Not all the news that fits

Surprisingly, it was the St. Louis television station without any sort of locally-based news commitment - ABC affiliate KDNL - that carried live coverage of the biggest (and only) political news of the day, Hillary Clinton’s speech in which she suspended her campaign and announced her support for rival Barack Obama. The station aired the network’s coverage, interrupting the Power Rangers: Jungle Fury episode that had been running.

How about other local stations? What programming were they running that was so riveting that they could not be interrupted for a mere major political announcement?

PBS member station KETC, whose mission statement says the station provides “quality content because it strengthens civic life,” aired Celtic Thunder, an all-male vocal group/concert special not to be confused with Celtic Woman. Both are staples of the station’s pledge drive programming.

NBC affiliate KSDK, “where the news comes first,” ran a cartoon called 3-2-1 Penguins!

CBS affiliate KMOV, which claims that its news reporting “never stops,” never stopped running an infomercial for a cosmetic procedure called the Lifestyle Lift.

And Fox News affiliate KTVI stuck to its airing of a 1992 episode of Saved by the Bell. For the curious: this would be the episode titled “The Teacher’s Strike,” in which the titular work-stoppage threatens the upcoming Academic Bowl.

Time for some quiet reflection, Father

CNN: Loud-mouthed Clinton-mocking Father Pfleger asked to “step back from his obligations.”

In dreams begin political responsibilities

I seldom remember my dreams. They used to come more readily to mind, years ago; now I’m lucky if I can snatch some fleeting detail from my nighttime reveries. This is, I think, an indication of an utterly boring interior life. Ah, well.

Other people apparently have more going on behind the psychic scenes, however, and for hundreds of people, those nocturnal activities involve the current crop of presidential contenders. Novelist Sheila Heti - a Canadian, interestingly enough - has compiled an online list of dreams involving Obama, Clinton, and McCain. My dear friend Holly is one of these documented dreamers, and her subconscious was one of those deemed interesting enough for the Washington Post to feature in a recent article by Monica Hesse:

Holly Silva also felt introspective after her therapy-themed fantasy. She dreamed actress Kathy Bates was her psychiatrist, who told her that her problems were all related to the glass ceiling. “I thought her analysis was a little trite, very Feminism 101,” says Silva, a medical copy editor in St. Louis.

But then a parade of magazines began to float by on the movie screen of the dream, all featuring unattractive photographs of Clinton. “And I realized [the dream] wasn’t about me at all. It was about Hillary.”

Silva, 41, had been leaning toward Obama about 80/20. “When I woke up from the dream,” she says, “It was more like 65/35.”

Rich with meaning indeed, as Hesse described it - but more interesting to me, and I think to Holly, is her casting the accomplished actor/director and Oscar winner Kathy Bates in the role of the psychiatrist. I see the beginnings of a feature film here!

Edwards = White people!

So Barack Obama’s plan to address the perceived lack of “hard working white” interest in his candidacy looks something like this:

Step 1: Loudly announce John Edwards’ endorsement of his candidacy.

Step 2: ???

Step 3: Profit!

Well, I guess it’s good to actually have a plan.

Looking at a few takes on the announcement…

Ryan Tate at Gawker supplies the cynical view of Edwards’ motivations:

John Edwards endorsed Barack Obama tonight in a masterstroke of Clintonian gladhanding. The timing of the endorsement certainly shouldn’t improve Edwards’ reputation as a slick, ambulance-chasing lawyer. He waited until the Democratic presidential hopeful had a virtual lock on the nomination, but not so long that his endorsement would be totally useless. Thus, he preserved the chance to be a part of Hillary Clinton’s cabinet for as long as that looked possible, but still managed to score some points with Obama.

Quelle surprise! After all, politicians traditionally endorse for the most simon-pure and selfless of reasons. Er, right?

Greg Saunders at The Talent Show wonders why he did it now rather than earlier…or later:

Edwards endorsed Obama today, a story that’s also a month or two late. Endorsing now is like waiting until the bottom of the 9th to bet on a baseball game. I’m glad he did it, but if he was going to wait this long, why not wait another week or two and announce so that his pledged delegates are what pushes Obama over the finish line?

Setting aside the real possibility that Edwards hadn’t actually decided which candidate to endorse, it seems that the timing of the endorsement couldn’t be better for Obama, coming as it does right after a shellacking in West Virginia that Hillary Clinton will present as evidence that Obama can’t close the deal with those prized hard-working white voters. What better moment to maximize the value of a stamp of approval from the only white populist around? Obama knows that, and you’d have to imagine that Edwards does too. The delegate situation is settled, whether Clinton acknowledges it or not; Obama is playing a longer game now, and the Edwards endorsement is part of that strategy. Think of it as an Appalachian inoculation.

Melissa McEwan at Shakesville wishes that Edwards hadn’t endorsed either of the two Dems standing:

Well, quite honestly, I’m disappointed. Not that he endorsed Obama, but that he endorsed at all. I know there will be people who don’t believe I’d say the same thing if he’d endorsed Clinton, but the truth is, I would.

I was actually hoping he would withhold an endorsement altogether, and then vociferously support the eventual nominee, which is a position, in my opinion, better suited to a party’s elder statesman.

I can certainly understand Liss’ viewpoint here, because I expressed similar sentiments a while back. Indeed, I had figured that the value of an Edwards endorsement was spoiling faster than room temperature milk. That was back when Obama seemed less a candidate than a force of nature, of course. Times have changed, and Obama now seems to need the help.

Should Edwards have given it? Well, it’s his right, and he’s young yet. That is, there’s still plenty of time for him to become a relatively non-partisan elder stateman. What’s the quid pro quo? My thinking earlier was that Edwards should devote himself to anti-poverty policy outside of public office, not unlike Al Gore and global warming. I still think that, but Edwards hasn’t asked my opinion. People are suggesting for him the office of attorney general in an Obama administration, and even a running mate role is being floated. I think it’s very risky for Edwards as he’s gone down that path before with poor results - and he very recently felt the same way - but time and chance and all that. Unlike during his previous stint as John Kerry’s partner, Edwards might actually have a difference-making quality to bring to the campaign table this time around. As he said last month on The Colbert Report:

“No white male vote is being courted more vigorously than this one,” Edwards joked.

For good reason, apparently.

Obama told reporters on his Chicago-bound campaign plane that Edwards can be “extremely helpful to us campaigning in every demographic,” but he noted that he has particular credibility on “issues of poverty and the plight of working people.”

“Hopefully his endorsement will help some of those supporters who haven’t already joined my campaign take a look at my campaign,” Obama said. “We’ll take any help that he can give us.”

…oh, almost forgot this bowl of sour persimmons from Clinton supporter Big Tent Democrat at TalkLeft:

Party unity is one thing and it could have waited three weeks.

Let’s go back, oh, five weeks:

I think the nominee of the Party must demonstrate leadership on all issues, including leading us to unity inside the Party. In my view, this is Barack Obama’s responsibility. It is time for him to step up and meet this responsibility. In fact, contrary to Meteor Blades’ statement, this is not Clinton’s moment - it is Barack Obama’s moment. It is the moment to be a leader.

Timing is everything…depending on whose stopwatch you’re using.

Hillary goes abrasively into that good night

So Hillary is saying, in effect, that Obama can only attract the support of lazy, shiftless, non-white Americans. Okay, then!

I have no tears to shed over the demise of Hillary ‘08. I voted for her in response to deficiencies in her opponent - which haven’t been resolved, by the way - and have watched in dismay as she ran a campaign that was at first merely inept, but eventually graduated to abrasive and insulting. That behavior doesn’t even look good when you’re winning. When you’re losing, well, it makes people want you to leave - very badly want you to leave - so that they can remember you fondly.

What comes to mind is the question that Gene Hackman’s hapless Senator Keeley puts to his daughter near the end of The Birdcage: “I realize that you want to get married, but how many lives do you have to ruin to do it?” That’s essentially what’s on the mind of the Democratic party cognoscenti as they send various messages with a common theme: wrap it up, go out gracefully, run against McCain, stop trying to damage Barack and his Unity pony. Doesn’t look as though Hillary read those memos, though.

The longer Clinton puts off the inevitable, the longer we have to wait before we can view her campaign in the most - no, the only positive context left to us: that of Lore Sjöberg’s Evil Overmom, a parent whose only motive for injecting her adoring children with a deadly poison and having them evade an army of deadly laser disin-to-bots was so that they would be compelled to run vigorously and get plenty of…fresh air and exercise.

In the words of those adoring children: “Yay!” Sadly, however, we’re not nearly there yet.

Super Tuesday, or The law of contrary public opinion

Enough time has elapsed since the depressing-yet-fully-expected withdrawal of John Edwards from the Dem presidential stakes that I’ve let go of my emotional intention of voting for him any old way tomorrow. Better to act out my affiliation for the Edwards stance in other, more effective ways, and do my clear-eyed duty as a registered voter.

As for the vote itself, well, let’s hear from noted real estate hustler Richard Roma:

I subscribe to the law of contrary public opinion. If everyone thinks one thing, then I say, bet the other way.

Which means, as indicated earlier, Hillary. She doesn’t hit every note I’d like in a candidate (neither does Obama), but in the end I believe I can rely on her to fight. She’s familiar with the levers of power and the kinds of political relationships needed in order to get things done.

Obama might make for a great president. Or he might not. I can’t tell. There’s a lot of mythology surrounding Obama, and I’m having trouble cutting through it.

So: the devil I know, as opposed to the angel (so I hear) that I don’t.

Your mileage may vary, of course. That’s democracy for you, citizen.

Tough second choice

If not John Edwards, then who?

Obama’s too vague.

Hillary? Not nearly vague enough.

Damn.

This “we’ve got three good candidates” schtick is comforting only if you equate “good” with “any Democrat at all.” I can follow that line of reasoning, but only so far.