As I've mentioned previously, the only difference between this year and 1972's dirty tricks by Nixon is the media nowadays is in the tank for the GOP.
Since few Democratic voters—theoretically—should be affected by anything this cabal has to say, its impact on the nominating process has been, at best, indirect. But the right's talkers have helped to shape the way the election is covered. And even if they've only affected the margins, it's precisely those margins—in states like Missouri, or in district delegate fights, or in the narrowing popular-vote contest—that matter. Perhaps the more important point for Democrats is why these drum beaters have been so universally on the same beat.
You think so? I've been saying this for months, but the pundits and bloggers don't read me, preferring as they do the Big Blogs which don't call out the ruse.
The right-wing pundits started shifting their "support" for Obama when it looked like he was going to get the nomination and then put up trial balloon smears and stories with some basis in fact to see how it affected the race.
As I've said repeatedly, because neither of the remaining Democratic candidates will get the majority of delegates needed for the nomination, for the sake of the party's unity, both candidates should be jettisoned in favor of somebody far better to go up against McCain in the fall.
The GOP pundits want a bloodbath, no doubt, so that whoever wins the nomination will be severely weakened in the general.
It makes one wonder what would have happened if Edwards hadn't dropped out. I suppose he still would have been ignored.
James Wolcott writes a bit about this article, when in fact it should be OBVIOUS TO ALL WHO HAVE PAID ATTENTION TO THIS CAMPAIGN WHAT WAS UP.
You don't need to have been around during the Nixon years to understand it, but it helps to have a frame of reference.
