All through the early months of this endless campaign when Obama's success rested largely on a well-wrought reputation for idealism, there were legions of Hilary supporting media types who just seethed with resentment that their sure-fire insider candidate was being shoved aside by someone who seemed so untouchable. Their various attempts to paint his supporters as a "cult" and the always reserved, circumspect Obama as some kind of wild-eyed, voodoo preacher expressed a frustration not so much with any political position represented by the Illinois Senator, but with their own feelings of deprivation that the usual media consensus on how to cover politics, stuff that makes up their bread and butter work product, was being bypassed.

The reaction to Obama went straight beyond the usual media grist of gotcha and gaffe and personality scrutiny, straight to an incredibly profound desire for deep seated change and elicited a kind of enthusiasm that mystified and alienated media types used to wielding a certain pernicious kind of power, that of imposing their own cynical, gossipy, superficial insider point of view on the electoral process. Some (although many fewer than alleged) media folks stood apart and welcomed the change in tone and atmosphere introduced by Obama's campaign. The usual consensus-centrist suspects however, CNN and the New York Times come to mind, were indignant at having the Democratic primary contest deviate from the Hillary Sweep script they had signed off on before the process began.

The whole "Obama's a Voodoo Shuffle Artist" meme was obviously predicated on the fact that Rev. Wright's existence and his past relationship with Obama were already well known, had been discussed, "vetted" even; they were working the theme of a crazy black preacher into the campaign narrative in hopes it would bring Hillary's opponent down; when it didn't stick with respect to the candidate himself, his former pastor magically re-appeared in the campaign spotlight at the crucial moment, in the lull between Ohio and Pennsylvania. If they couldn't get the image of loony black crackpot into voters' minds by directly caricaturing Obama (whose stump personality is really almost kind of dull), well, the good Rev. would offer them the possibility of bringing in the idea by indirect association.

And now we have Hitchens, who may not in fact be a Hillary supporter, but he knows a good phony political scandal when he sees one and has a certain genius (see Monica situation, suing Sydney Blumenthal, etc.) for projecting himself into the middle of one for the sake of any old sleazy publicity he can snatch. Hitchens has the modicum of sense required to acknowledge that there's no point in trying to paint Obama himself as a Farrakhanesque weirdo, so he goes the guilt-by-association route via the wife. Because Michelle Obama mentioned Stokeley Carmichael in her Phd thesis from over 20 years ago, we're supposed to imagine that she's a Farrakhan loving anti-Semite. ..... ....... hmmmmm .... ... right.

So there you have it. The media morons have what they want at last. Everything Obama has done or said as a politician, everything he projects as a person and an American, all that substantive stuff defeats their attempts to marginalize him, to ghettoize him as a crackpot, so now, by means of one of the most determined smear campaigns, using the cheapest, ugliest, dumbest devices of guilt by association they can think of, they have achieved their "two-for-one" goals: 1) the fierce Clintonites among them (note the irony of Hitchens back together with old pal Blumenthal in their common use of right-wing rhetoric to get Obama) have defended the interests of the centrist, corporatist 90's Democratic consensus and its stalking horse in Mrs. Clinton; and 2) the dim-witted smirky cretins determined to rule the style and content of our political discourse by dragging every event down to their level have got the only kind of campaign they can handle: god forbid the people have a democratic discussion of just what kinds of fundamental change we really need to get our nation out of the screwed up rut it's in.

No. no no None of that silly idealism crap. The kind of insider "pros" who are stupid enough to buy into Hillary's image make-over as a white trash loving populist (even as she backs away from all her rhetoric on rolling back the Bush tax cuts for her wealthy pals, including, presumably, the sort of "experts" who write for Newsweek and the Times), these smarmy oafs are determined to instruct the rest of us on who belongs in the mainstream. So we must suffer being lectured to on the fine points of political morality apropos a bunch of trivial, gotcha, sensational, mind-numbingly shallow and repetitive "scandals" by a bunch of wizened, catty, gullible, ignorant pricks.

But you know what, morons, I'll bet you the brainwashing doesn't work. I'm still willing to hazard Obama wins anyway; then you can choke on your schadenhorror for eight long years.