I think that the slate article has this backwards. There's been a consistent focus by the media on issues of sensationalism rather than the substance of the election. Wright, Bosnia, Flag Pins; these have all been chewed to death by the media and not one of them has anything to do with the welfare of our nation. The truth is that the policy differences between Clinton and Obama are almost non-existent and in that vacuum of substance the media whatever it can to make this look like a tight and exciting race.

At the same time, the arithmetic of the election has been determined for some time. In the proportionally allocated world of the democratic primary, Barack Obama has had the nomination locked up for some time. But there's not so much story in that. Not a lot to tune into.

I think Russert got it right, albeit late. The democratic party does have a nominee, that nominee is Barack Obama. What was improbable in December is certain now, and has been since March. Hillary Clinton could have won, but she ran a race to the republican "winner take all" rules.

Whoops.

That's the very definition of hubris, and perhaps a little concerning. When our next president is facing a problem, I'd like them to understand the rules of the game before deciding what the US should do. I'd hate for her to run this country like she's run her campaign.

And that makes me glad that Russert is right.