Sooooo, how’s that making-up coming along?

By Jennifer J. Foster

It’s been about 10 days now since that lovely Democratic UNITY event in UNITY, N.H., where Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton stood together and told the country how UNITED they are. The Clintons donated to Obama’s campaign, and the Obamas donated to Clinton’s campaign. Obama encouraged his supporters to follow his example and give to Hillary to help her satisfy outstanding campaign debt.

(And by outstanding, I mean leftover as well as impressive.)

Kum ba yah, my Lord ... kum ba yah ...

So how’s it going?

If the money tells the story, not so well.

The New York Times reports tomorrow that of the $23 million in campaign debt owed by Hillary Clinton, Obama supporters have turned out $100,000—“a paltry amount,“ in the words of one Clintonite.

Well, the economy is slumping. I’m sure people would give if they could, right?

Not so much.

Some of the replies to Obama’s call for Clinton support are unprintable, given the coarse language, the Times reports. Replies included these:

“Gas prices are up, the markets are in turmoil, my kid’s fall tuition bill is coming soon. Writing checks to politicians I don’t like is not at the top of my list.”

“Not a penny for that woman. Or her husband. Or — god forbid — Mark Penn,” a reference to Mrs. Clinton’s former senior strategist, whose firm is still owed several million dollars for work that included aggressive attacks on Mr. Obama.

“That woman?“ Hardly sounds like a unified Democrat.

Ah, Mark Penn—talk about a guy you can count on. He’s polarizing even in his long absence from the Clinton scene. Penn, you’ll recall, is the well-heeled, high-dollar consultant who engineered the concept that Clinton should run as a de facto incumbent: Not such a great idea, as it turns out, when the nation is hungry for change.

Penn was summarily dismissed in April as infighting among Clinton campaign officials worsened, after the candidate’s fortunes tumbled and Obama began to rack up delegates in caucus states (another Penn mistake: Ceding caucus states to Obama. Clinton basically had next to nothing in terms of organization in these states; Penn’s theory was, win the big states, and the small ones—even if there are a bunch—won’t be enough to make up the difference. It was a big part of a series of miscalculations that proved fatal to Clinton’s chances).

But wait! Only $12 million of the $23 million is earmar—I mean, owed to Penn and related consultants and vendors, the Times says. The rest is $11 million in personal debt Clinton assumed to stay competitive at key junctures in the race. She “has told her fund-raisers that she does not expect them or the Obama camp to repay her.“

Oh, whew. There’s a relief.

But the $12 million—Penn’s lion’s share and the rest—is a different story:

Clinton donors say it is an open question whether the Clintons believe they should play hardball — signaling that they will not rally enthusiastically behind Mr. Obama unless he does more on the debt situation — or appear agreeable with the expectation that the money will ultimately come through.

A crucial test will come at the fund-raisers in New York this week, both sides said. Mr. Obama is expected to ask supporters there to help Mrs. Clinton, and Clinton donors said they were hoping for a great deal more money to come in from people heeding his call.

Yes, you read that right: $12 million is apparently more important to the Clintons than doing whatever is necessary to the White House.

Turn up the money, or else—or else risk our half-hearted endorsement, the Clinton camp appears to be saying to the Obama camp.

Gee, if I was an Obama supporter and the candidate my guy had defeated was basically threatening my guy if he didn’t help pay off her debt, I know that I’d be a lot less likely to pitch in. Even if he did ask me, I’d know he was doing so under durress.

And another thing: I’d know in a heartbeat the candidates’ supposed “unity” to be nothing more than an elaborate, expensive, time-wasting and intelligence-insulting farce.

And that would make me mad.

So it sounds like the Unity event was just held in the wrong city. I’m sure there they probably could have gotten a place in Crapo, Md., that day.

And it would have made for a truer dateline.

A tale of two sportscasters ...

By Jennifer J. Foster

Speaking of Olbermann, it seems he’s reuniting with old ESPN colleague Dan Patrick. From ESPN:

A former ESPN SportsCenter anchor team will be reunited August 5, on ESPN Radio when Keith Olbermann joins The Dan Patrick Show as a regularly scheduled guest co-host Fridays at 2 p.m. ET.

Olbermann and Patrick were at the helm of SC when it became a cult phenomenon. You can’t go to a sporting event now and not hear that familiar “Da-da-dah. Da-da-dah” made famous by the broadcast.

When the pair split in 1997, Olbermann headed to MSNBC. Patrick stayed with ESPN.

You know what’s happened to Olbermann. He’s an angry white guy. (Incidentally, in this clip, it’s really funny to watch a liberal defender of free speech foam at the mouth about one word. Was Hillary Clinton’s comment about Robert Kennedy’s assassination in June 1968 ill-advised? Certainly. Was it morally irresponsible? Perhaps. But is it—“assassination”—a word that “you cannot say, senator?“ Um, not as long as the First Amendment still applies. But that’s the beauty of liberals like Olbermann: They believe not in inalienable rights, but subjective ones.)

And as for Patrick? According to ESPN:

Patrick now anchors ESPN’s 6 p.m. SportsCenter Monday through Friday, and writes for ESPN The Magazine, authoring ‘Outtakes.‘ In January 2000, he was named National Sportscaster of the Year by the National Sportscasters and Sportswriters Association (NSSA), just the second cable commentator to receive the honor, and has received a Sports Emmy Award in the Studio Host category.

Back in the SC days, Olbermann was always the lead guy. Patrick was always promo’d second.

Not this time around.

Of course, Olbermann would never publicly admit that he regrets leaving ESPN for the greener pastures of political punditry. He’ s far too—um, self-confident—for that.

But late at night, when it’s quiet and Keith is left with his thoughts ...

Cable news ratings

By Jennifer J. Foster

From Media Bistro, here are the official numbers for the cable news networks (newest first).

I admit it; I don’t watch the Olbermann Channel. Between Chris Matthews’ annoying voice and Olbermann’s egomaniacal, sanctimonious rants, I would rather give up TV altogether.

But MSNBC is trouncing CNN at 11 p.m. What’s going on there? I looked at some TV listings and the MSNBC web site, but all I could gather is that it’s an hour filled with a hodgepodge of different investigation-like shows. (I saw that spin-offs of the hugely popular “To Catch a Predator” are on on Thursday and Friday.)

Anybody out there watch it? Can you shed some light on it for us?

I’m not curious enough to watch it on my own and risk an Olbermann sighting.

Howard’s new job

By Jennifer J. Foster

Howard—Wolfson, not Stern—wasn’t without a gig for long.

From the New York Times:

Howard Wolfson, who was a top strategist for the presidential campaign of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, is going where some Democrats were unwilling to go during the early days of the election season: the Fox News Channel.

The network is expected to announce as early as Tuesday that it has signed Mr. Wolfson as a contributor who will appear regularly on its programs.

You’ll remember that the Democratic candidates—Clinton included—all shunned FNC when it was debate time, forcing the network to cancel the event.

My, how times change.

The night Mrs. Clinton won the Pennsylvania primary, several months after Mrs. Clinton joined other Democrats in opting out of a debate that Fox News was to sponsor, her campaign chairman Terry McAuliffe declared live on Fox, “Fair and Balanced Fox!” (The network was first to declare her the victor that night.) Last month the network signed Lanny Davis, a former special counsel to Bill Clinton and a vocal support of Mrs. Clinton, as a contributor.

But wait! There’s more!

“I thought that Fox’s coverage during the primary was comprehensive and fair and evenhanded,” Mr. Wolfson said Monday in a telephone interview from Liverpool, England, where he was vacationing. “It’s a huge audience, and it is important to have a strong, progressive voice on the network.”

SIDEBAR: Howard. After a long, hard-fought campaign, he finally gets a chance to kick back, relax and spend some quality time with those blue-collar, working class Americ—oh, wait. Never mind. END SIDEBAR

Bonus: GOP godfather Karl Rove is already an FNC talkie. He’s apparently excited about—ahem, working—with Wolfson.

“The guy is very smart,” Mr. Rove said. “He strikes me as a very able guy and surprisingly pleasant and amiable.”

Why surprisingly? “You see the Clinton attack machine and so forth,” he said, “but here’s a guy who’s very smart, and I always admire a passionate advocate, which he is.”

Rove? Talking about the Clinton attack machine?

Hahahahahahaha!!!

I didn’t know he was doing comedy now.

Hey, Roger: How about having Rove and Wolfson co-moderate FNC’s general election debate?

It sure would make the candidates themselves look ... um, how shall we say this?

A lot more reasonable.

Lottery lows

By Jennifer J. Foster

Seems like the idea comes up every year, in some form or another: A lottery in Alabama.

For EDUCATION, you know.

Wink, wink.

Well, sometimes the perceived panacea presents a plethora of problems all its own. From CNN’s American Morning:

When Scott Hoover bought a $5 scratch-off ticket in Virginia called “Beginner’s Luck” last summer, he carefully studied the odds. Even though he figured his chances of winning were a long shot, he felt the odds were reasonable.

Hoover, a business professor at Washington and Lee University in Virginia, wasn’t surprised when his tickets didn’t bring him the $75,000 grand prize, but he was shocked to learn the top prize had been awarded before he bought the ticket.

“I felt duped into buying these things,“ Hoover said.

He discovered the Virginia State Lottery was continuing to sell tickets for games in which the top prizes were no longer available. Public records showed that someone had already won the top prize one month before Hoover played. He is now suing the state of Virginia for breach of contract.

“It’s one thing to say it’s a long shot to win the $75,000, but it’s another thing to say you have no shot to win it,“ said John Fishwick, Hoover’s attorney.

Through a request filed under the Freedom of Information Act, Fishwick’s firm was able to obtain records that showed the Virginia State Lottery sold $85 million in tickets for which no top prize was available. Fishwick says the state should pay $85 million in damages.

The story goes on to say that about half of the 42 states that have lotteries were, as of early July, continuing to sell tickets after the top prizes are claimed, according to USA Today estimates.

State lottery officials defend the fairness of their games, arguing that since most prize money is awarded to second-, third- and fourth-place winners, just because the top prize isn’t available doesn’t mean the tickets are guaranteed losers.

Besides, they argue, their respective web sites make it clear what prizes are still on the table and what prizes aren’t.

Virginia lottery chief Paula Otto said, “Yes, there were times when there was a scratch game out there that might’ve said ‘zero’ in terms of the number of top prizes, but our players knew that.“

Dominick DeMarco, a spokesman with the New Jersey Lottery, gave a similar explanation for why tickets for the state’s “$1,000,000 Explosion” scratch-off game were still on sale last week, even though the million-dollar grand prize was already awarded. Information about winning tickets and prizes is readily available on the lottery web site and at retail outlets, he said.

Yeah, because availability always translates into accountability. Right, people-who-advocate-unlimited-campaign-contributions-as-long-as-they’re-listed-online?

Wrong. That’s exactly why they’re available online: Because they know regular folks—the folks who don’t spend 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 52 weeks out of the year studying politics and the labrynthine records politicians produce (or, in this case, lottery results)—don’t have the time or the inclination to sift through those databases. Disclosure does not necessarily mean scrutiny.

Simply put, it’s a cop-out.

So, I guess it’s a good thing we don’t have a lottery in Alabama.

After all, we don’t want any of that nasty gambling in our state.

Except at dog tracks ... and bingo halls ... and Indian casinos ... and on cruise ships ...