[This is legit -- kos]
Yeah, it’s me.
Sure has taken me long enough. But, as you may know, I am the shy, retiring type: Hesitant to state an opinion in public and horrified to pass judgment or seem a scold.
And, yes, if I’m going to step out from the cool, comforting environs of the shadows, I’d rather spring forward to pimp the book or the newscast.
But, having now read a (mercifully few) claims here that I’m a) attacking Clinton, b) burying Edwards, and c) clobbering Obama, I feel the need to mention that I truly don’t have a preference. I am tilting in no direction, sending out no subliminal message, and thwarting no truth.
To report the NBC New Hampshire projection after the polls close there, is not to try to marginalize John Edwards. To run the entire Bill Clinton "fairy tale" sound bite complete with its Iraq vote context, is not to try to thwart Barack Obama. And to report that Dennis Kucinich has put a down payment on a New Hampshire recount is not to claim Hillary Clinton stole a primary.
I appreciate the fervor of each candidate’s supporters and I think I have some empathy based on my standing in the Frustrated-By-The-Obviousness-Of-Politics League. But can anybody reading messages into tea leaves in my newscast, when there isn’t even a teacup, please resume regular breathing patterns? To see in each of my reports an enemy or a spokesman sounds microscopically like – and I swallow hard and prepare for the prospect of some Kossacks to approach what passes for my castle with torches and pitchforks as I write this – Bill O’Reilly.
[Note: Yep, it's really Keith. SusanG]