punch of Greenwald and Somerby is truly poetic and devastating to the media naarative. If only more would listen,sigh.

You guys are my heroes.

but I have it on good authority that Britney is voting for Bush.

Now leave her alone!

Pop over to C&L and check their top two stories...

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/07/31/mccains-rick-davis-goes-on-the-attack-against-andrea-mitchell-and-obama-like-a-pit-bull/

and

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/07/31/jon-voight-wont-you-think-of-the-children-obama-will-make-them-socialists-oh-noes/

or click sig

Since both of our Presidential Characters are "presumptive" nominees, the alliterative press (save us all) has decided to go hog wild with "Presumptuous" -- fed to them by Brit Hume as much as it was fed by the McCain Campaign, I'll bet. Remember Hume telling Juan Williams (Juan Williams!!) he needed to be "hosed down?" Well, there you are.

If Obama can be "presumptive," then by golly, he can be "Presumptuous," which, as Digby has been happy to point out, is simply dog-whistle for "uppity." Of course the media loves it, because then they can say "Presuptuous" all they want, and have it mean "Uppity" whenever they want it to. Which is pretty much whenever Steve Schmidt is telling them to do their farking jobs and take the negro down a notch or two.

I don't recall any previous Presidential contest in which the nominees-to-be were called "presumptive." Do you? And the elision into "Presumptuous" is too clever by half. It's going to be with us through to the bitter end, like that dog-forsaken "surge" (have you noticed everything "surges?" How could you not? They can't hep themselves, "surge" is in practically every report.)

Much as we want to blame Rove for everything because he is such a vile and repellant scapegoat, the current media manipulation tactic probably has more to do with Steve Schmidt than Rove (dodging indictment and all). Schmidt is ham-handed compared to Rove (McCain's Week of Disaster was Schmidt's too). But he does have the ear of Important Media Mavens, and so we can expect him to be pouncing on everything to diminish Obama in the eyes of his fans and in the eyes of those all-important independents. He will attack Obama strengths -- his speaking ability has been fodder for attacks forever, and Schmidt will continue to hammer it, as well as the crowds he draws, his "celebrity," his snappy wardrobe, his basketball skills, you name it, Schmidt will attack it relentlessly. He'll also attack weaknesses, Obama's generalities, his vagueness, his associations, etc.

But keep your eye on Schmidt. If Obama's people are smart, they'll kneecap him at some point. Then McCain can flail haplessly as is his wont and nature. As it is, Schmidt is so unsubtle --- ahem --- he's gonna kneecap himself at this rate and have to take an extended leave of absence.

-However, I haven’t seen Klein on many TV shows since the assault.-

I have.

He seems to have re-emerged on CNN, on occasion at least, where I was unaccustomed to seeing him much, if ever.

Your point is well-taken, though.

If Klein's behavior can be somewhat modified after a frontal assault from Glenn Greenwald (I believe I noted a slight difference in Klein's attitude subsequent to that series of posts, maybe I am wrong), so too might others, especially the ones who pose as Democrats/journalists. The RW Nutters are a lost cause, as in the case of Williams who pretended GG does not exist nor 100s of commenters who swamped his blog with criticisms.

McCain's team is running a pathetic campaign for an even more pathetic and very weak candidate.

The press is much more of a threat this go-round than his own campaign.

Everybody around here is so smart and I want to take advantage of that.

I'd love to read some examples of what a "fighting back" Obama would say. Many examples that are very strong seem to be the type that would backfire (in terms of winning new votes). But I'm sure there must be a perfect balance he should strike. I kind of like him erroring on the side of not acting tough and mean. But I know next to nothing.

Does anybody here know who Britney and Paris are voting for?

whereas in every rural area he had failed by a large margin.

Couple a things. I agree with you about McCain and Scwarzenneger and of Davis being the least liked in the competition. A lot of people stayed home during the recall, that's for sure. However, I will add that almost everyone I knew was simply floored the morning that Scwarzenegger's victory was announced. Really, flabbergasted. None of us had ever spoken to anyone who actually took Arnold seriously. The electoral map that the SF chronicle made available, made it quite clear that in almost every coastal or urban area, Davis had survived the recall, whereas in every urban area he had failed by a large margin.

Second, California is not as relevant as it should be in the presidential race as the electoral system makes our individual vote worth a fraction of what it should be. IMHO, that makes people not that excited to vote in presidential elections.

Lastly, my point was only to highlight a type of white American that I have been encountering all of my life in large numbers in the notoriously liberal Bay Area. I was not making predictions about California. My original post is pretty clear about that.

In the DC environment and reading the comments/commentary of many who are in the Beltway scene . . . there appears to be a gross insecurity and denial about who/what these people really are - much like the billionaires and politicians who continue to act like country-folk from down the street in Dogpatch. A lot of what has been said about Obama comes from a fearful projection onto a man who has an invigorating style, is not without his flaws, yet has a much more authentic background in living in the US and the world than the "parachute-jump" reporters.

Go to any happy-hour in DC wherever these mouthpieces gather and I guarantee the way they stretch it out sets all time highs for arrogance.