Okay, I didn't know it was happening in the first place, which I'm sure says something about my personal alienation from the political system I used to track like a racing maniac following the ponies.
The first in what will no doubt be a long, long, shall we say fucking INTERMINABLE series of pretended "debates" among candidates for President, was held today in South Carolina, and it was followed on MSNBC by what the network considers 'commentary' but which is, face it, a lot of bilge from a bunch of genuine morons who, having failed at politics themselves, now find themselves paid a lot of money to grace us with their bonehead opinions.
The general tenor of the 'commentary' addressed such topics as whether John Edwards' position on an issue was "out of sync" with public opinion, as MSNBC claimed to measure it, and whether Mike Gravel, who many years ago had a moment of great and supreme courage as a Senator when he attempted to break the temporary ban on releasing the Pentagon Papers by reading them into the Congressional Record, was giving the viewers comic relief by his "naive" views on peace and domestic security.
The big story, if you believe these network flunkies, was that Hillary Clinton looked "presidential." I am not joking.
Apparently, looking "Presidential" is her main challenge. Since she has already abundantly demonstrated an inability to actually BE "Presidential" in her toadying to Bush and company on the invasion of Iraq, torture, and the abolition of the Bill of Rights in the name of "security", all she's got left is appearance, but that is sufficient for the talking heads (sorry, David Byrne) at the network.
The most distinct impression I was given, in the ten or fifteen minutes I managed to watch this post-game analysis, was that the presidential nominating process is actually a matter of giving these people screen tests. Whichever ones impress the media bozos (and raise the most capital to spend on media buys) are considered "real" candidates. These will be the finalists.
Lest anyone mistakenly believe that popular opinion will play much of a role, let me remind you that a little better than three years ago, on the eve of the Iowa caucus, with Howard Dean leading all contenders and John Kerry trailing (and in a dead-heat with Carol Mosely Braun at 7 percent), Dean made the mistake of calling for BREAKING UP the media monopoly in America. He said this on the Chris Matthews show. Within two weeks, Time Magazine and Newsweek each hammered Dean as "unstable" in cover articles (this was before the "scream"). Kerry was acceptable to the nation's rulers; Dean was not.
Popular opinion will play a role only after it has been created. Hillary will be declared "Presidential" or not; Obama will be declared "electable" or not. The mass media will find a way to neutralize Edwards if they can, because he – unlike Clinton and Obama – is not someone who can be trusted to play ball with the corporate rulers of the country.
I missed the "debate" but not the meaning of this ludicrous game show, and I recall all over again why I don't watch. The candidates, were they to express themselves honestly, might be interesting. But through the filter of the media whores, through the mind-numbing, American-Idol-type of circus we've got here, no such thing is possible.
Bread and circuses, that's what the emperors offered the Romans as the empire fell. Looks familiar, doesn't it?
God help this country.

