Once again, the great wheel groans and the edge of darkness moves across the continent. As the somber American night settles, I place my hands on the monitor and sense your anxious voices crackling down the mojo line. Oh yes, I hear you out there in the dark American night...and I still have my suspicions about you.

This week, one of McCain's least appealing surrogates, Phil Gramm, keyed the Straight Talk Express with his comment on whiny Americans. Shucks, at times like this it's best to hustle a less threatening surrogate out to soothe the snarling feral infotainment superstructure with charm and really good hair. So they appear, disembodied or on set, with Chris, or Wolf, or Joe, or David, or Sean. Brandishing rhetorical skills honed over a thousand Power Point presentations, they murmer their narcotizing drivel. While the Republicans have a seemingly deep bench when it comes to these attractive thugs, their roster suffers from a lack of heavy intellectual hitters.

Social Darwininism reared its head last night on PBS' News Hour in the person of John McCain mouthpiece and free-market zombie, Nancy Pfotenhauer. Poor Pfotenhauer seemed oddly out of place in the realtively genteel world of PBS as she sputtered through an economic discussion with Gwen Ifill and Obama Campaign economic advisor Jared Bernstein. Through much head shaking and wide-eyed expressions of disbelief, Pfotenhauer sought to turn aside any talk of corporate responsibility or progressive governance as she distilled the McCain position: you're on your own in the ruthless world of all against all. Indeed, this McCain shill for laissez-faire economics seemed fairly boggled at the thought that anyone could credibly argue that more tax cuts, more deregulation, and more market-based government might not be in the best interests of everyday Americans out there in the heartland.

In this we should not be particularly surprised, for Pfotenhauer is not an economist. Rather, she is in the business of political public relations. Pfotenhauer is just another conservative lobbyist with a "brand" to peddle. Like Bush, McCain and his advisors seem to believe that economic policy is little more than a marketing strategy driven by a few catchy phrases. So who is she and why should we care?

Yes, today, Califonia will hold its second primary of 2008. Of course, this time around voter turnout will be small, and interest slight. The issues this time around are local: judges, city bond issues, school boards, county supervisors, water district officials, propositions, etc.  Ah, but my fellow Californians, imagine if we had not had our presidential primary in February.

    First, let me apologize to weasels everywhere for the comparison to Phil Gramm. Tonight on Countdown, Keith Olberman highlights one of John McCain's crew of market buccaneers, Phil Gramm. Gramm's career offers--I think--a clear indication of just where McCain is on economic questions and where he wants to take us.

Oh yes, I have my suspicions about you. Tonight, as I place my hands on the monitor, I can feel you out there in the dark American night. I can sense the jostling, competing, anxious voices. I hear your questions: How long before my brilliant insights slide down the page and into obscurity? How can I get on the rec list? Am I neglecting my family, my job, my life, all for the momentary rush of having my comment commented on? Oh yes, I hear you...and I have my suspicions:

I learned something today. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz--Florida Congresswoman and Clinton surrogate--doesn't know her history. In this, Wasserman-Schultz is not unique, of course. These politicians, these freaks, consistently get it wrong. And in getting it wrong they betray their lack of historical imagination. What is the Congresswoman's sin?

For its practitioners, punditry--and its lesser sibling, surrogacy--is often a transient affair. While a core commentariat enjoys longevity, many more--mere apprentices in the dark arts of instant analysis and spin-hypnosis--flash briefly across the screen, and then, quickly depixilate. The market demands this cruel process, and market selections are often fickle.

The Republican Party seems aware of this, and has recently been grunting about their need to "rebrand" themselves. So, we are seeing a new batch of hopefuls audition for a place in the surrogate thugocracy. They're younger (relatively), better looking, and--seemingly--less threatening. After all, who would you prefer to carry your message over a medium that requires telegenic pizazz, Ted Stevens or Dana Perino? Last weekend it was Carly Fiorina's, turn, and this week, Nancy Pfotenhauer has been rolled out.

So, just who is Nancy Pfotenhauer?

Recently I've been highlighting the mindset of John McCain's economic advisors. Today, instead of beating up on them as individuals, I'd like to beat up on one their core ideas: the "genius of the market" and privatization. I've chosen three examples:

    Last week I posted a diary, "Let's Meet John McCain's Economic Advisors," in which I highlighted three of McCain's top advisors, including Carly Fiorina. As the contours of McCain's surrogate landscape come into view, it's clear we'll be seeing a lot of Fiorina.

So, who is Carly Fiorina?

    You've got to ask yourself, what do the Clinton's want? Certainly they know that their "brand" is tarnished, their reputations increasingly ar risk. I think, in the long run, the Clinton's greatest concern is reputation and legacy. Both these things are now in danger. How can we help them rehabilitate themselves?

    We all know that John McCain famously remarked that he didn't know much about economics. Given that, who are the people advising McCain? Today I've chosen three members of McCain's "Brain Trust" to highlight. Let's take a look:

    Hi, my name is JoesGarage, I'm powerless over gasoline and my life has become unmanageable. I've known I have a problem for a while now. At first, the little things didn't really bother me. You know the signs...

    Ralph Waldo Emerson once opined that no one should read any book that is less than a year old. Emerson was wary of fashion in print, and recognized that most books deserve to come and go without comment. In this political season, however, nothing competes for our attention so insistently than does the current practice among the chattering classes of dashing off a quick book about American politics. Sadly, many of these volumes do not pass quietly without comment--as Emerson would have liked--but are mercilessly flogged across the web, the networks, and the cable "news" shows. Members of the commentariat put in their time with Chris, or Lou, or Keith, or David, or Norah, or Wolf, or Tim, offering oxymoronic "instant analysis" and then--at predictable intervals--leverage their pundit capital into a volume which their fellow talking-heads then shamelessly promote. Happily for these pundits, brisk sales frequently follow. The majority of these works are exercises in high synthesis and low analysis and they display a dreary sameness, not unlike the cable news shows their authors populate. Most are regrettably didactic sermons designed to push product as they flatter their readers. They preach to the converted and confirm the essential rightness of the reader's point of view. They are generally a hustle.

    For a couple of years now, it has seemed to me that both the Democratic and Republican Parties are headed for a moment of major realignment, perhaps even collapse.

    Given the almost mathematical certainty that Senator Clinton cannot overcome Senator Obama's lead in either pledged delegates or the popular vote, it was inevitable that Senator Clinton and her surrogates would return again to the question of Florida and Michigan. The esssence of their talking point is that "millions of voters should not be disenfranchised" in these two states. This is a powerful word, disenfranchisement, and evokes the historic American struggle to widen access to the polling place, to guarantee fair and equal representation. But, in this case, were the people of Florida and Michigan really denied their right to vote, were they really disenfranchised?

    After the debate last week, I was struck by the rush of media navel-gazing that followed. The loudest--and most critical--voices came from the blogosphere. Words like narrative, meta-narrative, and meme (the fashionable word of the week) endlessly flowed across my screen. The outlines of the critique were clear--the problem was the closed nature of old mainstream media. Here were celebrity journalists--in the employ of corporate interests like GE, or Disney, or Viacom, or the Tribune Company, or Fox--shaping political reality for the rest of us. The alternative media / blogosphere--by contrast--was the place where the authentic debate was taking place, where real people were having a real conversation about real issues. I don't deny the basic outlines of this, but I am disturbed by the self-congratulatory nature of this analysis.  By way of example, I offer my experience this weekend with The Huffington Post.