Clinton's cackle was a prominent media story the past few days, sharing screen time with the equally important story of Britney losing custody.
In case anyone noticed, the Supreme Court opened its new term yesterday with several important issues on the docket.
Given that event, I was wondering if anyone thought to ask the candidates about their position on, say, gun control? Probably not, because the fact that the Court could interpret the Second Amendment differently than it has been understood since 1939 will likely go unnoticed.
How about asking the candidates about the fact that the Court chose not to hear a case about religious hospitals being forced to offer birth control to women, arguably a violation of church and state and certainly a dilemma for those organizations in relation to their abortion stance?
Or what about the case that requires a valid photo identification in order to vote? Or whether death by lethal injection violates the prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment? Or the process by which Guantanamo detainees will be given a trial?
Chris Matthews spent ten minutes interpreting Clinton's cackle. He certainly wasn't alone, as I saw the other major news outlets following suit. They hit the big questions like, "Is it a delay tactic or is she just trying to show her soft side." These musing were followed by penetrating insights like, "You know the old saying, in order to get elected people gotta want to share a beer with you." Yeah, right. Like any of us is going to actually share a beer with Hillary. I'd bet $100 that Hillary doesn't even drink beer!!!
Fine, I understand that we can't talk about substance all the time. And I will even confess to having more than a passing interest in my wife's People when they're lying on the bathroom floor.
But, come on folks ... Americans are dying today. We're possibly going to invade Iran. We're electing a President.
Clinton's cackle and Britney's baby ... is that the best we can do?