It seems clear that the "pundits in chief" of American television have in mind to "guide" American voters to the election of a candidate who, in their collective "wisdom," is appropriate to the office of president of the United States.
It should be no secret that the "chattering classes" on the left and right coasts believe that they are far wiser than the peasantry residing in "fly over country" in between (or among) their citadels of exalted brooding.
The various preferences of the media Machiavellians are pitifully obvious to those unfortunate enough to need to watch (endlessly).
Christopher Matthews, (MSNBC) (when not abusing and bullying guests) makes it clear that his first choice would have been Giuliani (a man from the "civilized" northeast) but, (sigh) if that is not to be, then Obama will fulfill the civil rights yearnings of his soul. In pursuit of that goal, there is nothing that he will not say, endlessly, boringly, repetitively against the Clintons. God help anyone on his programs who disagrees with this "program."
And then, there is Tim Russert, host of "Meet the Press." Tim holds forth there with an authority reminiscent of the doctrine of papal infallibility and a clear belief that none dare confront him.
Today, his "guest" was Dr. Ron Paul, the previously obscure physician and congressman from coastal Texas. This man has the effrontery to insist that the US Constitution is still an effective document, that the federal government has too much power, spends too much money and that Abraham Lincoln might not have been as wise as the hagiolatry surrounding his name mandates as belief.
Somehow, unbelievably, the masses huddled outside the major cities of America resonate to what Paul says. His message of minimalist government and foreign policy, civil rights for all and a return to balanced budgets appeals to many. To the consternation of the "professional pols" money floods into the Paul "campaign" over the internets. Thus far, this flow of small contributions is not reflected in polling, but, as my favorite political consultant (my wife) suggests, this may be the result of people being reluctant to tell pollsters that they will vote for Paul
With regard to Paul’s various "heretical" opinions, Russert poured forth a continuous stream of questions at so rapid a rate that it became clear that the purpose was a hope that the "guest" would stumble over himself in attempting to answer. The purpose of this approach seemed to be destructive rather than constructive.
Both Russert and Matthews are products of schooling that should have done better by them. pl