They're not writing about Edwards's haircut--they're writing about the writing about Edwards's haircut. They're writing about the coverage, as they always do--which means they're writing about themselves.

The original nugget of news is trivial and inconsequential, and to pursue the substance is trivial and inconsequential--although an article about what the other candidates spend on haircuts (and TV makeup) would have been welcome--but immediately the story became about image: does this make for bad publicity? How will the campaign handle the publicity? And for 'publicity' read 'us'. There's nothing these people like better than talking about how powerful they are. So everything is 'gaffes' and 'slips' and 'reinventing themselves'--how politicians primp and trip over themselves trying to look good for us. How will we deign to cover them? Is Barack Obama presenting himself properly? Does John Edwards have gravitas? Does Hillary have a handle on her image?

Screw issues and events, let's talk about (removing the false passive) how we're going to cover the candidates. Not: Is the war lost? but: did Harry Reid stumble in his presentation?

Their self image is that the Politicians are auditioning, and they're sitting in the darkened house, watching them go through their routine and, as the producers and directors of the show, nodding and shakin g their heads and marking down on the clipboard who they'll decide to cast and how.

There are two differences to this performance of "A Chorus Line": the first is that we're now sitting in the seats next to them, whether theey like it or not; and there are folks up on the stage who view them (quite accurately) as the enemy.

...because I've said the same thing over at the old place, but it's worth repeating:

If we have a system with no oversight, abuse is possible not just by Bush, Cheney and Rove, but by anybody within that hierarchy.

Without oversight, any night shift manager at the NSA could deecide to stalk a celebrity, tap a CFO's phone for imsider info, or get dirt on an ex-wife.

Without warrants from a court and review of who was wiretapped, when and why, you not only have to trust Dear Leader, you have to trust EVERYBODY.

If we get a Stasi, we get a world where every footsoldier would have bullying power over ordinary citizens.

I love it how some people go directly to Saul of Tarsus and bypass Jesus entirely.

In Matthew 25, Jesus (you know, God Incarnate?) predicts the end of the world, and when the Son Of Man comes in judgment, the criteria for who goes to Hell and who goes to heaven is--how they treated the poor. What homeless people they took in. Who they visited in prison.

And this comes as a surprise to these people--both sets of whom evidently revere their Lord.

But this prediction from the horse's mouth is glossed over by the Hal Lindsey/Left Behind crowd in favor of snippets from Daniel and Isaiah and a whole bunch of stuff by someone who never met Jesus and never quotes any of Jesus's teachings.

How many of the hungry have you fed, Jake? Whom have you visited in prison? What homeless person have you taken in to your house?

..are smart. And capable.

These are the same people who decry Al Gore for being too brainy.

There's something really twisted about the quest for Daddy.

I try not to blogwh•re too much, but I've written somehing on this at

http://homepage.mac.com/petergillis/iblog/

There I was, wrestling with my metaphor-heavy post on my own blog, and I come over here to find that Glenn's been doing the same thing in his far-more-authoritative fashion.

But I'll just put my thoughts in as to what's changed:

The biggest thing is that everybody knew that the US had no more comparable opponents. For the first time since it became a global power, it was unopposed--and, I think, the world looked on in fear--and, for about a decade, sneaking hope.

Then George W Bush came along, and all the apprehensions were confirmed. Somebody had snatched the reins who just looooved that global power.

And he also set about destroying the principles that, as Glenn said, partly redeemed us, because they are the hope of the world, even if we vanish.

And we re-elected the orc.

But, just one thing--we're still in the middle of it: He's still there, we're still in Iraq--and God help us, he still may bomb Iran.

A lot of my friends have started to think this way--looking beyond 2009, trying to see the future. And we're reinforced by bush's 26% rating. And we're tired of it.

But from the outside, it isn't over. The Decepticons are still stomping across the skyline. And most of the rest of the world doesn't share pir sense of inevitability.

Because we re-elected him.

It's going to be interesting to see how it all shakes out when it's over--but it's not anywhere near over. And there could be worse to come.

I remember how my heartt stopped when Nixon, close to his resignation, launched a global military alert.