Apology Accepted

Roger Simon has a great article today on Politico satirizing  what the media should be apologizing for in their quest to uncover the facts about Sarah Palin.

This is good stuff.

Clean Sweep

I just may have to get off my lazy ass and start posting over the weekend on occasion. Apologizes for the late posting—duty called—but I doubt any of you were completely at a loss without my words of wisdom.

Well, as you probably have heard by now, Obama swept the Democratic primaries and caucuses this weekend. I am sure this news will give him a boost come tomorrow in the Potomac Primaries. The two Republican primaries on Saturday were a draw—one going to Huckabee (Kansas) and the other to McCain (Washington) although apparently the Huckster says that one is too close to call for McCain. Whatever.

Meanwhile, the delegate count for Clinton and Obama couldn't be any closer. According to CNN, Clinton has 1,148 to Obama's 1,121. Talk about a nail biter. I have to admit I am fascinated at how close the two of them are. I know that I paid a fair amount of attention to the primary process during the 2004 election, but prior to that it either wasn't an issue (incumbent VP's running) or I was too young to care. Yup, 1992's Clinton vs. Bush was my first election. Ahh . . . the good 'ole days.

But enough about facts, you come here for hyperbole and supposition right?

Well, while the Huckster continues to stand firm in his continuing in the race, I still believe it is going to be McCain. Duh. And my gut says that Obama is going to pull it out from Clinton as well. Of course the last thing the GOP wants is for Obama to get the nomination because they can't go after him for the obvious reasons—his race. Of course they can't go after Clinton for the obvious reasons either—her gender—but they can AND WILL attack her for her husband and his record. For many people that will be all the ammunition they need.

What else . . . this David Shuster dust up about him saying the Clinton campaign is "pimping" out Chelsea Clinton. UGH. Listen, I don't like the word choice (I guess dude was trying to sound hip or relevant, who knows), but when it comes right down to it, is it any worse than some of the things the media has said in the past? Frankly, they weren't very kind to Chelsea Clinton when she was growing up in the White House. The girl went from a pre-teen to a teenager to a young adult during Bill Clinton's tenure as president. And I defy any of you out there reading to say they got through those years without many an awkward outfit/hair-do/photo.

Finally, let's all lift our glass of sparkling apple cider to Ms. Amy Winehouse for her Grammy wins. Now please, take your beehive and get some help. It would be a crying shame to waste all of that talent.

Charts and Graphs

I have been puzzling on what to discuss today and I finally decided on this topic after a conversation with the spouse last night. We were both confused about upcoming primaries and events. I thought that if we were confused about that, what is going on with the rest of America? After all the husband watches more CNN/MSNBC/CSPAN (and a snippet of FOX for kicks and giggles) along with listening to Air America than any sane human should indulge in. So if he has questions something is missing.

(FYI—the Nevada Democratic debate is Thursday, January 17. The Nevada primary is Saturday, January 19 and the South Carolina primary is Saturday, January 26.)

Which brings me to today's topic—how the media is reporting on this whole shindig. I have touched on this before in various ways, mostly on the press's slamming of Clinton for not just being a woman, but being a Clinton too. But I want to go broader than that. I think that the press is doing a big disservice to the country by allowing themselves to get distracted by the minutiae of the political mudslinging (Did Hillary show cleavage? Did McCain make nice with evangelicals? What does it mean that Obama did cocaine? Did Guiliani wear a dress?).

I want them to tell me what the candidates believe (of course the candidates have to help with this by believing in something other than their own rhetoric). Give me bullet points, charts and graphs. Whatever it takes so I can be informed. Isn't that the job of the news—to give us the days events? It is harder and harder to find that amidst all the opinions. And hey, I like opinions as much as the next person, obviously, because here I am sharing mine with you. But when I turn on the TV or go online I want 75% of the news I see to be news. Not the beef Chris Matthews has with the Clintons. Or whatever issue Steve "Douchebag" Doocy is up in arms about this week.

How did we get away from our news telling us the days events without judgement or editorial commentary? And why did we get away from that? What was wrong with it? There is certainly a place for that sort of thing, that is why there is an editorial page or section in papers. But that is a section, a page, not the entire thing. While we are demanding more from our candidates, maybe we also need to be demanding more from our media.

371 days left. Here's Dubya on why we can't find Bin Laden (talk about stating the obvious)—

"Because he's hiding."