PROOF THAT WE ALREADY DON'T HAVE "DIVIDED GOVERNMENT"

It seems reasonable to assume that the suspension of Keith Olbermann is an attempt to curry favor with our new Republican overlords, quite possibly at the instigation of Kabletown Comcast chief operating officer Steve Burke, a major Bush fund-raiser, who's slated to take over MSNBC.

But, um, I thought what we were facing in Washington was divided government -- y'know, Republicans control one house of Congress, while Democrats still control the Senate and the White House?

I realize this gets into issues like the big difference between office-holding Democrats and genuine progressives of the Olbermann variety -- but still, the enemy of one's enemy is (usually) one's friend, right? In theory, shouldn't the president and other Democrats want to have the back of someone who's fighting the people they're fighting? Shouldn't they want MSNBC/Comcast to worry about negative consequences from doing something like this? Shouldn't both parties have the potential power to punish at this moment?

I know, I know: elected Democrats don't really share much of Olbermann's worldview or agenda. But beyond that, these fat cats can see that Obama and Congressional Dems won't use the power they still have.

That's an ongoing problem for Obama. I know I say this all the time, but consider the fact that Rupert Murdoch threw in his lot with Tony Blair when Blair seemed inevitable in England (and, by the way, endorsed Cuomo over Palladino this year in New York, the home base of Murdoch's U.S. interests), yet Murdoch and his media empire declared war on Obama from the very beginning of the administration, doubling down on the crazy in the last two years. Simple explanation: nobody fears Obama. Murdoch figured out early that he wasn't all that tough.

Obama could instill fear if he wanted to -- certainly in this case. But everyone knows he won't.