SCARBOROUGH: Let me ask you this question, David Shuster, do you think [co-host] Mika Brzezinski is a Christian? She says she is. Is she a Christian?

    SHUSTER: Yeah, I believe she is. But here's the point --

    SCARBOROUGH: Hold on a second. You say you believe she's a Christian. You 'believe.' What does that mean? Is she or isn't she? Is she a Christian or not?

    SHUSTER: Well look, Mika and I have never actually had that conversation and I've never heard anybody have a conversation about her religion.

    SCARBOROUGH: But Mika says she's a Christian. So you're saying you don't know if she's a Christian or not?

    SHUSTER: That's fine! To me it doesn't matter.

    SCARBOROUGH: Oh, it doesn't matter? So now you're saying it doesn't matter.

To me, the most absurd assumption of the argument is that Hillary had in mind to cast doubts on whether Obama was really not a Muslim, but waited until she was asked three direct and essentially identical questions on the point before she uttered a single word that might be interpreted as casting those doubts.

This goes to Ferraror's cooments (which could have been phrased better).  This line of attack could not have been employed by a white candidate.  I don't blame the Obama campaign for taking advantage of this.  It just shows that it is really hard to change the nature of politics.

Now, imagine if the Court follows up by asking the same question, again?  You begin to wonder why the Court isn't getting it and you wonder how many different ways you can say No.

* * *
Q: Mr. eric, do you think that the Smith case was reversed by the Jones case?

No, I don't think that is true.  I don't think there is any evidence of that.

Q:  But didn't Jones overrule Smith?

The crime of all this is that our democracy is played with by the media brain washing.  I really wish we could sue them or something. Now, I just boycott them--will not watch MSNBC or CNN.  I also apply the 6 minute rule - ( don't stay on a channel for over, or even up to, 6 minutes, so they can't get the ratings). Also, found out that a Nielson box isn't necessary with cable. Have been checking tvnewser.com  for their ratings.

I don't think she was obligated to make a speech about there being no problem with Muslims or anything like that. Candidates have to pick their way through so many minefields, why should she take that on? It's Obama's problem, not hers, and the reason his campaign yells about it so much is because they know how much it can hurt him in the GE. Of course I don't favor spreading rumors about him, and it's only civilized for Hillary to respond to those questions with a forceful denial, as she did. After that he's on his ownn.

Last month when trying to get a sense of how important debates are to Clinton's campaign, I noticed a trend in Obama's national momentum. His campaign only really gained traction and "accelerated only in the absence of national debates after mid-November, when his campaign and the media could control and project his image at speeches and rallies." Later, Tina Fey's SNL commentary seemed to have that satirical kernel of truth since his upward trend coincided the Oprah endorsement and press hullabaloo.

I think we are in a situation again where, SNL be damned, elements of the media are working in overdrive to recapture the narrative for Obama. Coming out of Ohio and Texas losses, the initial strategy seemed to be that Obama's surrogates and media repeaters would do the campaign's dirty work, in order to keep Obama and his strategists clear of the fray. That strategy became inoperative when academic surrogates (Goolsbee, Power, etc.) proved to be entirely inept at delivering messages without introducing nuances and attacks that undermined the campaign.