Over the centuries it has been generally understood that governments can be overthrown by coup or popular revolt; one initiated or supported by the military, and the other by the people. It was not until the American Democratic process was instilled in 1776 that a third alternative gained legitimacy as a meaningful mechanism of governmental change. The democratic elective process gave birth to that new form of change, namely - elections.

In the United States the elective process has stood firm for over 200 years, and has blunted the power of coup, revolution and political assassination as tools of change in a stable society. Now, with the evolution of the presidential primary season, we have become witness to the disruptive debut of a far more deadly and disruptive force for change.

Politically Corrupt Journalism.

Gone are the days of Edward R. Morrow, Walter Cronkite, Frank McGee, Roger Mudd and Mike Wallace, stalwart icons of the classic school of journalism: reporters who held strictly to reporting and made no visible attempt to influence the news. These great newsmen made the trek from radio to television without losing their journalistic integrity. Now, for the most part these news reporters, and their professional integrity, have been retired from the news stage. And we now find ourselves at the mercy of their replacements, facing a new threat to our elective process.

Talking Heads and Pundits are in many ways new to most of the American public. In reality they are an invention of the broadcast networks, and their evolution within the system began with the networks introduction of 'happy times' televised magazine style news reporting. And it would appear from all of the evidence gathered to date, their sole purpose is to gain the highest ratings possible for their television shows: reporting the news has become secondary, and reporting it objectively and honestly is now tertiary.

A recent caller to C-Span made a telling comment as to how the public is beginning to view the slanted preimary coverage.  He said: "They should change the name of MSNBC to - All Obama All the Time."

Election Prediction: News Television's Pseudo Science

While covering the presidential primary candidacy of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, we hear the television commentators persistently employing the phrase..."but the numbers aren't there to support her continuing." Or possibly the phrase..."she can't possibly win unless....", or we hear..."what's the chance of her getting that many votes at this point in the race?" Fortunately for Sen. Clinton, she didn't listen to any of them. Instead, wisely, she has followed her own instincts and consul and remained in the primary race.

What I at first found confusing was just how the networks could possibly declare a winner in any race with 'zero percent' of the voting precincts reporting? In fact, to be completely truthful, the process smelled to me less of any sort of scientific method but more of raw - prediction.

Very soon, however, I discovered the feat was achieved with the use of - exit polls. In short what that means is, as voters exit the voting precincts, the networks have a gang of people there asking them who they voted for. After a few hundred people have cast their vote at various stations, the polling staff will call in or e-mail the results to their respective networks where they crunch the numbers and search for a decisive pattern of voting. And as soon as the polls close they will be 'Johnny on the spot' with their predictions.

If the preponderance of voting is overwhelmingly for one particular candidate - as read from dozens of polling places, the networks then feel they can justifiably predict that candidate is most 'likely' to be the winner. If this method does not seem very scientific, it is simply because - it isn't.

The networks 'winner prediction' system is so fraught with procedural holes and error possibilities it begs questioning. What if a significant number of voters exiting the polls, for whatever reasons, don't tell the truth as to whom they voted for? What if an entire densely populated precinct, unexpectedly, votes overwhelmingly for the opposing candidate?

Still another nagging question rears its head: why in the name of all that is necessary to the democratic process, do the networks need to predict the winner of an election in the first place? Why don't they simply allow the voting to play out as they did in the days of radio and early television? The answer to that question is - 'one-upmanship.'

The name of the game is ratings and cash. And we must not forget that it gives their employed pundits and talking heads the opportunity to give their take (verbal dissection) as to - why - a particular candidate has either lost or is losing - even if it hadn't as yet officially happened. Does that sound like democracy in action to you?

The New Math of Television News Commentary

What now appears to be the most disturbing trend emerging from this incredible Democratic Party primary season, has to be the decidedly stilted preference of the talking heads for one candidate over the other. And during this Democratic Party Primary season the main recipient cum victim of this journalistic hypocrisy is, without doubt, presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton.

It is perfectly clear that the Liberal Media has decided that the chosen candidate for the Democratic Party should be the ultra Liberal - Barack Obama, rather than the centrist - Hillary Clinton. And to be certain this scenario should play out, they have gone out of their way to make that dream of the far-Left a reality. But to their dire consternation, Sen. Clinton refuses to roll over and play dead. In fact, during this combative primary season, Hillary Clinton has managed to come back from the political dead - five times.

Therefore, to get around this undesired candidate's persistent resurrection, in desperation, the pundits and talking heads have resorted to a sort of - new math.

What we the viewing public have been witness to this primary season, is a blatant attempt by the Liberal Media to convert the American elective process to that of a game show format.

It used to be that, like with baseball teams involved in pennant races, all of the games (and voting states) scheduled were played - regardless of who may have actually won the pennant at any point. But this process does not play well for the far Left and the media, because they have already decided who they want to be the Democratic Party nominee in the presidential race - Barack Obama.

So what do they do? They start crunching the numbers to show to the world and remaining voting public - she can't win. But she continues to win! Then they claim that the nomination and the Super delegates should go to whichever candidate has the popular vote. In the early primaries and caucuses this declaration favored Barack Obama. However, it now appears that not only has this upstart woman had the audacity to win virtually all of the big and swing states, but she may in the end garner the coveted popular vote too.

So the DNC change the rules again with the declaration that the nod should go to whom ever has the most delegates - period. And since either candidate can possibly gain the magic number of 2075 pledged delegates, the hope is that the Super delegates will all swing to Obama.

To very important points should be kept in mind at this moment: Point One - The Super delegates are supposed to be free to choose whichever delegate they favor from a personal evaluation, based upon who they think is most likely to be able to bring victory to the party in the presidential race. Now however, the DNC is pressuring them to choose Obama, and to not wait until the August . In other words, they want to kill off any possibility Hillary Clinton may have of disrupting the win of their chosen candidate.

Point Two - This is the party that claimed that the Republicans ran a dirty, unethical race in 2000 - and stole the presidency from Al Gore.

TV News Forums: Editorial In-Crowds Only Please!

The Sunday May 25 edition of "Meet the Press" was a perfect example of the 'what is wrong with news commentary' syndrome. Without doubt, narrator and host, NBC News Washington Bureau Chief, Tim Russet, is one of the finer examples of what a true news commentator should be. He does his homework, interviews guests fairly, but giving no quarter as he confronts them with copies of their own words as reported in reliable publications. But most of all, he appears not to inject any detectable partisan favor into his interviews or general commentary. His show however, by guest panel composition, is flawed.

On this particular outing his guest panel was composed of the following:

Presidential historian, Doris Kearnes Goodwin, Newsweek editor and columnist John Meacham, New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd, Washington Post columnist Ruth Marcus, Christian Broadcasting Network reporter David Broady, and PBS's Gwen Eiffel.

These are highly talented well-credentialed professionals, and by normal standards this should be a good panel for discussion of this highly charged and important American political season. However, upon close inspection we don't find any representation of the common 'man and woman' on the street. These people are all print and television - journalism insiders.

These high quality people talk to each other, but very rarely ever talk to the public they report on, with the exception possibly of quick flashes of conversation at book signings. This point was brought to the fore by a personal observation of PBS's Gwen Eiffel. She tellingly remarked during the discussion, of her 'in the field' taste of the 'real anger and resentment of Hillary Clinton supporters' to her treatment by the networks and the political establishment.

What amazed me was the absolute shock and bewilderment of most of the others on the panel. It would appear they virtually none of them had, until that moment, given any real credence to such reports. However, among them they thought all of that resentment - if it were indeed real - would blow over by the time of the election in November. Yes, that's right! They still didn't get it!

I would highly recommend to Mr. Russert that he give serious thought to, on occasion, having knowledgeable people from outside the close knit journalistic community on his panels. By choosing individuals who are in the everyday thick of it: rubbing shoulders with the public. And I would suggest he reject in such a place 'Journalistic Community accepted Bloggers' such as Politico.Com who have become mainstream.

The Clinton Myth Revisited

"Let not the sins of the father be visited upon the son."

That ancient biblical quote should be amended to reflect modern times and the status of American politics, and it should read:

"Let not the sins of the husband be visited upon the wife."

Such a change in wording might serve to change the minds of many unsuspecting victims of a determined misinformation campaign, to the hard-sell propaganda constantly spewed by the Neo Conservative and Neo Liberal camps disinformation machines toward Hillary Clinton.

These are attempts to crucify her on the cross of the political history of her husband, based largely on supposed affairs she may or may not have been involved with, had privy to, or simply because she was married to the man at the time the events supposedly took place. Sounds confusing? Well that's because it is! Like a complex brew concocted by the fabled witches of old, these claims defy any scientific logic or offer any real credibility, and breakdown under realistic scrutiny. For instance:

The Clintons' did not have anything to do with the death of Vince Foster. Vincent Walker Foster, Jr. was a Deputy White House Consul during the first term of Bill Clinton's presidency, and also a law partner and friend of Hillary Clinton. His 1993 death was ruled a suicide by' multiple' official investigations.

Bill Clinton did not rape Juanita Broaddrick a former nursing home administrator from Arkansas, who alleged in 1998 that President Bill Clinton had raped her two decades earlier. Clinton's attorney denied the allegations on his client's behalf.

The previous year, Broaddrick had filed a sworn affidavit with Paula Jones' lawyers denying that Clinton had ever assaulted her: "During the 1992 Presidential campaign there were unfounded rumors and stories circulated that Mr. Clinton had made unwelcome sexual advances toward me in the late seventies. ... These allegations are untrue ...."

In November 1998, Broaddrick contradicted her sworn statement in an interview on "Dateline NBC." The interview, broadcast in February 1999, centered around Broaddrick's accusation that Bill Clinton had raped her on April 25, 1978 during his first campaign for the governorship of Arkansas, at a time when Clinton was that state's Attorney General.

She recanted her earlier sworn statement when interviewed by the FBI about the Jones case; the FBI found her account to be - inconclusive.

Bill Clinton did not balance the budget during his term with bogus 'dot-com bubble' funds, but did in fact leave a $760 billion surplus of real money as he left office. Both Alan Greenspan and the head of the General Accounting Office have established this point to the point of denial extinction.

The fact that Clinton's party began to lose big time during his second term loses all demonstrative steam, when we consider that the Republican party is being wiped out big time during the second term of a Republican President, George W. Bush.

An estimated $63 million dollar impeachment probe of President Clinton, and the Clintons' in general, turned up nothing other than he lied to Congress about having sex with a consenting, of age female staff member, who by her own admission initiated the affair.

Which by the way, according to numerous polls taken since, in the opinion of the average American the money spent on the investigation and special prosecutor was not only not worth the cost - but the president's sexual dalliances, in the mind of the public, were also not any of congress's business in the first place.

In fact, most people appear to chide Bill Clinton for lying about the affair 'under oath.' This point brings to mind the very real possibility that if he had simply admitted it - his political enemies would not have managed to get an investigation off the ground to begin with. After all, although he violated his marriage vows (many times), the man didn't do anything criminal.

Whereupon I quote popular street poetry to compare the relative acts of two presidents:

"Clinton lied and Hillary cried. Bush lied and men died!"

There's a lot of truth in that crude attempt at poetry, and I think that about says it all!

In Defense of Hillary Clinton

Be you Republican or Democrat, if you are true of mind and morality, you will be moved to feel some sympathy for this besieged woman and to award her the credit she is due. She has not only had to brave the unfair 'slings and arrows' from both sides of the political isle, but the unrelenting one-sided reporting of her campaign by a heavily biased Neo Liberal Media.

During one MSNBC broadcast, host Chris Matthews referred to her as a - 'She Devil.' And on May 24, 2008, in response to Sen. Clinton's untimely referencing of the RFK assassination, columnist Michael Goodwin of the New York Daily News took it upon himself to write an acid op ed piece in which he stated, with all the editorial venom he could muster, the following:

"We have seen an X - ray into a very dark soul. One consumed by raw ambition to where the possible assassination of an opponent is something to ponder in a strategic way... Many Black Americans have talked of it reflecting their assumption that racists would never tolerate a Black President, and that Obama would be taken away from them. Clinton has now fed that fear. She needs a long vacation. And we need one from her. Say good night, Hillary. And go away."

Like it or not, RFK's assassination was a legitimate point of historical reference, but I agree it was badly placed within the context of what she was actually trying to say. But if Barack Obama's opponent had been an American Indian and he had, inadvertently, brought up Custer's Last Stand - would his fan club within the journalistic community have made such a big deal over it? I don't think so! They would have revealed the gaff for what it was and the story would have disappeared the next day.

Surprisingly, on the May 25th edition of "Meet the Press", most of the journalist gathered expressed their belief that her remarks, though badly chosen and timed, were the result of overall fatigue and not meant as an overt wish for her Black opponent to be assassinated.

Surprisingly again, that is the same sentiment I pick up from the average man and woman on the street, in restaurants and coffee shops. However, despite this open understanding expression of the public, she has been cornered by the press and forced to apologize for what she never intended her reference to mean.

In her own defense, Sen. Clinton best described what has been happening to her in a May 18 interview with the Washington Post:

"...But it does seem as though the press, at least, is not bothered by the incredible vitriol that has been engendered by the comments and actions of people who are nothing but misogynists."

As a case in point to highlight the overt Liberal Media bias against Sen. Clinton, one should make note of an Obama gaff that received very little coverage. Addressing a Memorial Day gathering in Las Cruces, New Mexico, Sen. Obama made the following statement:

"I had a uncle who was one of the, who was part of the first American troops to go into Auschwitz and liberate the concentration camps and the story in our family was is that when he came home, he just went up into the attic and he didn't leave the house for six months..."

A day later his staff issued a correction for the senator's glaring error. It was the Russians who liberated Auschwitz, not the Americans. This the media didn't cover, but Hillary's innocent remark about the JFK assassination was headlined on television and print - for a week.

More than anything, however, Hillary Clinton has been forced to swim upstream against the stiff resistance of her own party, for they have decided they prefer instead the Affirmative Action 'Presidential flavor of the month' - Barack Hussein Obama.

Where to from Here Hillary?

At a Memorial Day rally, Bill Clinton made what I thought was the most defining statement of the character of this primary season:

"She is winning the general election today and he is not, according to all the evidence," Clinton said. "And I have never seen anything like it. I have never seen a candidate treated so disrespectfully just for running."

In pursuit of the Democratic Party goal what we have all been forced to witness, is the disgusting spectacle of a party trying to politically assassinate its own previous favorite daughter for the presidency. By their attitude and tactics toward her, the party has registered an aggressive preference for the abandonment of the Great White Female Hope, in favor of the Great Black Male Hope.

Having to run for office under the circumstances herein described, one can understand the daily stress Sen. Clinton must be under. Imagine any candidate having to take on the kind of daily tirades and castigations, spewed forth as legitimate news fodder and journalism that Hillary Clinton has had to endure. In her mind's eye view she has clearly experienced, over and over, what Julius Caesar must have felt on the floor of the Roman senate, just as the knives were thrust in - et tu Nancy Pelosi?

My final thoughts to you Hillary Clinton is that no matter what happens, you have made a landmark stride for women, and your sex will eventually rally as one to recognize what you have done for them. The path you have set out to blaze boldly has not been lost or abandoned; only delayed. I would also give some thought of running as an independent or better yet, as a third party candidate for the Middle Class.

In the end, despite the claims of your detractors, the true substance of your presidential quest will be enhanced by history for the magnificence of what it was . For the moment, however, keep going right to the end - no matter how it all ends. No matter the outcome, pin the betrayers to the wall!

Like I so sincerely mean, Hillary, - you go girl!

Your comments - The voices of our readers

Well done, I agree on the talking heads. As far as Hillary, it was too soon for her. Women will have their day eventually. She will probably be the VP candidate which is a start. Jim McAllister, Scottsdale, AZ Great going.....finally someone to tell it like it is. TV/radio/journalism media are running away with OUR election. Clinton has received more of the popular vote and our news sources keep failing to make that important DEMOCRATIC point! A lot of nonsensical talk, jokes, and hypotheticals aren't the true test of someone the nation is about to elect behind that perverbial nuclear button we hope never gets used. I am totally sick of the media's idea of news and listening to perky pundits who are paid to ignore issues! Norma P, Atlanta, GA You got it dead on this time mister.  I can't believe how badly they have been treating this woman.  And what was her crime?  She had the nerve to run for president.  Now they are claiming that all of her followers are uneducated dumb White bigots.  Well I am a Black woman and I have never been to college, and I have a very good White high school girlfriend of almost 20 years and she did not go to college either.  And we are both gonna vote for Hillary.  And if she don't run, then count two more votes for Mr. McCain. B. Franklin, Brooklyn, NY