There’s a steaming garbage mountain of Bush administration scandals still to be even glanced at, and lots of people whose mouths will loosen as they anticipate that administration’s retaliatory power slackening. But the journalists don’t cover that.

There’s 1/3 of a trillion $ given to Wall St, with no strings attached, for all practical purposes, money which Wall St seems to regard as a gift with no need of repayment or accountability. But the journalists don’t cover that (at least, to the extent that a Wall St melt-down and a 1/3 $trillion christmas gift to Wall St deserves).

Instead, the journalists are gleefullying noting that Obama and Blagowhatever came from the same state. And not even the governor being recording cursing Obama for not playing ball, and the GOP prosecutor not finding any connection, will get in the way of Whitewater II.

It’s amazing; it’s almost like the mass media, despite social liberalism, is really run by the financial elites of our country, who have serious ideas of what is and is not newsworthy.

Progressivism = morality? Hunh, here I am a life-long progressive, and I must’ve missed a newsletter! Seriously, that’s a mighty high horse you’ve got there.

Progressives and conservatives are after the same basic thing: a healthy nation. They have different priorities and different ideas about how to go about it, that’s all. Until we fully digest that fact, we’re neither of us going to get much done. I feel fairly confidant that Obama, the man you seem to admire, would agree with me.

I don’t deny that the conservative movement and the Republicans in general have been suffering under a scourge of deeply flawed leaders and one might say, through them, a scourge of immorality. But I, personally, don’t have any interest in taking up the mantle of “gut-level” sanctimonious moral certitude, do you? Let it retire with Bush.

Except, you cynically adapt your prose to accommodate your conservative base. Real progressives, i.e., people who came to the table with no money at all, do not jettison their political allies out of convenience. They do it when they sense immorality because to them, the ends do not necessarily justify the means and are equally deserving of study and reflection.

It’s really unfortunate that you and so many other cynical pundits cannot find the meaning of that word in your lexicon: MORALITY is not a theory. It has to do with idealism, a vision of how things ought to be and the willingness to hew to those principles and to people even when it is inconvenient or painful. Note how long it took for Obama to “jettison” his relationship with his controversial pastor and you see a man who agonized over the charges and counter-charges. You call the delay in his repudiation of Wright pragmatic? I was amazed that it took so long, for I can match your cynicism in a twinkling. It takes one to know one.

Looking back through history, I think it’s clear that generational change can come rather quickly. Obama is commencing a new political strategy, and the media will continue to misapply old labels to Obama until they figure that out. Let us hope this comes sooner rather than later. I’m so very bored with their current performance.

It also makes it difficult for the press to properly police and monitor Obama when they all have their heads firmly up their backsides – and that’s something a benevolent leader needs just as much as a corrupt one, imho, so it doesn’t matter that we don’t know yet which one he’ll be. Some of them will never come up for air, but eventually some will.

On an unrelated note, Daniel, I just wanted to say, I’m a new poster but an old reader. I always enjoy your posts, even though I’m a scorching liberal and disagree with you on a great many things. So thank you. *waves*

Based on his history, I’d venture to guess that he will simply do what the establishment around him thinks should be done. He’s never been a leader, and I doubt it’s something that will come to him all of a sudden.

So, similar to Bush, we’re going to see an extremely powerful Cabinet. Probably even moreso. And likely an extremely powerful Congress too.

The reason for this is that he’s got very little political history that we can actually look at and make a judgment on, and what history he does have largely consists of him calling in sick to avoid having to make any big stands. And, most of all, the media has been extremely remiss in reporting on what there is to be known of his background.

That’s why I would say that you are still being premature, Daniel. For instance, how do you know that the guy never got personally involved in Chicago corruption? Do you actually have detailed knowledge of what he did there for 20 years? No, you don’t. Nobody does. You can’t make a certain statement one way or another.

There are some things we can say about him though, with confidence. He’s definitely an establishmentarian and an opportunist, who goes along to get along with whoever holds the power, and doesn’t make waves. Whether or not he was personally involved in Chicago corruption, we do know for sure that he has no history of ever standing up to it.

While he made some sounds about opposing the Washington establishment during the campaign, he only actually opposed it insofar as he ran against the Clintons, and now that he’s won, he’s surrounding himself with establishment figures.

In Congress, he had the most far-left voting record of anybody during his tenure, but it’s hard to say whether this represents his real core, or if he was just going along with the Democratic establishment around him like he always does.

And, of course, he’s made a bunch of contradictory promises along the campaign, to appease whoever he needed to get to the next stage, in opportunistic fashion.

So why is it that he’s so unusually difficult to figure out for a Presidential candidate? What is it about him that makes it so that everyone is able to project their wildest fantasies on him? Why haven’t we had a candidate like this before? Is it because he’s so gosh-darned special?

Actually, I think it’s the opposite. It’s because he’s so mediocre. Normally, a politician with such an undistinguished career, who just goes along with everyone else and doesn’t make waves, and who avoids having to make any big decisions, wouldn’t get anywhere near the Presidency. That sort of modus operandi is good for keeping you out of trouble, and for ensuring you a permanent cushy job as a nameless bureaucrat, but it doesn’t make you stand out, and it doesn’t make you a leader that people will follow.

The thing that makes Obama so hard to define, and so easy to project onto, is precisely his lack of distinguishment and his go-along-to-get-along habits. The reason we haven’t had a President like this before is that we’ve never elected anybody so undistinguished before. Normally, the American people wouldn’t dream of putting in somebody that they didn’t know a thing about, and who had such a meager, unaccomplished record.

However, Obama has one special trait: he’s an articulate black guy. This fact makes half the country go into a rapturous bliss, and opens up opportunities for him that many anonymous politicians with a similar records to his could never dream of. And hence we end up in the unprecedented position of having a mysterious cipher of a President who nobody can figure out, but on whom everyone projects their hopes and fears.