I guess if there's been one unifying characteristic of Obama's campaign, it's that he's forcing us to reconcile the comfortable lies we've been living on the surface with the uncomfortable truths that lurk below.

I don't think that was necessarily by design, but it's happening, and not a moment too soon.

It's like there are two Americas - the one that we see on TV, and the one that we live in every day. Voters seem to want a president that reflects the Fantasyland that we see on TV - the happy place where everyone is perfect, where no flaws exist, where a candidate can simultaneously be everything to everyone. We don't want to admit that such a candidate is an impossible figment of our imagination, so we let politicians pander to us knowing that they are completely full of shit, but accepting it nonetheless because that's how the script goes.

Now along comes Obama and he starts lifting the veil. He does so under a message of hope and unification, stating that this is not going to be easy, but it is the most worthwhile goal we can ever hope to attain. He says what he feels. He has off days. He gets annoyed with assholes. He doesn't have the perfectly prepared answer to every question. He stammers. He stutters. He thinks about what he is saying. He means what he says.

Hillary is a capable individual who represents the politics of Fantasyland - she is cut from the old mold of duality in which you smile and pander and lie through your teeth to the public and do the real bidding in the back rooms where the real power is concentrated. She has the perfectly rehearsed answer to everything. She refuses to make apologies. Nothing is her fault because in Fantasyland, the President makes no mistakes.

Obama is betting on the American public being sick and tired of the same old crap. The same campaign promises that are instantly forgotten the moment the oath is taken. The same way our elections are determined by irrelevant manufactured controversies. The same knee-jerk reactions.

Of course there are lots and lots of people who aren't ready for this. People who prefer to stay in the cozy confines of Fantasyland. But you can only live a lie for so long before the jig is up. It's up ... it's been up for a long time, and people are finally starting to realize it.

Let's hope people can take this Reverend Wright saga for what it is - a manufactured political distraction made specifically to destroy someone who makes us feel uncomfortable about the lie we know we've been living.

What exactly do you think the for-profit, corporate-owned MSM is interested in doing? Promoting fairness and balance in covering the election, or minting money? I'll assume your answer is "minting money."

How does the MSM mint money? I'll assume your answer is "selling advertising."

What sells the most advertising? I'll assume your answer is "high levels of viewership/readership."

If the MSM was covering the finer points of the candidate's positions on foreign and domestic policy, how high will the levels of viewership/readership be? I'll assume your answer is "not very high."

What creates high levels of viewership/readership for news organizations? I'll assume your answer is "controversy, baby."

Who is in a unique position to create controversy based on what it decides to cover, and how it decides to frame what it is covering? I'll assume your answer is "the MSM."

What is easier and less expensive for the MSM to cover/create (i.e. what gives the MSM the highest return on its investment) - in depth stories about policy positions, or petty manufactured controversy? I'll assume your answer is "petty manufactured controversy"

So why are oceans of ink being spilled over Jeremiah Wright and not over Hillary's "obliterate Iran" comments or McCain's 100 year Iraq plan? I'll assume your answer is "because the celebrity-, gossip-, and religion-obsessed American public would rather not think, and rather just be outraged over things they don't really understand."

Who knows this better than anyone? I'll assume your answer is "the MSM"

So, is it plausible that the MSM has any interest whatsoever, as an industry, in who our next president is? Or is it more plausible that the MSM doesn't give a rat's ass, as long as the ad revenue keeps rolling in?

Your answer?