Ms. Clinton gave an expert answer to the assembled bloggers at Yearly Kos. She wouldn't swear off lobbyist donations, thank you very much. She then cited several examples which run contrary to the K Street stereotype of the black fedora wearing skulk.

That was all well and good in the political sense, in that she strode into the assemblage of progressives, liberals, radicals and writers and would not bow and scrape for their support.

It was an investment toward the general election, to be sure, since linkage to the much abominated "liberal wing" of her party has the power to sway the single issue or knee jerk voter come November '08. But by listing supposedly good lobbies she crystallized the contradistinction between the framework for representative democracy taught in civics class and the way the game is currently played.

It is difficult for this genetic Democrat to fathom hiring a lobbyist to secure a basic human right. Yes, nurses good, education good, infrastructure good, and so on. But what an obscenity it is to attempt to turn the prime evidence of how absolutely corrupted things have become into anything remotely valiant. The truth wouldn't have been such a bad answer - you do this icky stuff or you lose - but perhaps she was going for a little bit of a Sister Soulja moment.

Always a safe bet to turn up such icky stuff, McClatchy Newspapers reported the following, Friday: "...Bush administration political director Ken Mehlman and other White House aides detailed competitive congressional districts, battleground election states and key media markets and outlined GOP strategy for getting out the vote. Commerce and Treasury political appointees later made numerous public appearances and grant announcements that often correlated with GOP interests ... The pattern raises the possibility that the events were arranged with the White House's political guidance in mind."

The story is laden with involvement by all three Republicans in the New Mexico congressional delegation, though it spelled Pearce incorrectly.

There's also a parting shot to the departing architect:  "The briefings are part of the legacy of White House political adviser Karl Rove, who announced this week that he's stepping down at the end of the month to spend more time with his family."

Sadly, no frogs. No marching. Whether he's more P.T. Barnum or Machiavelli in later drafts of history, his skill at election arithmetic knows few equals. I think he helped turn a rout into a marginal, if inevitable Democratic victory in '06. When Dubbya called it a "thumpin'," I felt for sure the Pinnochiometer went way past Cyrano.

Just last week, many Democrats allowed themselves to be blackmailed with the potential for negative publicity and just spat on the fourth amendment.

This ruse of obtaining security, somehow, by surrendering freedoms is the subject of Jonathan Alter's current Newsweek essay. Though much of the final haggling isn't known, he does report on last minute revisions of the worst order: "...we know that the administration's new position was that the attorney general (the disgraced Alberto Gonzales) should have the sole authority to spy without a warrant on any American talking to a foreigner, even if it's you and the guy from Mumbai fixing your printer."

The Democrats, it appears, have been shell shocked (PTSD if you will - though in no way to make light of cases among our veterans) since they were Willie Hortoned in 1984.

Twenty blessed years of whaaaaah?

The lesson of Karl Rove's tenure is akin to crime actually paying. You just push and push and push, and you'll be amazed at what you can get the American people to go along with. Retreat is necessary from time to time, but most maelstroms die down and you learn just to sneak it in next time. And always, always, the terms and conditions of the issues must be yours to inject. Reason is folly. Debate is for losers.

A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing and Karl Rove has played it like a villain from Shakespeare. The people, by and large, welcomed his work-product for its story line, though its theme was more than antithetical to their best interests.

Rove learned from Atwater. Next was begat Gillespie. And Gillespie successfully regained all three branches in '08. (My inner [the late, Ingmar] Bergman is saying "no, don't cut. This could be good.")

My hope is that my literature professors were correct. (No, I will not be having a Flaubert-off, if that's the correct word, with Maureen Dowd.) Tragic figures realize, then die. The ordinary person, we must not forget, when seeing him or herself in such a tragic role from literature, has the chance to become wiser and accomplish change.

I wonder how many Americans couldn't find their a way out of such a dilemma? Let them have their cave shadow reality, we are tempted to say. Because the one who would show them that their world view is a shadow must subject her or himself to the same possibilities.

No wonder concerted strategerizing wins every time.

Speaking of which, kindly let me postulate. The first presser from Crawford will address the items we were left with on the tarmac, as it were, which have proven not to have had the intended sticking power. The first Crawford booster shots will address incomplete efforts at mind control, not governance.

The tragedy? We voted this guy in.