Despite countless denials, Republicans and the media just can't get it through their thick heads that Hillary Clinton is not going to run for president.

The latest conspiracy theorist is William Safire -- the same guy who brought us the Hillary-will-be-indicted nonsense during Bill Clinton's first term. This time, Safire casts Wes Clark as a placeholder for a Hillary candidacy:

What if, as Christmas nears, the economy should tank and President Bush becomes far more vulnerable? Hillary would have to announce willingness to accept a draft. Otherwise, should the maverick Dean take the nomination and win, Clinton dreams of a Restoration die.

Here is where the politically inexperienced Clark comes in. He is the Clintons' most attractive stalking horse, useful in stopping Dean and diluting support for Kerry, Lieberman or Gephardt. If Bush stumbles and the Democratic nomination becomes highly valuable, the Clintons probably think they would be able to get Clark to step aside without splintering the party, rewarding his loyalty with second place on the ticket.

Leave it to right-wing spooks to posit that the Clintons are so power-hungry, and so self-absorbed, that they'd rather the country suffer the ill effects of four more years under Bush so Hillary can have "her turn" in 2008.

That aside, Safire's assumption is wrong. If Wes Clark's career is any indicator, then once he's in, he's in it to win. This is the same guy, remember, who knew the cholesterol level of all the officers vying with him for a promotion. Besides, I have a hard time believing that Clark, who stood up to the Pentagon brass during war, is going to take orders from Hillary Clinton on the campaign trail.

It's no surprise that right-wing pundits keep dragging out the Clinton boogeyman. After all, folks like Kerry, Edwards and Lieberman (and a still-unknown Dean) don't make for good direct mail fundraising in those red states.

And Hell, Clinton couldn't win anyway, in 2004 or 2008, against anyone on the moderate side of Jerry Falwell. Like I said, I sure as hell wouldn't vote for her.

Still, though, I'm sick of the media's willful obtuseness on the matter. How many times does someone have to say "no" before the press moves on to real news?

I was really looking forward to this show. I've always thought Republican pollster Frank Luntz's focus groups were the best part of Hardball, giving us a window into what some "average" (if more informed and articulate) people felt about the politicians and issues of the day.

But boy, is the spinoff show a disappointment. The format is the same, but the show's producers were clearly looking for more extreme panelists. Instead of everyday people offering valid concerns and honest reactions, the new participants act like strident partisans who spend the entire hour engaging in an orgy of negativity.

Right there, on the very first show, a Republican told outright lies about Wesley Clark: "He's DANGEROUS! He told the NATO troops to ATTACK the RUSSIANS!" Had the producers been interested in giving us an honest assessment of Wesley Clark's chances, they would have put him before a group of Democrats like they did on Hardball for the other candidates, or at least had Luntz call the man on his lies.

Who would've thought our "voices" were so shrill, and so wrong? The bottom line is that this show is thoroughly annoying, right down to its loud rock music transitions for commercial breaks. Leave it to MSNBC to forego serious dialogue and embrace the tried-and-true formula of partisan bickering over substance.

The Tough Democrat thinks the media hooplah over John Kerry's cheesesteak debacle is unfair:

...if there is any more evidence for the proposition that the press just hates John Kerry, I don't think it's necessary any more. I guarantee you that each candidate, every week, has a small screw-up like this on the road. But for this one, the press started to sneer and hiss because it allowed them to write, in a factual way, about why they think Kerry is weird, and to let the rest of us in on the jeering.

Point taken. Those reporters can be such dicks, can't they?

Still, though, there's an important message Kerry's campaign should take from this episode. It's not just about the nature of the press, but rather, popular perception of their own candidate. Think about it: would partisans, pundits and the press have relayed the details with such glee if, say, Gephardt couldn't handle the sandwich? Lieberman?

During the 2000 campaign the press, with prodding from the Republicans, jumped on every Gore misstatement and presented it as evidence that Gore had problems telling the truth. Sure, most of those claims have long since been debunked. But the fact that they were allowed to spread during the campaign pointed to serious preexisting concerns with the candidate himself.

Al Gore's willingness to fudge the facts (such as in his debates with Bill Bradley) gave plausibility to the argument that he was a habitual liar with no real convictions, eager to say anything just to get elected.

Kerry, likewise, is stiff, insecure and seemingly unable to level with voters and speak from his own heart. Furthermore, he is seen as an arrogant Massachusetts aristocrat who wants the presidency not because of some personal calling, but rather, because it's his turn.

Kerry walks and talks the part, with a persona that lends itself well to Saturday night caricatures. He will increasingly be cast as an imposter in events like these, and ridiculed, as Hillary Clinton was for suddenly donning a Yankees cap.

As a native Philadelphian, I have to admit I laughed pretty damn hard reading the story -- louder than I would have if Howard Dean had made the same mistake. Now that I think about it, the equally WASPy Howard Dean would've at least given that sandwich a hearty bite before giving up.

You see, it's not so much about background as it is about personality. And with John Kerry, personality is the heart of the problem.

This was on the local noon newscast:

"And today, another virus alert. There is a new computer worm making the rounds on the Internet via e-mail. The virus spreads when you open the attachment to the e-mail, known as 'html.' Microsoft is working on a patch to address the vulnerability."

Nice to know they're working feverishly to eradicate the scourge of "HTML."

I just watched Hardball, and they displayed pictures of Uday and Qusay Hussein's dead bodies no fewer than six times.

First, let me say this: I believe the military made a wise decision in releasing the photos. After all, the Iraqi people having been terorrized by this family for over two decades, and many of them still live in constant fear of reprisals from tyrants in hiding. In this case, as well as with Saddam, presenting proof of their demise is essential to calm the populace and encourage Iraqis to look to the future.

I feel differently, however, about the American media's decision to broadcast the photos, particularly in the fashion they were shone on Hardball. Most Americans, after all, are not so suspicious and paranoid that they distrust the DNA, dental and visual verification already performed by the U.S. military.

Here's my problem: These stations didn't display these gruesome photos because Americans needed to see them, but rather, simply because they could, and because every other station was doing it. The display came with nary a warning, I might add, at least on the show I watched.

It is rather telling that the same media that sheilded us from Iraqi casualties during the war are now eagerly displaying such grisly photos of dead, pale, blood-splattered faces. Appropriate, too, that such a casual display would occur on a show like Hardball, set to the soundtrack of the usual partisan rancor between talking heads.

We have turned 180 degrees from Vietnam, when images from press informed us, in somber fashion, of the full gravity of war. Then, those images revealed the depth of human sacrifice on the battlefield. Today, they are shown to entertain us.

Today's media, it seems, are less interested in informing the American people than they are in scandal-mongering, propaganda-peddling and whoring for ratings. The casual and repeated display of these photos was ugly and callous; it was we've-got-the-goods journalism at its worst. It underscores the unfortunate nature of the contemporary news media, and will serve as a milestone in the gradual coursening of American culture.

Today, repulsed by MSNBC's Joe Scarborough and weary of watching anything on Faux News, I flipped to CNN -- the supposed mature, responsible news network of cable's big three.

What was on? Some bickering talking head show with the following headline: LACI BABY AUTOPSY DETAILS.

Below the headline: PLASTIC TAPE LOOPED AROUND BABY'S NECK, TEAR IN CHEST.

The American news media are a disgrace. An abject disgrace. I feel sorry for the family.

Like an Iraqi soldier dressed in civilian clothes, Fox News has crept in under the false cover of objectivity to unleash a blitzkrieg of bias so right wing that channel-surfers often mistake it for a eugenics infomercial. The only nod at an actual exchange of ideas is Hannity bitch-slapping the hapless Colmes while slobbering permaguest Bill Bennett slowly undoes his belt buckle in anticipation of giving that liberal fucker his final comeuppance. It's enough the scare the teeth right out of Ann Coulter's vagina.

As usual, Mr. Cranky is right on target.

What if Fox News were around during other historical events?

[click the pic]

View more...

First Donahue, now Chung. Things may be getting better in the world of cable news.

What can I say, other than how pleased I am that her show was canceled? I couldn't stand her stupifying, "oh-dear" kindergarden teacher manner. Or her weak interviewing skills, replete with awkward, irrelevent questions and pregnant pauses.

Her show was a daily parade of gruesome crime stories, occasionally broken up by human interest fluff -- hardly appropriate for a network like CNN, which is trying to build on its reputation of being a trustworthy source of hard news. Sure, CNN has plenty of shortcomings, but it still provides a much-needed respite from Republican propaganda outlet Faux News and that desperate, scandal-mongering ratings whore MSNBC.

This was a headline flashed at the bottom of the screen on CNN:

"TURKEY FEARS IRAQIS WILL CREATE A TURKISH STATE"

And then, this one:

"TURKISH SEPARATISTS HAVE LONG FOUGHT FOR AUTONOMY"

CNN is usually on the ball, but that was hilarious pretty funny.

If I hear the term "shock and awe" one more time, I'm going to take a hammer to the TV set.

At this point, it's clear that we're not only targeting the top leadership, but also covertly using special forces to secure oil fields in the north and south before Saddam can blow them up. It's the "rolling start" before the full attack. "Shock and awe" will take place (if necessary) on Baghdad after much of the rest of the country is secured.

The more the press harps on the missing "shock and awe," the more they give people the impression that nothing is happening, and that's just not true.

Man, I wish I could translate Al Jazeera.

This is helpful, too. Shows when to expect nightfall and sunrise across Iraq.

She's alive! She's alive! Thank God she's alive!!!!

Now shut up about it.

There should be a rule: After any major event, the media will have 48 hours to report it, hype it, spin it, and do whatever they want. Then, they must be silent on the issue for a full week, during which journalists must gather the facts and revelent details to be reported later. That information can be reported for one day only, then the media must be silent and repeat the cycle.

It was heartening watching the press conference where it was announced Elizabeth Smart was found alive and in (physically) good condition. Indeed, the enthusiasm of the detectives and relatives was contagious.

But now comes the spectacle, where reporters ask stupid questions like "Was she abused?" Please. We know the answer, yet I don't want (or need) to know the answer.

In case you couldn't tell, I'm really sick of the wall-to-wall coverage of this story and those like it. Elizabeth Smart. Laci Peterson. Chandra Levy. JonBenet Ramsey. Robert Blake. Clarence Thomas/Anita Hill. Shark attacks. O.J. (guilty)

At the risk of sounding like a callous, heartless bastard (in other words, my true self), I really don't care about any of these stories, except insofar as the issues raised are larger and more important than the subjects in the story.

Like many other people, I find myself in a quandry when it comes to news. Local news is, well, just too damn local. The evening news is serious and covers inter/national events, but it's too dumbed down, it's too short to discuss the issues in any depth, and by the time it airs the story is usually several hours old.

Cable news is, in many ways, at the opposite end of the spectrum. Viewers are constantly bombarded with "Breaking News" on events momentous and trivial alike. This is especially true for desperate, viewer-hungry channels like MSNBC.

Now, cable news producers could buttress their coverage of major events and fill in the air time with substantive stories (tips to protect your child, pending legislation on the subject, etc.). Instead, they opt to entertain us with the scandalous and salacious, as every new detail is followed by the obligatory 24 hours of speculation and punditry. Journalists, it seems, are just our immature, sniping, gossiping selves, but with notepads and cameras.

I need a respite from all this madness. It looks like I'm stuck watching lions and crocodiles on Animal Planet until the war starts.