The message to me from the MSNBC Russert/Matthews debate was this: the press began their war against Hillary, just as they waged their War Against Gore. Watch out for a number of false or exaggerated or mind-read stories that will come out. Sooner or later, they'll find out that she says "she invented the Internet," or something else. Apparently, they did this under cover of the rear echelon of candidates deciding to "take off the gloves," though the details of who started will have to wait for an honest history. So like the feeble candidacy of Bradley v. Gore, the press is now on the side of Obama and/or Edwards, or whoever criticizes Clinton. And the supposed agency of the candidates themselves is really disputable. The idea is, they go after the front-runner until the front-runner is hobbled, and then they go after the new front-runner. If Obama's smart boys think he ends up on top after the Russert shiv goes in, he's got another think coming.

I'd also take a more favorable view of Obama here if he wasn't friggin' lying about social security. I've been very interested in his candidacy up until now, but I'm out of it now that he's shown himself to be a lyin' sack. The thing is, his "views" on Social Security NOW just happen to correspond with the crap that Russert spews all the time.

So, what's the message for me? If I hear any journalist lying about any Democrat, I'm in attack mode. When they say that Obama = Osama, I'm on 'em. When they say that Edwards is a fag, or is too rich to be compassionate, I'm on 'em. I expect other Democrats to go after the press when they tell lies about Hillary. That's your duty. That way, we get to the end of the race and we have five or six fully viable candidates. The other way, the Russert/Villager/Our Town journalists win and democracy loses.

That's when you get a portrait of the guy. Unresolved Oedipal drives.

But people should have known that for a long time now. And his crazy sidekick Chris Matthews (Batboy) is a nutcase on the subject of gender and sex. The duo's intervention in the last debate was shameful, and should get Russert fired, if it was a fair world. Maybe it's time he moves to Fox.

And focusing on Hillary to get "a straight answer" to whether she supports driver's licenses for illegals is desperately stupid. It's a policy with a lot of ins and outs, no matter what the demagogues say, and it's not something you can say an easy yes or no to. And it's funny, in fact, to see who Russert pins that way and who he gives a free ride to. Edwards, for instance, supported a policy like that a couple of years ago. What happened to him? Does Dodd really feel that impatience about Hillary's "waffling"? I think she did pretty well getting out of the third degree.

I just recall the guests that Meet the Press had on the Sunday after the Democratic victory in '06 -- John McCain and Joe Lieberman, talking about what became the Escal-- er, the Surge.

No.

He misses the point in the same way Rove missed it with "Compassionate Conservatism." We don't need an environmentally-sound economy because it's MORAL, and we don't need to help the poor because it's MORAL, because it is moral of course, but so what? The reason why we have to do something about global warming is because of SURVIVAL. It's not just a moral or aesthetic question. This guy's economic theories made it perfectaly all right to undo the Carter environmental programs, and I'm sure he was with Reagan in removing all those programs. Wars in the Middle East could keep the oil being pumped. Bigger SUVs were the way to go because that was the Market, baby. It can do no wrong! So now we've got $100 a barrel oil, and GM and Ford and Chrysler are on their way to the trash heap, and they haven't worked on hybrids or electric cars or their CAFE averages. They're up s--t creek, because they went with Reagan and Gingrich and the rest of the Real Men who don't like that stinkin' regulation. And they went with ridiculing Gore's proposals but giving no useful alternative. NOW he wants to collaborate with the left on "market programs" on the environment. Is it just for electoral reasons, maybe?

And Sunday morning, he could see the devil coming around to collect. Tim Russert is a huge, overrated sack o' s--t, who has made his career knifing front-running Democrats -- think Gore, Clinton, Dean, Clinton -- with his stupid gotcha questions, which he will distort facts and stop being anything but a cop trying to get anything that sounds like a confession by sweating out somebody in his torture room. He's the very model of a millionaire media whore, and no Democrat should even go on his program, period. Obama's "attack" on Hillary amounted to adopting the right-wing bullshit on Social Security -- sure to score points with Russert, after all, because he never hesitates to spout the same bogus crap about Social Security -- and backing up Matthews and Russerts cowardly, thuggish attack on Clinton with trick questions about illegals. And what does Obama do? Joins in the knife fight. Oh, brave, young Senator who announced where Lincoln announced. And what is Obama's opinion on Immigration? Well, almost identical to Clinton's, of course. And the Lieberman-Kyl amendment, which he says is "the same as Bush," was also voted for by Senator Durbin, his sponsor. Is Durbin a "Bush Republican" too? You used to be my second choice, Obama, and now you're at the bottom of the list. Edwards is second.

Read Daily Howler this very morning. Why should any Democrats pay any attention to Russert or Matthews at all?