>>>>Obama expand on some comments he made last week about how he would follow up with investigating potential criminal activity by this administration>>>>>>>

that would have been compelling for certain.

Leebot, the audience members are not allowed to ask the questions they wish; the woman you saw was tightly scripted, like the absurd question to Hillary about diamonds or pearls… that questioner was livid that she was at the last minute, pressed into asking such an inane thing.

I have a lot of faith in us'ns, the common folk. The behind the scenes manipulation on television live, or recorded (via edits) deadens any spontaneity: viz, spirit, meaning, depth.

I still hold hope, esp seeing persons like yourself and other commenters I read, making intelligent and insightful remarks.

thank you for adding not just opinion, but also as I see in a good many comments more recently, a straight-arrow longing for depth

I think we have to keep pressing for it. And striving to enact depth ourselves, also.
with kindest regards,
dr.e

Personally, I was really looking forward to hearing Obama expand on some comments he made last week about how he would follow up with investigating potential criminal activity by this administration, once he was in office. I would have been interested in Clinton's response to that as well (and of course, a number of other topics. The excuse that the two candidates are so close on policy issues that there is nothing new to explore there is simply bogus and lazy.)

I miss Molly Ivins too.

Your question is like a tiny atom… smasher. lol. The answers are encyclopedic. Spirasol, people can only report as deeply as they can see themselves, as widely as they themselves live. Perception and celebrity in the same person do not always arrive together… in part because perception cannot necessarily move at news cycle speed, but also because good perceptions have their own maturation rates.

Being a thinker and a writer is often different than being a 'personality'' who writes or tells the 'news.'

For me personally as a journalist, I mourn the loss of hard copy newspaper investigative reporters and teams. The Boston Globe for instance did a superb job reporting on the sex abuse horrors in the Boston Archdiose, spending hours, day and night, weekends, for months and years on end… to keep the story alive.

We have few brave and stalwart souls like that. Fewer and fewer. Most of the gallant old men of media have passed or been replaced: murrow, kronkite, even bob Scheiffer is on the sidelines. Bill Buckley is dead. Studs Terkel is give no air time. Harold Bloom is silent. Paglia posts now and then. Kearns-Goodwin is allowed to say two minute's worth here and there. Molly Ivans would be kicking everyone's a__ as you know.

I continue to critique the media here, and I do note small defensive movements from some on cable when I and other bloggers chide and point out the huge shortfalls… such as occured after this and other posts across the blogesphere went up.

The networks may be asleep, but the truth spirasol is that you are seeing the equiv of cloned news. All the more important for all of us to continue posting ORIGINAL rather than derivative WORK, and the truths as we see them… we have a boon: we are not constrained by advertisers nor editors who keep us to 7 or 12 column inches. We have a bad handicap; we are low pay/no pay and most all of us have day jobs so we can keep writing.

I often have the image jump before me that I am broadcasting from the underground… moving in the night from locale to locale in order to keep broadcasting. We all are trying as hard as we can to continue, I surely am, Spirasol. If you are inclined, prayers are always appreciated by me.

with kindest regards,
dr.e