In the past, when the press was more informed and proactive, it would be harder for Whitman to conduct herself as she does. She takes advantage of the post-press era to say what she wants, with little regard to accuracy.
When CentralWorks offered the world premiere of Machiavelli's The Prince, I was struck by the playwright's skill at making Machiavelli's treatise on the use of power so relevant to contemporary politics.
In the wake of the Shirley Sherrod fiasco, the typical take-out from commentators in the media has been to say: "let's not forget that this is something that happens on both sides of the partisan divide." Stelter and Sargent don't agree.
Provocative topics this week provoked both clashes and consensus. With Mark Green hosting, Arianna and Mary disagreed sharply on Breitbart/Fox, but concurred that Rangel should go and Warren should come.
Breitbart gave the right-wing smear machine a momentary black eye. He made news editors, producers, and executives, and that includes those at Fox, more cautious about what they dump on the airwaves to score a hit.
I fail to see how anyone can make Breitbart the victim in this situation when he was the one who tried to ruin Sherrod's career and name as part of a vindictive attack on the NAACP, which he has yet to apologize for.
Whatever teachable moment people crave on race, Pres. Obama who stated plainly a long time ago that he's not interested in "the ideological battles that we fought during the '90s that were really extensions of battles we fought since the '60s."
No matter how many shows tea party leaders appear on to deny they are racist, people will remember one of their leaders helped to railroad an innocent black woman with a doctored videotape and a false claim of racism.
By now it's clear what Breitbart is selling. The real question is why the mainstream media and Democratic politicians bought it. Breitbart is a con artist, but con artists only succeed if consumers don't know they are being conned -- or don't care.