The insider

Philly's own Susie Madrak over at Suburban Guerrilla forwards a good point: For a guy who promised to shake up the Beltway establishment with "change," that new book sure shows Barack Obama to be the candidate of the insiders:

“The sort of mythology is that Hillary Clinton was the establishment candidate. That Obama had to run kind of a guerilla campaign against her. In fact, Obama was the establishment candidate. There were a number of United States senators, Democratic leaders, who secretly and privately encouraged him to run behind the Clintons' back,” Halperin said.

The interesting question is, why was this? People who were pre-disposed to support Hillary Clinton -- blogger Madrak was one of these -- would likely note that the Senate is still very much a boy's club, and Hillary is clearly not one of the boys. The other argument is that Bill and Hillary Clinton were carrying way too much baggage when they tried to re-board in 2008. The truth is out there, and it probably lies somewhere between those two schools of thought.

The other interesting thing about all the hype over "Game Change" is the dog that did not bark. The book is 448 pages and seems to dish a ton of dirt on everyone...except the man who actually won the 2008 election. Again, why? Media love of Obama? Another "tell" that Obama's the "establishment candidate"? Or is it that -- at least when it comes to the kind of slime that the authors were fishing for -- that there's really no "good dirt" to dish on the 44th president?