"Why Would We Want That?"
Huzzah to Matt Browner-Hamlin (via Somerby) for correctly diagnosing Maureen Dowd Jr's projection disease regarding the "Clinton drama." We are dealing with an illness which, regardless of your personal loathing for all things Clinton, should disturb you greatly: the press delusionally believes it is their prerogative to decide who is allowed to be in politics and who is not.
For reasons that have already been explored on this blog and many others in great depth (but which have long since morphed into reflexive, unctuous mendacity) the press turns into puerile, snotty schoolkids at the mere mention of the Clinton name. (Just observe the knowing smirks on their faces the minute "the drama" is discussed. It's creepy.)
There are those who believe that the Clintons deserve this or that they should just get out of politics because their presence, under these constraints, makes life difficult for Democrats. But wherever you come down on that, anyone who cares about the country must recognize that the press believes it has the right to engage in a slavering, witchhunt behavior even when it goes against the wishes of the public.
I just heard Chris Matthews ask how Obama is going to keep the inevitable drama (catfight!) between Clinton and Susan Rice from exploding. Clarence Page replied: "why would we want that?"
And anyway, if the bitches end up being boring old political professionals just doing their jobs, it makes no difference. They'll create the drama themselves, as they always do, and then blame the stars of their sophomoric fantasies for "making" them do it.