The A.P.:

Sen. Barack Obama swept the Louisiana primary and caucuses in Nebraska and Washington state Saturday night, slicing into Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s slender delegate lead in their historic race for the Democratic presidential nomination.

The Illinois senator also won caucuses in the Virgin Islands, completing his best night of the campaign.

“Today, voters from the West Coast to the Gulf Coast to the heart of America stood up to say ‘yes we can’” Obama told a cheering audience of Democrats at a party dinner in Richmond, Va…

Actually, what we may more accurately be seeing is a national “Lamonting” of Sen Clinton — meaning as when Ned Lamont had presided over a far-left charge that seized the Democratic senatorial nod from Democratic centrist (and, unforgivable to that left, pro-overthrow of the Hussein regime in Iraq) incumbent Joe Lieberman in Connecticut. That win had also created the impression of a “sweep”. However, all that Mr Lamont had actually done was win control of “the party”, and Sen Lieberman went on as an Independent to trounce Mr Lamont easily in the general election.

Because of that, today Sen Lieberman stands beside Sen McCain, not either Democratic contender. Similarly, in small state primaries and caucuses where there are either disproportionately large black electorates, or small electorates which are mostly white and very left-wing (like the Connecticut Democratic electorate) Sen Obama is nationally hobbling Sen Clinton among Democrats. Again, while those victories have once more left an impression of a candidate’s “sweeping” various fields, in actual reality, while Sen Obama’s supporters may think they are on the verge of their own J.F.K. moment, it may well be more their Eugene McCarthy, George McGovern or Ned Lamont moment.

Interestingly, that hobbling process is being abetted by a clearly “starstruck” pro-Obama media. To date, he has received precious little of the hard scrutiny one normally expects a serious presidential candidate to endure. Indeed, the Democratic nomination tussles are now merely being covered as another expression of “reality TV” — “Did Barack turn his back on Hillary? Will she be voted off the island? Who will survive the public voting to become president!?” — but if they do get their wish and this latest TV episode of American politics sees him somehow make it to the White House, media may well regret it.

And why? Because media’s bread and butter is criticism, criticism and more criticism and then nastiness and tearing down, and frenzied inquiry of elected officials; and when we are talking about a U.S. president that is all multiplied by many times. Most voters already well-know Sen Clinton, and Sen McCain is hardly new on the scene; but who is Sen Obama, really? Are media (those which might be willing to do so) going to feel as free to attack critique ALL that he is with the same vitriol thoughtfulness with which they previously attacked critiqued Bill Clinton and George W Bush?

In fact, such has the quality of media discourse plumbed new depths that, as you probably know, one David Schuster was just suspended by MSNBC over his offering a tacky swipe at Chelsea Clinton, a young woman who is not an outspoken public figure. Yet what might have happened had he instead offered a crass observation about a President Obama, or one of his children? Would Mr Schuster have had to have been immediately fired? Would he have even dared to have been so casually crass about that president or a member of his family?

Thus media had better be cautious about their unconditional Sen Obama adulation. Being personally “inspired” is anyone’s right, of course. But finally getting what you had for so long yearned to see come to pass (and desired it so much in fact that that you had lost all perspective while pulling for that outcome), might well also end up being your worst professional nightmare.

[Posted 6:50 PM NY time]

_____________________________

UPDATE, February 11: After five paragraphs functioning effectively as a campaign commercial touting the Senator’s achievements (and we know which senator that is) — …Obama’s overwhelming margins of victory in Washington state, Louisiana, Nebraska, Maine, and the U.S. Virgin Islands signaled the start of what may prove to be a rough few weeks for Sen. Hillary Clinton’s campaign… — even CNN finally has to come back briefly down to earth:

…the Clinton camp operates at a distinct disadvantage whenever delegates are chosen by traditionally lower turnout caucuses instead of higher turnout primaries. Obama’s enthusiastic supporters flooded caucus sites in Nebraska and Washington on Saturday, propelling him to remarkably easy victories…

…Turning south to the other major contest this past weekend — Louisiana — Obama once again relied upon a rock solid base of African-American support to propel him to victory. Black voters, almost half of the state’s Democratic primary electorate, backed Obama by a 64-point margin (82 percent to 18 percent). Clinton dominated white voters but by a relatively smaller 44-point margin (70 percent to 26 percent)…

His strategy of nibbling at the edges has been a good one; by fighting states where he can win, he looks like “a winner.” For had he taken her on head on in big states, where “Lamonting” isn’t as simple, she’d have run over him like he wasn’t even there.  And media wouldn’t have had their chance to swoon.

Case in point: just in NY, she got nearly a million votes to his almost 700,000.  However, that was not trumpeted in most media as a big Clinton victory.  Ah, but Sen Obama having gotten rather more than 21,000 caucus votes to her 10,000 in Washington state, and his winning in the Virgin Islands?  A second American Revolution, clearly.