Don’t miss Curry’s piece over at Salon, about false Clintonian attacks and failed, unlearned-from, Clintonian strategy in an ossified media environment. It’s a see-through-the-BS, straight-to-the-heart-of-the-real-debate masterpiece. Two excerpts:

In another reminder of 2008, Clinton has added race to the mix. On primary night on CNN, Clinton ally Michael Nutter slyly accused Sanders of subtle racism, terming his call for criminal justice reform “mildly offensive” because, Nutter falsely charged, Sanders never talks about other African American issues. For some reason— it can’t be ratings — CNN lets commentators with clear conflicts of interest mouth thinly-veiled partisan message. This is worse. Nutter is no more “offended” than Hillary is “concerned” or Bill “shocked” to discover trolls on the Internet. They want us to think Bernie does what they do, but of course he doesn’t. Lots of African Americans live in upcoming primary states. Because they are the firewall Clinton hopes will save her, she’ll ratchet this up as high as she can. Last week the Congressional Black Caucus PAC endorsed her. Asked about Sanders’ civil rights record, Congressman John Lewis dryly replied “I never met him” and went on to praise Clinton for her close ties to African American politicians. SNIP The real problem with the Black Caucus PAC endorsement isn’t anything Lewis said, but the way Washington works. Only seven of 46 caucus members voted on the caucus endorsement but eleven lobbyists voted, including at least two tobacco and two health care industry lobbyists. Like the Iowa Democratic Party, the PAC won’t reveal the tally — but we know at least two of the seven actual members voted no.

Newspapers beat TV for analysis, but the gap narrows every year, and not because TV is getting better. Elite reporters reflect the elite consensus, which accounts for such recent Washington Post headlines as Democrats Would Be Insane to Nominate Sanders and Sanders’ Oddball Coalition Savors Its Victory. It may explain the boffo reviews of Clinton’s PBS debate performance, as in the Times headline, Analysis: Clinton is Cool, Calm and Effective. Pundits praised her superior grasp of policy partly out of habit– it was true of earlier debates– but also because it’s how they see the world. They should read the transcript. If anything, Bernie does the better job of explaining how he’d fund his programs. Hillary won’t say how she’d pay for Social Security. She says she has a universal health care plan but she doesn’t. She has a laundry list of programs, one for each demographic, all with unanswered questions about implementation, effectiveness and affordability. The most striking thing about the debate, other than the low blow Clinton struck at the end of the last round, was that Sanders got the better of her on foreign policy. Has any other presidential candidate ever told the American people that Iran doesn’t “hate us for our freedom” but because we engineered the violent overthrow of their democratically elected president and installed a vicious tyrant in his place? The rest of the world knows, why not us? Is Clinton’s jingoism about not talking to Iran the signal we want to send to thousands of Iranians who joyously took to the streets to celebrate the nuclear weapons pact? Shouldn’t Clinton’s airbrushing of the hyper secretive, law breaking Kissinger concern us? Has anyone but Bernie ever said Henry Kissinger’s China opening may have cost us some jobs? Clinton mocks him for citing her Iraq vote but he now casts a wider net. Pundits citing her foreign policy cred should feel honor bound to tell us why she’s right and he’s wrong.

Read it here.