Because in the mind of Joe Klein and those like him the lowly, unwashed masses don't really count; only Responsible Party Elders do. So what if the Democratic voters want Obama or Clinton? Those Responsible Party Elders will decide that, for their own good, they'll get neither!

But this would be a disastrous move. In effect it would tell Democratic voters and grass-roots activists, many of whom are involving themselves for the first time, that their choices don't really matter. Then stand by in November to watch the party implode.

The media, as Glenn says, portrays the Republican nominee as a centrist, and the Democratic one as not representative of mainstream ideals. In fact the exact opposite is true. Most past Democratic nominees or potential nominees have been bonafide centrists. Bill Clinton, John Kerry and Hillary Clinton are the very definition of centrist, and Barack Obama is not too much further to the left of them. Bush II, on the other hand, portrayed by the media as a "kinder, gentler" brand of Republican (really, they did!), is anything but center, and his would be successor McCain is nearly indistinguishable from him, policy-wise.

This naturally follows from the decades of progressively filtering out more and more of the left side of the political spectrum from mainstream debate. (see Glenn's earlier post "What can and cannot be spoken on television" for a small example of this). With entire viewpoints proscribed from debate the viewpoints of the true Left are never heard (Bill Moyers was its last real voice on mainstream TV), true centrists become "leftists", and any sort of radicalized Right wing viewpoint can be given the cachet of legitimacy.

You're right, of course. I got a real chuckle when Sarkozy was elected in France and our Right wing media seemed to rejoice. If he were here he would be seen as a flaming Leftist. And of course the grandaddy of the German welfare state, Konrad Adenauer, was a member of Germany's mainstream Right party, the Christian Democratic Union. Unfortunately in our skewed political debate even Ghengis Khan would look like a reasonable centrist.

Instead, focus on what is terribly wrong with our system, as neatly (though perhaps unwittingly) exemplified by elephantman:

"And after about 120 straight days of pounding that message again and again and again and again and again, I think most of the American electorate is going to get it."

It's not about the truth, you see, it's about controlling the message, regardless of the truth: pound in a line "again and again and again" and the "American electorate is going to get it." What does the American electorate think about the central issue facing us now? Poll after poll (and the Nov. 2006 election results) show that most of us want out of Iraq. What does McSame (© RMP?) want? 100 years of more Iraq occupation. And to bomb Iran too! But he's a centrist! Yeah, verily, he wants what only a fringe want, but he's a centrist. How do we know this? Because elephantman tells us so! And the media too: again and again and again.

C'mon guys. The West Bank is not "disputed" land. It is quite clear who it legally belongs to (the Palestinians), what has happened to it (it was conquered and occupied through aggressive war, contrary to the UN charter), and what ought to happen to it (it ought to be returned, according to UN SCR 242). Labeling this territory "disputed" is a tactic Israel itself uses to muddy the issue of whether the Fourth Geneva Convention applies; an issue that is central to the legality of the Israeli settlements.

When humans first engaged in agriculture family possesion of land and status became important. How better to ensure that the family line went from father to son than enforcing abstinence and virginity in women? I thus found the argument that abstinence empowers women rather grating; like fingernails on a chalkboard, really.

Wilson expressed himself poorly. And, I ask, why always go after soccer, soccer moms, etc? Me, I would have gone after the Little League dads. :)

But I understand his point. My love of soccer came from playing in the streets and empty lots with my friends, not an adult in sight. I discovered nature much the same way. But today, it's all organized. Parents are everywhere, interfering with kids fun, calling offsides on kids who haven't the foggiest notion of what that is, yelling at the opposing players (yes, I've seen that), yelling at the referee (seen and experienced that too), walking onto the field during a game to yank their child out of the game (yup, ...). Everything is organized. I recall one fellow soccer dad wearily tell his son, after a game, "C'mon son. Got to get to the next organized spontaneous event."

It has been my experience that our kids today do not have the freedom to explore, experience, and fail on their own. We are over protective, and I can understand that, being a dad myself. But we're not doing our kids any favors by providing them the Cliff Notes version of life. As long as we're using soccer as a metaphor here, I can see the effects on our home grown pro players. They don't have the flair or creativity of the Brazilians or Mexicans. It's been drilled out of them.

What to do? I don't know. It's hard to let go. But we probably should lock up the video games, confiscate the mobile phones, and turn the kids outdoors.