Is media finally about to clean and jerk the rock under which Hillary lives, even Joan Walsh, of all members of the media, who appears frequently on MSNBClinton, of all networks? I'm guessing it's only make believe (but please enjoy the gratuitous Olympics-inspired reference, anyway).

During the 2016 primary, the Tyndall Report, by an objective measure, caught media intentionally ignoring Bernie (even according to Brock!). That, of course, coincided with the DNC's delaying Democratic debates until after the registration deadline for the New York primary had passed, very likely with the intent of keeping voters from getting to know Bernie. That move very likely helped the extraordinarily well-known Hillary and may have been designed by her campaign. Once the Tyndall Report hit the Bernie fans, media then pretended that its intentional shunning of Sanders had been entirely an Oopsie! and, to throw us off the stench scent, media very briefly devoted a bit of backhandedly favorable attention to Sanders. (As in, Ooooo, Sanders draws weally big cwowds, but Hillary shall win the Democratic Presidential primary.)

Post-Tyndall, hacked DNC emails conclusively proved media's collusion with the DNC for the purpose of helping Hillary. Well, at least Vogel, of politico, but almost everyone in the world knows that roaches don't go solo. So, now that Vogel has been pantsed and found wanting, people may suspect that all the other stuff that seems to be media collusion actually is media collusion and not merely a (ewww, yuck, gag, mock) "conspiracy theory." Similar to the aftermath of the Tyndall Report, anyone in Clinton Coronation Collusively Complicit Media who has been covering Hillary's bid for the Oval Office now has to do something, if he or she values any of the seven veils of pundit credibility, however thin those veils be. (So far, that's an Olympics reference, a Wham! reference, an Old Testament reference and a New Testament reference. I'm on a roll--and resisting the temptation to Rick Roll.)

During the primary, media built up Trump so much that he did not need to spend a cent on ads to defeat the likes of donor-rich Jeb! or Kochs-backed Walker. That, however, lasted only until Trump nailed enough primary votes to win the Republican Presidential nomination. Once that happened, media began turning on Trump. After the Donald emerged from the Republican convention, uncoup-ed, media and others really began sounding the alarm about the dangers of Trump, especially if he should get things like (gasp!) "nuclear codes," as, of course, he would if he becomes POTUS. (I'm guessing "nuclear codes" is a term that has been semi-dormant since the Cuban missile crisis?)

At this point, thanks in no small part to media, Hillary is safely ahead of Trump in the polls, or, at least so the polls make it seem. Moreover, Hillary is unlikely to lose her almost robotic ability to give Mr. Low Info Voter and Ms. Lesser of Two Evils Voter the illusion that Hillary is, at the very least, the more measured and less overtly crazy of the two evils. Of course, we all know that Hillary is not at all someone who would rather risk national security than subject herself to an FOIA request or task herself to use two or three different email accounts. We also all know that Hillary is not at all someone who would evince bizarre glee at the prospect of starting a nuclear war--in countries inhabited by brown people, anyway. And since that is not at all our Hillary, who can blame media for highlighting only the dangers of Trump's getting the nuclear codes?

("Bring it on?" Isn't that what Chimpy said in a post-911 dumbass, faux macho speech that America's Clinton-worshipping left mocked?)

It's mid-August, and the August meme (august meme?) is that no one is paying attention to politics now. In the unlikely event that Hillary falls behind Trump, media will have lots of time between Labor Day and Election Day to help the DNC, government and even Republican notables to prop her back up. Put all that together and it seems clear that, thanks to Guccifer or Assange or whomever, media do need to at least seem somewhat critical of Hillary in order to pretend a modicum of credibility; and, for now, being critical of Hillary seems unlikely to interfere with her defeating Trump, anyway. So, for now, media just may seem somewhat more "objective" about Hillary than has been their wont in recent years. But, chill. Most likely, "it's only make believe," as Bon Jovi not long ago wailed in Little Rock, where the Governor of Arkansas lives.

Speaking of media, their meme during the last few days is that Trump has been hurting himself by....talking. According to said media, if only Trump would have been silent, media would really have been focusing on Hillary's faults, emails, the dubious Clinton Foundation stuff, etc. Instead, because Trump flaps his mouth, in much the same way as he has been flapping it for months, media supposedly have had no choice but to treat Trump's rabble-rousing mouth flapping as the only political story worth covering as I type. So, media is claiming that, merely by being Trump while campaigning during campaign season, Trump has been forcing media to ignore all the bad stuff about Hillary. Imagine! A candidate for President talking three months before election day! Right out there in public where anyone can hear! How can media possibly focus on anything else? Convenient framing, wot?