Hillary?? Hillary. Hillary! (We're supposed to say Yay!)

The way I understand it, Hillary was not to have serious/significant primary opposition. She was to be granted the Democratic Party Presidential Nomination by Right, on a Silken Pillow, after a not-too-strenuous primary season that would be abbreviated thanks to all the other primary candidates dropping out by mid-March if not sooner.

It would be a cakewalk for her compared to the brawl on the Other Side.

Bernie was either not to run at all, or if he did run, his numbers would be so low (cf: O'Malley -- who?) that he would see the writing on the wall and disappear back to the nether reaches of the People's Republic of Vermont and the Senate where he came from.

Didn't work out quite that way. Not quite that way at all.

I voted for Bernie here in New Mexico, and my county's Democrats went for Bernie over Hillary ... two votes. I don't know whether anybody will call for a recount. Interestingly, the more rural counties tended to favor Bernie while the more urban counties were Hillary strongholds. Hmmm.

Same thing seemed to happen in California.

Hillary won New Mexico's Democratic Primary by a small margin, less than 7,000 votes state wide out of 215,000 or so cast (turnout was pitiful.) In California, the margin was greater, but still.

Bernie was not supposed to do so well. He wasn't really supposed to run at all. He's a crabby old man, after all, and who wants that in the White House? Yuk.

Not just old and crabby, but a fricking Socialist to boot. Eeek! Run away!

But no. He piled up victory after victory defying expectations and the polls, and toward the end his rallies seemed to get bigger not smaller.

Herself had the Machine and Wall Street and the Dem Party backing; Bernie only had the frustrations of the masses backing his campaign -- and that little birdie, of course.

It was remarkable in every way that Bernie could come as close as he did to the nomination given the political disabilities he started with. I'm sure he was as astonished as Hillary was.

The depth of anger and despair at the shenannigans of the high and the mighty is much greater than Our Rulers ever imagined. As Bernie's numbers grew and grew, the Overclass got more and more alarmed ... and pissed off.

Don't let's fool ourselves. There will be hell to pay for this mini-rebellion. Hell, I say.

I've never had a great deal of regard for the Bernie campaign, for the simple reason that you can't conduct a genuine revolution from the Left from within the Palace. Ain't -- ever -- gonna happen. That Palace is so locked down and securitized, and the Left is so marginalized, even to the point of complete absence, that there cannot be a Leftish rebellion/revolution from within. It's designed that way. It works to prevent the Left from acquiring power and implementing policies and programs on behalf of the People. It's always been that way, even during the supposed hey-days of the supposed Left in government (FDR, LBJ, etc.)

Nothing that Bernie proposed was radical or particularly Socialist. In fact, to Old Farts like me, a lot of it was pretty familiar. What he proposed was basically a restoration of the social and economic trendlines of the pre-1980 era. Ie: Before Reagan dismantled all that.

While I wouldn't object, the problem with his program was that it was locked in the past. And we can't go back, much as we might like to. We can't pick up in 1980 and go forth as if the intervening eras never happened, but that was what I was feeling Bernie was offering in his stump speechs and campaign.

We need something new. And that is not what Bernie was offering. He offered a kind of reversion to Better Days -- which is nice to hear -- and specific relief to suffering segments of the population, but there wasn't enough in that program to attract the Dems in sufficient numbers to gain the nomination -- something I don't think he ever in his wildest dreams thought he could do anyway. It was a campaign of ideas to be sure, but not ones that he thought would get him the nomination.

Hillary's campaign has been predicated on motto "No you can't," Many people are comforted by what  they and others are prevented from doing. If the Left is prevented from acting and the Rightists are confined to a narrow set of actions, then the status quo is mostly preserved; the only real political movement under those circumstances is ever-further rightward, and that's always pleasing to the NeoLibCon Masters of the Universe.

Those are the people Hillary serves. Everyone knows it. Bernie, on the other hand, does not serve them, not directly, but because he has been inside the Belly of the Beast for as long as he has, he doesn't -- and can't -- separate himself entirely from them. He is, as part of the government, their creature just as much as anybody else inside the gates.

That was the other problem I had with Bernie's campaign. He was asserting a kind of fantasy of what you can do from "within" as it were. You can, it's true, get a lot done when you're in charge of the government or even just have a seat at the table. But what you can get done will always be restricted and constrained by the nature of the institutions you are within or part of. That means that you cannot ultimately do anything that the institutional framework (of government in this case) does not enable or foster. In our country, the institutional framework of government is abusive and preventional. It is set up to and operates efficiently to foster and excuse some of the worst actions and abuses we've seen over the course of our long history, and to prevent the People from doing much of anything about it.

The government of the United States serves an elite coterie, not the People. It is institutionally and functionally unable to serve the People without the permission of that coterie. That permission is rarely granted, and when it is, it is often enough temporary and subject to alteration or revocation at any minute. The People have very little or no say in what is allowed, and the only times they have a say is when they object so loudly or rebel so strenuously that the High and Mighty cannot ignore them anymore.

Bernie, even if he had been nominated and elected to the Presidency would have been able to do almost nothing that he proposed/promised unless the PTB agreed and granted permission. That would be unlikely to say the least. So the stalemate-gridlock of the past several years would have continued or worsened.

Hillary, on the other hand, as an annointed representative of those High an Mighty Ones, would be able to do their bidding with relative ease ("Getting things done") and probably would be able to sell it as "Good For You!" even though it's crap.

That's what I think is the next part of her audition: can she sell a Shit Sandwich to the ravening masses and keep them in line the while?

We'll see.

It depends on a number of factors: how much worse things will get for the majority before the election in November, how bad for most Hillary's NeoLibCon policies will be -- assuming they are recognized in the first place; how deceptive her campaign will be in selling this horseshit.

We'll see.

As for Trump, I'm more and more convinced he's a ratfuck. My god in heaven what a political disaster.

Hillary!

Later.

Political History

The attacks on Sanders over the Nevada State Democratic Convention debacle are only going to intensify. We can expect redoubling of these attacks if the Sanders campaign doesn't collapse before the California and other primaries on June 7.

The point is to de-legitimize the Sanders campaign and Sanders himself so as to remove any possibility of them having influence and/or power over the Democratic Party, its chosen and anointed candidate, and ultimately any influence over the People.

Bernie has dared to propose an alternative -- a very modest alternative -- to the status-quo, powers-that-be, NeoLibCon paradigm that rules globally throughout the Overlord Class. As the Baroness Thatcher was ever so fond of putting it:

THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE

You Hippies can get in line, sit down and shut up. Now.

Because you don't matter, you have no power, you will never have any power, nobody cares what you think, nobody ever will. 

Yet Bernie keeps winning primaries, and every time he does, he shames Mrs. Clinton and her flacks just a little bit more. So they have their knives out for the kill.

For some reason, known only to the community of ratfuckers who seem to be behind much of the happenings of late, the Nevada Democratic Convention became ground zero for both ratfucking and Swiftboating of Bernie Sanders and his campaign -- probably because it is now or never for Mrs. Clinton. According to the polls (and who can have confidence in them), she's not meeting expectations against Trump, and she could very well lose in the General. This would not be acceptable to TPTB, but as they saw in the R primary, the powers of TPTB and their ability to control events aren't what they used to be.

There are ways, of course, to ensure that Mrs Clinton wins in the Fall, but those ways are not the preferred means of acquiring or holding on to political power. They will be used if necessary, of course, but it would mean triggering a chain of events that could not be controlled.

For some time, I've thought that the Trump campaign was a classic ratfuck of the Rs. It probably started that way, but when Trump found that he touched a chord among disaffected Republicans, one that he didn't expect to find, he ran with it, and now he is sitting on a remarkable power - base and can call the shots.

Their PTB seem to be flummoxed. Trump is one of them, after all -- well, to the extent any billionaire who wants to be among the High and the Mighty can be. There has been no way to "stop" him, not so far. But as I've said, we've been down this path in the past with celebrities taking on the political establishment -- and winning. They may wind up doing the bidding of a faction of the Establishment, but the upshot of their political activity is the disruption and/or dismantlement of established power structures and the substitution of others.

When Ronald Reagan did it, it was called a "Revolution." It's more like a coup or a counter-revolution, but that's for another discussion. The point is that established power structures were disrupted and some of them were dismantled. The Progressive Era came to a final end. We are living with the consequences, for good and for ill.

Trump could do the same thing if got into office, but just what he would do and how is unknown. That's what frightens the PTB. He has no faction backing him within the government (unlike Reagan), and he seems to have no Establishment backing in the public sector either. He's a lone wolf and thus dangerous.

On the other hand, Hillary seems to have all the support in the world, including (apparently) among Republicans, except that she does not have leftist support -- which she and her people seem to be doing everything in their power to alienate.

It would seem odd if it weren't part of the NeoLibCon political playbook: to disable and irrelevate the Left has been a fundamental part of the NeoLibCon program from the get-go. Bernie, therefore, has to be destroyed. It's too late for him to yield. He must be destroyed utterly and his supporters must be dismissed.

So, I see what's going on with a sad sense of deja vu. It doesn't have to be this way. It shouldn't be this way. But there is no alternative is there?

When it happened to Howard Dean, it was literally breathtaking. I'd never seen anything quite like the immediate and coordinated pile-on after the so-called Dean Scream. It was successful, but it didn't help Kerry in the General. Not a bit, not after the Swiftboating he was subjected to.

Meanwhile, Dean recovered quickly and used his electoral infrastructure to become chair of the Democratic National Committee -- something he probably couldn't have done if Kerry had been elected president in 2004.

Dean used that position to get Democrats actually elected (something the PTB was not keen on). He was so successful, he was dismissed the moment Obama was elected to the presidency.

Democratic electoral fortunes have been on a downward spiral ever since -- I believe by design..

Sanders is unlikely to use his political infrastructure in the same way.

But something will come of his candidacy, and it looks like it's got the Establishment scared out of their wits.

They can be nasty when they're frightened.

------------------------------------------------------
A little musical history to lift the mood?

Banishing the Left -- So Called

An interesting phenomenon during these hectic Primary Wars (if that's what they are) is the ongoing attempt to banish the "left" as represented by Bernie's and some of Trump's policies which might be seen as meeting the needs the People.

Yes, some of Trump's policies (to the extent he is actually broaching policies) are considered leftist, even to the left of Hillary, approaching Bernie territory. Particularly when it comes to trade and employment and even now and then things like universal health care and so on.

Well, can't have that.

Bernie has been campaigning on what I would call "New" New Deal/"Greater" Great Society principles. They're practically antiques by now. Historic at any rate. They're not particularly leftist, or they are only considered to be "left" in the United States where rightist politics is so entrenched and NeoLibCon ideology is so triumphant anything that benefits people is seen as essentially communist, anti-American to the core, and deeply antithetical to the interests of the Ruling Class, Our Benevolent Overlords.

Hillary has been running on a theme of "No you can't!" from the get-go, and she seems to be doing well enough with it to capture not only the Democratic nomination but potentially the Presidency itself.

"No you can't!" It's gobsmacking. Is that what people really want? Or do they even hear it? Areha they even hearing her nay-saying? If they are, why do they accept it?

She's also running on a theme of "Go away you ingrates."

Yes well, that'll get her far.

On the other hand, Trump is running a similar sort of negative campaign focused on hate and fear of The Other. It's politically smart. You should never underestimate Americans' susceptibility to be duped by hate and fear. It's been a constant since the arrival of the first Europeans however long ago that was. So much of what's been wrong about the United States has been based in hate and fear of The Other. So much of what has been right about the US has been based in conquering hate and fear of The Other.

Stirring up passions of hate and fear has been a winning strategy for Trump in the Republican primaries, whereas "No you can't!" has paid off pretty well for Hillary on the Democratic side, though she's been sliding in the polls as Bernie's message of "Yes we can!" catches on. Trouble is there's no time left for him to catch up enough delegates for the Democratic nomination -- not that he ever could have got the nomination to begin with.

He couldn't. He absolutely couldn't. Our Rulers would not have allowed it. Under any circumstances. At all. Look what's happened in other countries where supposed Leftists have been elected; they've been kneecapped, removed by coup or other means, coopted, irrelevated, yadda yadda.

The point is that the dominant global political paradigm does not allow for the existence of effective and functioning leftist politicians, policies, parties, etc. The dominant paradigm posits Baroness Thatcher's principle: "There is no alternative."

Even as modest and mild a leftist as Bernie has been, he wouldn't be allowed anywhere near the levers of power, ever.

Meanwhile Trump is able to throw quasi-leftist bones out every now and again, bones on a string of course, a string he promptly reels back in, so he's allowed that.

That's truly as far left as the political class is allowed to go, however. Tease.

And effectively, the Left is banished from consideration, legitimacy, presence, or power.

More on Blowout Tuesday

Glenn has emerged briefly with his version of justification for putting ever so much effort into unseating Blanche Lincoln, even though she will likely lose in the fall to the Republican John Boozman.

It doesn't make sense.

The key paragraph in Glenn's explanation is this one:

The point here, speaking just for myself, was not to put Bill Halter in the Senate. While I am convinced Halter would have at least been marginally better than Lincoln (he certainly couldn't have been worse), I don't know if he would have been substantially better. Nor was the point an ideological one -- the real conflict in politics is not Left v. Right or liberal v. conservative, but rather, insider v. outsider. Lincoln's sin isn't an ideological one, but the fact that she's a corporatist servant of the permanent factions that rule Washington. The purpose here was to remove Lincoln from the Senate, or, failing that, at least impose a meaningful cost on her for her past behavior. That goal was accomplished, and as a result, Democratic incumbents at least know there is a willing, formidable coalition that now exists which can and will make any primary challenge credible, expensive and potentially crippling -- even if it doesn't ultimately succeed. That makes it just a bit more difficult for Democratic incumbents to faithfully serve corporate interests at the expense of their constituents, or at least to do so with total impunity.

Yes. Well.

There are so many problems with this, it's hard to know where to begin.

First of all, if the goal was not to put Bill Halter in the Senate, then the campaign on his behalf was pursued on false pretenses. People were induced to send money and work on behalf of a candidate who was apparently to be a sacrificial lamb for some other purpose. That's deeply cynical, at the least. It is shamefully unprincipled, even on a good day.

If Halter wouldn't have been more than marginally better, if better at all, than Blanche Lincoln, why support him? More to the point, why should anybody else support him?

If the Real Conflict is between "insider and outsider," why support a sitting office holder -- the Lt Governor of Arkansas -- an "insider" by definition, against another insider who has the support of the entire Democratic operation? What is the point of pitting one inside party operative against another when supposedly the Real Conflict is between the "insider and the outsider?" Why not find and promote an outsider?

If Lincoln's Real Sin is not her political ideology but that she serves corporate interest, what, then is her ideology?

If the goal was to "remove Lincoln from office," did anyone bother to look at the polls that showed her losing badly to the Republican candidate? Did it occur to anyone that the voters of Arkansas were already taking care of that little problem, and that in due time, she would lose her seat in the Senate? Did it occur to anyone that the cynical and unprincipled ploy of mounting this kind of primary challenge to her was deeply, morally wrong?

Did it occur to anyone that a lot of people were putting their heart and soul into this campaign based on their belief that Halter was the better candidate, who reflected progressive values, and that he would better represent the people of Arkansas in the Senate? Obviously they were deceived, but who deceived them? And to what purpose?

What is the "cost" imposed on Lincoln for her past behavior? Having to fight a primary opponent at all? Being "exposed" for the corporate whore she was already well known to be? Having to fight a primary opponent when it was already known that she was likely to lose in the fall to the Republican? Punishing her?

What goal was accomplished? Mounting a cynical and unprincipled primary campaign to "punish" the Senator? THAT was the goal? Who knew?

Democratic incumbents have long known their asses would be primaried when they went too far over to the Dark Side; viz: Jane Harman in California's 36th District.

She was first primaried by Marcy Winograd in 2006, a startling development for her. She was primaried by a Los Angeles schooteacher outraged at Harman's public support for Bushevik lawlessness, and she put the Fear into Ms Harman that hasn't let up. Winograd at least was a serious primary opponent whose policy positions fit many of the ideals of someone like Glenn, and a year ago, she said she would primary Harman's ass again because Harman continued to backslide and support wars of aggression and executive lawlessness. The White House and the Democratic Party establishment went after Winograd hammer and tong, but she got a higher percentage of votes on Tuesday than she did in 2006, a very respectable 41%. Now where was Glenn on her campaign? Why didn't he support someone like her instead of an insider like Halter who he admits was at best no more than marginally better than Lincoln?

If it really is "insider v outsider," why not support the outsider? That would be the principled thing to do.

How are Democratic incumbents in any way dissuaded by Halter's loss to Lincoln from supporting their favorite corporate interest? How in fact did that cynical and unprincipled spectacle affect their favorite corporate interest in any way, especially when an even more corporate-beholden Republican candidate is likely to take Lincoln's Senate seat in the fall?

Just what was accomplished here and on behalf of whom?

About the only thing I can say in Glenn's favor here is that he isn't crowing triumphantly, beating his chest and dragging his knuckles about how brave and bold and successful Accountability Now has been in this case, and he is apparently owning up, finally, to what was really going on with this campaign.

Unfortunately, in the process he is revealing such a level of cynicism and contempt for the process and the candidates, including the one he recruited, and such unprincipled practices in pursuit of his goals and objectives that it is very difficult to generate any regard or enthusiasm for his approach to political "change."

Since it wouldn't have resulted in more than cosmetic "change" if it had been successful, no wonder the White House openly jeered the effort.

What a shame and what a waste.

Blowout Tuesday

Blanche Lincoln beat New Progressive Bleu America/Accountability Now! candidate Lt Gov Bill Halter in the runoff for the Democratic nomination for the Senate in Arkansas last night, and the post mortems that have appeared (at Jane's and Markos's Places) have tried to market this loss as some kind of "victory" because, well, Blanche was "forced" to place "strong derivative language" in the Financial Regulation bill being considered by the Senate. So there's that. Eight million Progressive Dollars is all it cost. She wouldn't have done it without getting her ass primaried by a "progressive, non-establishment" candidate like Halter. Victory!

Horseshit.

The levels of self-delusion required by these blogospheric leading lights determined to be playahs in the game of Politics in this country is breathtaking, but when you realize that all of them are in business for themselves, and they are adding Political Enterpreneur to their operations, some of the delusion makes sense.

If they don't declare Victory! every time they lose, who's going to take them seriously?

And if nobody takes them seriously, there goes the business. It is that simple.

So Victory! it is, no matter.

And of course in the end, no matter who the Dems nominated, the Senate seat in question is widely considered to be an easy pick up for the Republicans in the fall. In other words, Blanche is gonna lose, and so would Halter if he'd won the runoff. As Markos himself says, "Say hello to Sen. Johm Boozman." Who would have beat either of them.


Given that Halter was essentially Blanche without a dress, and he ain't no "progressive," any objective person has got to wonder what the point would have been in any case? "To flex Progressive muscles!" Yeah, that's the ticket.

Nonsense.

More and more this "primary their ass!" business is looking like a racket. When every loss is a Victory! and too many of "progressives" who do get elected turn into Blue Dogs the minute they sit down in the August Chamber, we'd better start thinking there might be a systemic problem here that can't be corrected through the More and Better mantra.

A lot of us came to that conclusion a long time ago.

Re: Hillary Lovers!

Laura Flanders sets you straight:

O(What You Call Your) Bama!

YAY!

Well. At least he's got enough delegates lined up to take the nomination if they don't change their minds between now and August. Which they are very unlikely to do. But, given the way things have been going this campaign season, nothing would surprise me anymore.

And there is plenty to be troubled about regarding some of the elements of the Obama campaign.

First things first. Let's get it out on the table and out of the way: too many of Obama's most ardent supporters have become disreputable punks. They've been led by people who have become some truly repellant internet characters like Markos and Aravosis and Arianna, and their primary objective has been to trash Hillary and her supporters relentlessly. It long since reached the point of an obscenity. And apparently, no matter what, they cannot let go of their hatred and contempt of The Clintons and anyone (which amounts to almost half the Democratic Party, and pretty much all of the the Republican Party) who does not sing the praises of Obama long and loud enough.

There is no Obama Presidency in January of next year if the Clinton supporters who have been rigorously alienated by Obamaites sit this one out or -- far less likely -- vote for McCain. You don't do a purge until after you've got the Power, but for whatever reason, Obamaites have an urge to purge right now, and they don't care how it affects matters in the future.

All those old white women who support Hillary can just go Cheney themselves, now and forever more.

OK boys. Have it your way. But don't go crying that the Nasty Old Coot Republicans stole your presidency -- because you are doing a fine job fucking it up yourself. Keep it up.

Digby has been one of the saner voices in the blogosphere about what is going on, and she has been relentlessly trashed by Internet Thugs for Obama when she tells the truth. Unfortuantely, in this campaign season, "Truth" is the thing that cannot be told, ever, or the illusion, the gossamer bubble that surrounds the Obama campaign, will burst. She's a CLINTON SUPPORTER!!!!! Get her!!!!

There are and have been plenty of reasons not to support Hillary, primarily her warmongering in my view, but that's apparently too simple for the Internet Thugs for Obama to contemplate. No, they see their mission as one of complete destruction of The Clintons, their Machine, and all their fans and supporters, scorched earth, from here to eternity.

It's insane. It's Stalinist. Oh boy, let's trade one set of Authoritarian Thugs for another. Send the Busheviks into Siberia and bring in the Obamamaniacs -- to complete the task of purging and Autocracy.

Lucky us.

Unfortunately, that's the flip side of the vision of hope and change that Obama has been marketing, in one of the slickest and most appealing presidential campaigns since RFK's in 1968. In the background are all these droogs.














Is that the lesson that we've learned from the constant crisis and thuggery of the Bushevik years? Maybe so. Or is it all more illusion? Is all this implied threat and internet thuggery more apparent than real? It isn't really there, and millions of Americans aren't really and completely alienated from the Obama campaign and he's gonna win by double digits in the fall, and we're gonna be happy again, just you watch.

I guess we're going to find out, aren't we?

There's plenty that Hillary and her campaign did wrong, first on principle: those unrepudiated votes for blood and gore and Empire. She couldn't be my candidate any more than Kerry could. That's very straightforward, and it doesn't require smearing and psy-ops to communicate. She has terrible judgement when it comes to the fundamentals like war and peace and whether the United States should act like the biggest bully on the block.

Hillary is not my candidate, she has never been my candidate. But I have defended her when I thought she was being unfairly smeared by the Obama Droogs.

And THAT made me a "Hillary Supporter!" to be targeted for the purges underway and to come. Defending Hillary from unfair smears was enough. That's not just Stalinist, that's full on Cultural Revolution Maoism.

The key question for me now: If McCain wins in the fall -- which is not beyond the realm of possibility if the wedges driven between Democrats aren't removed (and not by eliminating the dissenters) -- would he be more or less totalitarian? We know he's an authoritarian and wants to become an Autocrat like his mentor Bush. Would he turn into an all out Totalitarian? Could be. He's not running for President, he's running for Commander In Chief and he sees his future like Patton before the Flag. That may mean, to him, that the nation's already tattered and shaken self governing constitutional republic is finally extinguished replaced by a quasi military junta that operates on a distinctly Basic Training model. Yep, that's totalitarianism.

If Obama wins -- and it's an uphill climb, but he's done it before -- does he build on the Bush legacy of civilian authoritarianism and institute his own brand of totalitarianism? Or will he curb the excesses of some of his supporters?

We'll see, won't we?

John Hoo?

I just heard a mention of John Edwards on NPR's "Morning Edition". It's one of the very few mentions of Edwards there has been since the Iowa Caucusi last night, where he finished a decent second to Barack Obama, and just ahead of Hillary Clinton.

The mention this morning was brief and amounted to noting that Political Experts "don't expect the Edwards campaign to last much longer."

No mention of who these Experts are, nor how they come to such a conclusion. Such is the state of politcal reporting in the United States.

I've done a quick search through news sources this morning, and all the mentions (of which there are relatively few) of him are positive, show no sign of immanent collapse of his campaign, do not even hint he's giving up.

But.

He is rigorously ignored, almost as ignored as Ron Paul the Anti-War Republican.

And Political Experts have declared his campaign doomed -- if not already dead.

Hillary!

I have a hard time getting too worked up about the results of the Iowa caucuses last night. Despite all the expectations management that went into it, the results seem to reflect what polls were showing pretty well, unlike 2004 when the polls were unable to tap into John Kerry's rise until nearly end of the campaign.

This time around, the polls were clearly and consistently tracking Obama's growing lead over Edwards and Clinton, but the reporters were consistently misstating what the polls were showing by claiming a "too close to call" neck and neck horse race where there really wasn't one.

The same was true on the Republican side. Huckabee had held a significant lead for a long time; Romney and the rest were playing catch up at best, and yet the campaign reporters stuck to the narrative that it was "too close to call, anything could happen."

So, in the end, Obama won and Huckabee won, and Hillary -- in case you didn't know -- lost. According to the high paid analysts, this was a tremendous loss for La Clinton, but she will survive to battle it out with her rivals in other primaries and caucusi throughout the land, and she may still become the Democratic nominee, it all depends on factors we can't know yet.

As for John Edwards, who came in a strong second (actually a near tie for second between Hillary and Edwards): "John Who?"

The only "John" who matters in the media expectations game is St. John McCain, who, despite Huckabee's clear victory in the Iowa Republican caucuses, is now considered the Favorite (again) and his 12% or 13% is considered Outstanding, because he "beat expectations."

So did Ron Paul, at around 10%. In fact, that surprises the heck out of me, because I didn't think that Paul could draw above the mid-single digits in Iowa. Wrong I was.

But Ron Paul is the Crazy Uncle in the attic and cannot be mentioned in Polite Company; he's the Dennis Kucinich of the Republican Party, hardly a serious candidate at all. Never mind the millions of dollars he keeps raising, and never mind his strong showing in Iowa. The question I have about Ron Paul is never answered: who are the Republicans supporting him?

Edwards must have offended his press bus about as much as Hillary offended hers. Glenn Greenwald offers a typically superb dissection of the Clinton Campaign Bus Affair over at his place. But the issue here is that Hillary was covered by the media, incessantly and obsessively, whether or not the press bus "liked" her. Edwards was barely covered at all and is obviously loathed by the media claque. It's amazing that Edwards did as well as he did in Iowa given the nearly complete media blackout of his campaign.

But that should be a lesson to us, shouldn't it?

For decades, the media has treated the serious process of elections with a kind of disdain and throw away contempt that is ugly and brutal and destructive to the political well-being of the Nation. Campaigns are covered as horse races almost exclusively, and there is one master narrative of the campaign horse race: Too Close To Call. Right up to the very last minute when this or that candidate -- no matter what the polls are showing -- is "favored" by the media and allowed to break free of the pack.

That's the Narrative, but it's been obvious through many election cycles that the media chooses its favorites (St. John, for example) who they stick with throughout the campaign, unless they decide to dump their favorite (like they did Howard Dean) for someone else (ie: Bush).

The coverage (or lack of it) can and does strongly influence outcomes, but it doesn't have to. Outcomes can be influenced almost as strongly by grassroots activism. Outcomes can also be bought by high flying bazillionaires and corporate sponsors.

But more and more, lately, outcomes appear to be predetermined in that Shadowy Powers That Be choose the candidates the electorate is allowed to consider; then, through various means, those Powers determine which candidate will be allowed to win. In 2000, Bush was selected by an out of bounds and out of control Supreme Court, for example. In 2004, on the other hand, the "selection" may or may not have been made by voters. We have no way of knowing thanks to the pervasiveness of unverifiable vote recording and vote counting machines. And of course voter suppression in key states is all important for control of outcomes.

Is the contempt and disdain so typical of media coverage of the election process due to their underlying knowledge that the process is a sham and corrupted to the point where almost nothing they say about it has any real effect? Do they have this knowledge? I don't know. But you can see in the coverage of any election night that the reporters are bored, they want it over with, and they will not tolerate waiting for an outcome. Do they know who the winner is, or who the winner is supposed to be? Why not just say so and move on?

Hillary has been declared the Big Loser in Iowa. But strangely, her third place (well, statistical tie for second, but who's counting?) finish was all but predicted by polls taken in January of last year.

From the Daily Iowan, Jan 22, 2007:

Iowa snubs Hillary

by Brittney Berget - The Daily Iowan

With national polls indicating Sens. Barack Obama, D-Ill., and Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., are the leading contenders for Democratic presidential nomination, the 2008 elections could be on the track to see either the first black or female candidate.

But early state polls show that Iowans aren't as willing to embrace Rodham Clinton. The Research 2000 Iowa Poll shows that Obama and former Sen. John Edwards are tied at the top with 22 percent of the votes, and Rodham Clinton - who announced her official candidacy on Jan. 20 - in fourth with 10 percent. Former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack came in third in the poll.

Some experts believe Rodham Clinton's relative lack of popularity may have to do with her being a woman.

"Iowans have been hesitant in the past in terms of supporting a woman candidate," said Arthur Miller, a UI professor of political science. Rodham Clinton "is quite controversial, and women just haven't done as well as men do in past elections here in Iowa."

Experts say Edwards' high Iowa numbers - which are inconsistent with his share in the national polls - stems from his success in the state in the 2004 election season, during which he placed a surprising second during Iowa's first-in-the-nation caucuses.

Strange, innit? The top three Democratic candidates all gained support during the year, but what was predicted by polling a year ago pretty much came to pass after strenuous campaigning, tens of millions of dollars raised and spent, endless ads, endless meetings with voters, endless containers of bad coffee, endless prattle, endless dialogue, endless bullshit.

Yet nothing really changed.

Iowa Stubborn, indeed.

Iowa!

Got nothin' to say about Iowa.

Look. I was born there. I knew Eulalie Shinn. Didn't like her. Glad I'm gone. Don't miss it a bit.

After what they pulled in 2004, Iowa can go hang for all I care. And freeze what's left.

Grrr.

(But if Edwards pulls this off, I'll laugh and laugh and laugh at all the pundits everywhere. Heh.)