Just last week I returned to Brazil from the U.S. (I've been an expat for 23 years.) I spent two weeks, entirely in the South, traipsing over Arkansas, Tennessee, Mississippi and Alabama. In between road trips I had a fair chance at the news. Summary of my reaction: Not. Happy.

The news was like an animated gif in endless loop and about as informative as said gif is entertaining.

Over-groomed talking heads, spawning blondes and toothy smiles and even cleavage, can't wait for co-host or guest to finish talking, but produce a babel I could get -- and participate in -- at a family reunion or backyard barbecue.

Flashy intros worthy of game shows tip us off to the shallow blather tagged as news.

Commentators and consultants ring the plexiglass tables with their eyes on the choicest riposte, analyzing replays of arched eyebrows, finger games, factual goofs and political gaffes.

All the while, the world rotates on its axis, and Americans haven't a clue as to what makes it spin.

In record time I got my fill of American news, glad to be back home where, by choice, the TV stays mute and the silence continues golden.

HIllary's campaign, with her full knowledge and probably by her direction, planted a question during a town hall meeting in Newton, Iowa, in order to discuss clean energy.

Sen. Clinton's answer makes it plain that she knew about and was expecting the question, despite denials by the campaign spokesperson:

Questioner: "As a young person, I'm worried about the long-term effects of global warming. How does your plan combat climate change?"

Clinton: "Well, you should be worried. You know, I find as I travel around Iowa that it's usually young people that ask me about global warming."

Questioner Muriel Gallo-Chasanoff, a college student, was primed by campaign staffers as to what and how to ask. They prompted Sen. Clinton to call on her, she admitted to the college newspaper.

The choice of a college student was deliberate, signaling an attempt to target younger voters. Both the question and Clinton's answer emphasized global warming as a concern of young people.

But Gallo-Chasanoff outed the campaign strategy in the paper's article.

The tactic demonstrates the Clinton mania to manipulate, as far as possible, all contingencies, so that the chips fall in her favor. Ethics bars no method; the only considerations are success and stealth.

Gallo-Chasanoff proves that not everyone is on the same page as Hillary. Americans repudiate manipulation. This planting bore bitter fruit, which may well derail Clinton's Iowa campaign and the entire primary race.

For whatsoever a woman sows, that shall she also reap.

I like Mike Huckabee because he's articulate and natural. He knows how to think on his feet. Unlike some stiff candidates who think fake cackles sound natural or take phone calls from the missus during speeches.

I like Mike because he had the gumption to face his stuffed gut and get the weight off. He's got discipline and mettle.

I like Mike because he's a one-woman man. He's a man of his word, to stick to a commitment, even when the going gets tough.

I like Mike because he's positioned to clear Arkansas' bad name, post-Clinton. I'm ready to give Hope another chance.

I like Mike because of his solid political and moral positions. They're not trumped up, nor retuned. No twists or turns, no campaign-eve conversions. Certainly, no in-your-face liberal taunts, nor attempted buy-offs by promising judges who'd rule by the book.

I like Mike because of his religious convictions (though I'm not a Baptist). He's a man of real faith, belonging to a mainstream group, not a fringe religion with wild and weird beliefs.

I like Mike because he's a man of the people. He wasn't born with an investment portfolio in his crib.

I like Mike because he's willing to stump hard, stay up late, start early, not lose heart. He's no freddy-come-lately.

I like Mike because he's an underdog, under-funded, under-staffed. Means he probably tries harder. And I like to root for underdogs who are pure-blood conservatives.

I like Mike because he's got the right mix, not wet behind the ears, experienced, but new enough that we've not tired of seeing his face before congressional cameras and sanctimonious sound-bites.

I like Mike because he can stir the religious right as a presidential candidate, without which a conservative candidate cannot win.

I like likeable Mike, not just because he's likeable, but because he's the man. For the job. For the times. For America.

Donald Lambro calls them "social issues." Pat Buchanan calls them "social and cultural issues." For some, those are good tags. Considering the weak support evangelicals give to them, in spite of their talk, they are probably fairly accurate.

But for others, these are misnomers, for they are in truth non-negotiable moral issues, just as conservative principles of limited government are supposed to be to the Republican Party. It's all too true that many so-called Christians vote more with their pocketbook than with their conscience. Others, even at the cost of losing an election, from frustrations of betrayal by a long string of double-talking candidates, will stick to their convictions.

But let's be reasonable, we're told. Since no candidate is perfect, we should take what we can get. With that kind of thinking, we'll always get not only the imperfect, but the deeply flawed. Lowered expectations yield bitter fruits.

If the religious conservatives are becoming less of a force within the Republican Party, it is because they feel betrayed and their commitment to the party is nearing the breaking point. Many will continue to take what they can get and be content; others will vote even for Hillary thinking Bill was responsible for bringing us a good economy.

A significant number of religious conservatives, however, has had it with the empty promises of politics and will either sit out another election, opt out completely or take a narrower road with a third party, whose success will be doubtful but whose principles, they hope, will be clearer. Better a loss with integrity than playing the fool again to lose in the win.

"If the systemic failures will be corrected, we will be able to fly to Brazil. If not, we won't go. It is not safe to go there by plane. It's what I recommend to all my friends and family, that they not travel by plane to Brazil." (my translation*) -- Marc Baumgartner, president, International Federation of Air Traffic Controllers

Baumgartner accuses the Brazilian Air Force, which oversees the military air traffic controllers and the civilian  aviation infrastructure, of failure to correct problems inherent in the system. Meanwhile, boating between continents is the way to go, one supposes. And within the country, larger than the continental U.S., take a bus. For days on end.

*The original quote: "Se as falhas sistêmicas forem corrigidas, nós poderemos voar para o Brasil. Caso contrário, não iremos. Não é seguro ir de avião para lá. É o que recomendo a todos os meus amigos e familiares, que não viajem de avião para o Brasil". (Terra/BBC Brasil)