So, democrats can pretend that the USA is pining away for some egalitarian health care plan that will cover everyone and still be affordable, but the predominance of the Baucus plan is evidence that something formidable brews beyond the beltway and the northeast  corridor, and that that force-to-be-contended-with is somehow accidentally or even intentionally represented by the million  plus viewers of Fox News.  Like it or not--a force to be contended with.

I know this because I went down to Louisiana and spent a week there, my sister-in-law educating me to the foxy preferences of hinterland America, or maybe it's just because I was in the south, south/Midwest what's the difference--mainly unions, I guess.

Anyway,  just when I had started to harbor a mild respect for the fox because of O'Reilly's relative objectivity (compared to Limbaugh and Beck) as they were speaking some serious truth about deficits and devaluation of the dollar or some such,  Friday morning dawns up with the announcement that our Prez had won the Nobel Peace Prize.

Cool.

So I'm flippin the radio from NPR to AM talk to hear what Limbaugh and Hannity are saying about it, as if I couldn't predict.  And it's like, give me a break.

They just totally dis our Prez, and for what I don't know. I mean, a Nobel is not just  spelling-bee hubris. It's much more than that. You gotta hand it to the man from Kenya/Honolulu/ Chicago--it's a great honor.

On the other hand it does seem that the Nobel committee is  using their coveted prize to put a spin on our imminent military superpower directionality.

What's with this choice that puts Prez in the same category with Mother Theresa? Is it because Mr. Obama is leaning on the Israelis to forsake their apartheid? Or because he wants to talk to Iran? 

And I don't even trust the Iranians. Something inside of me wants to classify them with Hitler and Ribbentrop, because of their reported holocaust-denial statements. Is this a case of Prez in lala land? Obama as Neville Chamberlain?

Gosh, I don't know. History is so much easier to discern when you're looking backwards.

Or maybe it's that the Nobel committee is hoping to dissuade him from further troop buildup in Afghanistan. I wouldn't want to be Barack Obama now.  I feel for him. This is one tarbaby in which his centrist strategy will alienate one side--hawks or doves--or the other, no matter how the chips fall, and  McChrystal's proclamation doesn't simplify matters any.

So anyway my sister-in-law has me tuned into Hannity one night to get a sampling of the foxy hinterland view of things, when lo and behold who shows up on the fox but Michael Moore.  Who'd a thought it?

And I'm watching this little exchange. But Hannity gets on my nerves because he keeps wanting to change the subject , to talk about Moore's accumulating wealth and influence, with its capitalist implications, as if Michael is, you know, a hypocrite, a closet capitalist.

We're all hypocrites of some kind or another, for all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.

But Michael Moore keeps wanting to talk to Sean about Jesus, as if the Nazarene's impact on human events were a real influence on his own worldview and work and as if Jesus had some opinion about how to deal with the 46 million uninsured. Well,

I hope so; my modus operandi has for many years been WWJD.

What would you do, if your mother asked you?