Well, here we are, and it seems like only yesterday, you know, when we just couldn’t wait until the most exciting show ever, “Shock and Awe” would fill our television screens as we went into Iraq to overthrow Evil Dictator Saddam Hussein and find his hidden weapons of mass destruction; the ones that were being built and sent to Al-Qaeda to put mushroom clouds over American cities.

That’s what Condoleezza Rice said, so it must have been true.

I still remember Judy Woodruff of CNN in her smart little outfit telling us (in case we couldn’t read the exciting banner on the lower-third of the screen) that “shock and awe begins.” Despite historic and unprecedented levels of human protest against a war, Americans were still in the mood for blood and revenge for 9/11 and no one was going to deny us this show.

Here we are at the start of year six of a conflict that has outlasted American involvement in World War II. Then, as now, print and broadcast journalism were wildly patriotic, doing virtually nothing to investigate the outrageous claims of the Bush Administration and going all out to support an invasion that as of this writing, has cost nearly 4,000 soldiers’ lives, thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of wounded and wait, don’t tell me, there’s something else. Nah, I can’t think of any other human toll that’s been exacted in the course of the initial invasion and the war’s continuation.

Of course, our Media Glitterati have mostly soured on our Iraqi Expedition, and I know this because there have been Very Serious Editorials, about, you know, maybe this wasn’t such a good idea because gee, there weren’t any weapons of mass destruction after all. Of course, the media discovered this at the 60th Annual White House Correspondent’s Dinner, when Bush ran a delightfully funny video skit of himself looking for these weapons under Oval Office furniture and playfully telling folks they just couldn’t be found. Good times! I miss things like that because, you know, war really is hell, and we need side-splitting laughter to take out the sting of other peoples’ deaths based on falsified information.

And I’m certainly glad that voters have wised up the evil machinations of Hillary Clinton, perhaps the worst person to ever walk the planet, for her single-minded drive to start this war, bring “water boarding” into the lexicon, and solemnly pledge to continue Bush’s policies when she’s elected president. And I know this is all true, because the Left has been saying so on comment boards and blogs, so why would they lie or exaggerate about anything? Somebody needs to pay for Bush’s actions and she’s the most logical target. Thanks, leftists! I’m glad you’re here to put everything in the correct perspective. Now quick, head back to your Church of Obama to complete that gold statue of your calf (Exodus 32.4).

As I finish this entry and ease back into the sofa at Starbucks with my hazelnut latté, I can only wonder what the next six years will bring. Oh, the possibilities!

I was pretty surprised to read yesterday (all afternoon, no less) that New York Governor Elliott Spitzer was in trouble. Big trouble. But the emerging details of the scandal (and that's what it is) can give everyone an insight into how the media thinks, and what subtle signals they're sending to everyone.

Two cases in point: the headline for several hours yesterday on the NY Times Web site read "Spitzer Linked to Prostitution Ring." So what's wrong with that? Well, because as the finer points were coming to light, it seems that what he did was hire an expensive hooker. That's it. Sure, I know that Americans love to be shocked and morally indignant about everything sexual, but I don't personally care at all. However, it was the headline that implied a lot more than getting busted with a whore: I thought that Spitzer was running the prostitution ring. And like I mentioned, that headline ran for hours.

The next little tidbit of MediaThink: ABC News, naturally, runs a lead story on the scandal and at one point, without even saying her name, they show a video clip of Spitzer walking down the steps of some building with a bunch of other people, and next to him is Hillary Clinton. So, you ask, who cares? Well, it's not that I care, but there was absolutely no context to this clip at all, but the implication rang through very, very clear: she's somehow involved, this reflects on her, or if we elect her, expect scandals.

There's no reason why that clip was there; Clinton has long distanced herself from Spitzer for a variety of reasons, but trust me, I am probably not the only one to question the Hilary Connection. As I've learned rather quickly, whatever political problem arises, you can ask yourself, "What is the Hillary Connection?" It's totally misplaced, but you've just read two examples of the subtle hints of scandal. Expect more.

All this attention to the drama between Clinton and Obama is a great distraction from even more drama on the other side of the world: Israel and the Palestinians.

In case anyone has wondered, there's been a great deal of bloodletting going on the last few weeks, what with Israeli missile strikes at Gaza, killing over a hundred, including children. Hamas continues to stoke the problems by firing rockets into Israel, and these ones have longer ranger than before, so that means an even heavier, disproportionate response by the Zionists.

Not to be outdone, Israel has just approved construction of even more settlements in East Jerusalem and its environs. I don't know, but on the face of it, this seems pretty counter to Condoleezza Rice's "diplomacy" in the region, not to mention Bush's blather that an agreement can be reached by the end of the year. Talk about someone who pays no attention to the reality-based community: there can be no progress on the peace front if Israel continues to steal more land from the Palestinians just to cement their hold and chip away at the idea of a viable Palestinian state. These are just "facts on the ground," I suppose.

So, we're really back at square one. More violence, more killing, more finger-pointing, more fury, more tears, more threats, and more settlements. It's the same story as it's been for decades at this point, and it's unlikely to change just because Bush wants to make it seem like he's working really hard to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict when he's waited far too long to do anything of significance. It'll just be another American presidency that comes and goes and the conflict grows longer because nobody in Washington will dare stand up to Israel and demand that it fulfill its obligations under whatever fucking treaty, road map, cocktail napkin plan some other asshole has dreamed up.

Sometimes I wonder: why bother having any peace agreement and an end to the conflict? What on earth is everyone going to do then?

The only thing that's getting tiring with the Democratic contest for the nomination is the impatience of the media: they have a narrative and a chosen winner, why does Hillary Clinton persist in staying in the race?

Because of this narrative, every caucus and primary is breathlessly hyped as the most decisive, the must-win, the Vote that Will Change Everything. Expectations are built so high that you can certainly understand frustrations among rank-and-file voters who are unsure of the direction of this process. Of course, it works to the media's advantage to portray it this way all the time, so that they can all later comment on "Clinton fatigue" or help stoke hostility towards her because she refuses to quit.

As I've mentioned before, Hillary won't get the nomination because too many Democrats are interested in her losing and they've started accepting the media claims that this is all getting ridiculous, why doesn't she just quit? To push this narrative along, everyone's turned into a math expert, and convinced of their own numerical prowess, the impossibility of Hillary winning based on numbers is additional proof that her race is doomed and she should pack it in as quickly as possible. For the unity of the party, of course.

I've also noted that Obama had a rough week: too bad, so sad. If his weak, uninspiring performance was any indication, he is not ready for his Republican close-up. First he essentially walks out of a press briefing about the trial of acquaintance Tony Rezko after answering only eight questions, then he intimates that Tina Fey, making an appearance on "Saturday Night Live," needs to be "talked to" after her apparent (but unsubstantiated) endorsement of Hillary. His entire demeanor: uncomfortable and a little disturbing in tone. I don't think anyone needs to be "talked to" just because they don't want to vote for you, Mr. Obama.

Some leftist blogs and mainstream media types have suggested that the press' treatment of Obama is now going to be different. To that I say: bullshit. There is a much more powerful drive to hound Hillary than Obama (she's sooo divisive, you know) that the investigative press will not continue. It will subside and quickly too, because to rewrite the media narrative on the star-crossed campaign of Hillary Clinton takes too much work and too much originality. And like Hollywood, our elite media fucks like a formula that works. Why do anything else?

So, the media are all atwitter: will they finally get to use their orbituary for Hillary Clinton?

The lead-up to Tuesday’s election has all the marketing fervor of a movie blockbuster. Since they’ve insisted that this is do or die time, that she’s in a corner, everything is at stake, how can you not want to watch the outcome?

If she loses any state at all, the calls will be fast and furious for her to fold, fall on her sword, chop her own head off and if possible, draw and quarter herself for the sake of “party unity.” This is the same party that wants to punish her for her “Iraq war vote” and just about the entire Bush II presidency. I’m surprised nobody’s charged her with war crimes.

It’s for these self-loathing reasons that I am convinced she will not get the nomination, no matter how many states she wins. As I’ve mentioned before, the editors at this online rag really think she can win. For me, it isn’t that she can’t win but rather that she won’t win because elements of the Left have bought the media narrative about her “electability,” or “polarizing presence” and other choice phrases hook, line and sinker. The Left has followed our elite media fucks into throwing her under as many buses as possible, all while denying that this is case (except for the hard-core leftists who would charge her with constructing Guantánamo herself.)

Because she seems determined to remain to the Very End, this has also confused the Left because they’re so used to surrendering, or as the Republicans like to say, cutting and running. They see no strength in her determination to remain standing; an irony because it’s actually a good characteristic overall. But I suppose more than a decade of spreading your legs for your Republican johns is a hard habit to break.

So, we need to let the Media Glitterati gussy themselves up and get ready for their closeup tonight, because for them, they have a funeral to attend. Stay tuned.