Check This!


Google Ad


Memeorandum


Powered by TypePad

House Control / TradeSports

May 16, 2008

Profiles In Courage (Self-Portrait Sub-Division)

This is pretty funny - in a recent speech Obama practically separates his shoulder patting himself on the back for entering the lion's den and, in a Detroit speech from May 2007, telling automakers they need to improve the fuel efficiency of their fleets:

"We're going to have do what I did when I went to Detroit and told the automakers that they're going to have to raise fuel-efficiency standards on cars. We can make more efficient cars right here in the United States. There's no way they have to be made in Japan. But, it requires that Detroit changes its ways. And I have to say that when I delivered that speech, nobody clapped. The room was really quiet. But that's OK, because that's part of what is the task of the next president."

There are just a couple of problems - the video of the Detroit speech is available, and in reality Obama was interrupted by applause at that point in the speech.  And why might he have been interrupted?  Well, Obama came laden with carrots as well as sticks; this is from the WaPo account of the Detroit speech:

Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) yesterday proposed federal assistance to help U.S. automakers cover the cost of their retired workers' health benefits if the companies invest in technology to improve their vehicles' fuel efficiency.

In a speech at the Detroit Economic Club, the Democratic presidential candidate offered a plan to ease the pain of U.S. automakers even as he reiterated support for higher fuel-efficiency standards.

...

Obama proposed that the government pay for 10 percent of domestic automakers' health-care costs for retired workers through 2017 if the firms plow half the savings into equipment for making more efficient cars and trucks. Obama's campaign estimates that this would cost taxpayers roughly $7 billion over the next 10 years.

In addition, Obama proposed tax incentives for retooling auto assembly plants and the extension of tax credits for hybrid vehicles beyond the current 60,000-cars-per-manufacturer limit. His campaign put the 10-year cost of his plan at $20 billion and said it would be covered by auctioning greenhouse gas permits under a cap-and-trade program that Obama also supports.

Let's hear it for taxpayer subsidies!  Greg Mankiw was scathing; the NY Times was laudatory, and barely mentioned the carrot part of the Obama speech.  However, they included this:

Despite Mr. Obama’s sometimes harsh words Monday, the diverse audience interrupted him 10 times for applause. “I think it took a lot of courage to come to Detroit and lay it on the line,” said Peter Eckstein, a retired labor union economist from Ann Arbor, Mich.

He's a hero!  And I know it's true because I read it in the Times.

MORE:  The LA Times blog also has this, and also connects it to the Hillary-Bosnia story.  Do we detect the dark power of Sidney Blumenthal?

May 15, 2008

Maybe Try To Smile When You Say That

The Obama campaign rises to defend the Sister Grim:

“This is a shameful attempt to attack a woman who has repeatedly said she wouldn’t be here without the opportunities and blessings of this nation,” says Obama spokesman Sevugan. Read full response.

Responding to tart Tennessee GOP video/press release attacking Michelle Obama for saying she had not been proud of America as an adult before the campaign.

Has she really said that repeatedly?  Has she ever smiled when she said it?  I have often said something similar to "I wouldn't be here without the blessings of this great nation" while standing on a crowded subway platform during a July heat wave, which is her most common demeanor; check the New Yorker profile, or the Chicago Tribune, or TIME, or Newsweek.

But fair's fair - in this version of her stump speech she does admit that she stands on the shoulders of giants and has beaten the odds, just before explaining to her audience how unlikely it is that any of them will do so.

Does Karl Rove Still Have The Magic?

Back in 2004 the Massachusetts Supreme Court and Gavin Newsom, Mayor of San Francisco, launched a national conversation on gay marriage.  Now the California Supreme Court may provide Republicans the same favor (I deplore these distractions).  We will find out at about 1 PM EDT; the WSJ blog has the relevant legal background but omits a key political point - in 2005 [and 2007] the California legislature narrowly passed a bill legalizing gay marriage; Schwarzenegger vetoed it as contrary to the 2000 referendum.

In a mad fit of shameless self-promotion, I will cite this old post from Feb 2004 as shockingly insightful, or anyway, inciteful - my gist was that "Loving v. Virgina", in which the Supreme Court struck down anti-miscegenation laws in 1967, was *not* an example of an activist court.  In fact, since many states had already repealed such statutes (and since Congress had recently passed the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act), my contention is that the Supreme Court ratified a societal change that had already occurred.

That will be quite different from the situation in California, clearly.  But as to what the popular will is in the Golden State, who knows?  A 2000 ballot initiative barring gay marriage passed with 61%; as mentioned, in 2005 the legislature ignored that; and now a new ballot initiative (this time in the form of a constitutional amendment) is poised to go on the November ballot.  It does appear that the people will be heard and a full judicial cram-down avoided.

MORE:  Ruling is here (172 page .pdf).  From p. 7:

We therefore conclude that in view of the substance and significance of the fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship, the California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all Californians, whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex couples.

I am not a lawyer and I have not read the rest, but my quick impression is that this is a finding of a right within the California constitution to gay marriage both in substance and in form (i.e., it will be called "marriage"), which brings the attempt to amend the constitution by way of ballot initiative into play for this November.  Loose the hounds!

DEPLORABLE DESCENT INTO SNIDENESS - Nothing about this yet at Sully's site?  Geez.

Team Volokh is reading what I'm reading.

Eugene Volokh:

California Supreme Court Holds That California Must Recognize Same-Sex Marriage

Orin Kerr:

California Supreme Court Holds That There Is A State Constitutional Right to Same-Sex Marriage in California

SNIDENESS REVISITED:  Lots of coverage by Andrew Sullivan (1, 2, 3, 4, 5); I liked this from his first post:

The most populous state now joins much of the rest of the Western world in bringing gay couples into the civic and human family as equals.

Really?  I would have inferred that they have joined Canada, Belgium, Holland, Spain and South Africa.  Not to overlook Massachusetts.  The list for civil partnerships is much longer, but that is not what this tussle is about.

I will agree with Andrew's point that this is not a clarion case of judicial activism, given the legislative support in 2005 and the high likelihood of a ballot initiative this fall.  Now, if the ballot initiative succeeds in amending the California constitution and the California Court strikes it down, we are into judicial wonderland.

SINCE YOU ASK:  My official editorial position has been that gay marriage is an idea whose time is coming (based on its strong support among the young and opposition among the elderly) and that it ought to arrive by way of the legislative process rather than by judicial fiat.

As to the merits, I have no idea how vast or trivial a social experiment we are talking about.  In Massachusetts and around the country black ministers were opposed - apparently they have had trouble promoting marriage to the young gangsta wanna-bes who are currently reluctant to do the white thing with their ladies; if marriage is further re-branded as a gay thing, they felt their challenge would be even greater.  Are they right?  And should we let the homophobia of a bunch of dysfunctional urban youth drive our social policy?  Or is this yet another liberal assault on the black family (To be filed under "What Else Is New?)

Well.  I think if we get to gay marriage by way of the tedious democratic process of mustering support and passing laws, we will be fine.  If we get there because some creative Obama judges, after contemplating the penumbras and emanations of the Constitution, come to the realization that our Founding Fathers really did endorse gay marriage, well, that will be divisive and a distraction.  And we don't want that.

FULL DISCLOSURE:  I am dating myself here but I am easily old enough to remember when the motivation behind the push for gay marriage in New York City was to enable gay tenants to pass along rent-controlled apartments to their significant other.  A bit later the AIDS crisis prompted a push for gay marriage to allow a spousal access to health insurance.  So the current talk about the desire for access to marriage as a fundamental expression of true love falls a bit flat to these tired ears.

ENCORE:  David Brooks on the conservative case for gay marriage as a stabilizing institution, from Nov. 2003.

FROM THE CANDIDATES:  Ben Smith of The Politico has statements from the campaign.  I like this summary:

... JMart wisely notes: Because Obama is not where the far left wants him to be (marriage) and McCain not where the far right wants him to be (a federal ban), this is not something either will probably make front and center.

A GI Bill Compromise?

Smart and necessary for McCain.

A Helpful Matt Bai Skipper

Times contributer Matt Bai will have a long NY Times magazine entry this Sunday.  Apparently it is an upscale attempt to Swiftboat John McCain (You know I use that term mockingly) by de-legitimizing his wartime experience.  My advice to Attack Dems intent on this path - have fun storming the castle!

Fortunately, we can all skip directly to the vivisection - Karl at Team Protein, Michael Goldfarb, and Capt. Ed cover the bases.

Briefly, Bai ignores the good news out of Basra (deadline problems?) and McCain's extensive study of insurgencies in the Naval War College after Vietnam.

Don't Know Much About History (Last Chapter?)

The Minuteman gets results!  OK, really the Rightosphere, but let me savor the moment.  We have had some fun mocking Obama's ahistorical notion, offered as justification for his willingness to talk with Iran, that Roosevelt and Truman negotiated with our enemies (Stalin was still our ally against Germany at the time of Tehran and Yalta).

But in a statement reported today, Obama seems to have cracked open the old history books:

It is time to turn the page on eight years of policies that have strengthened Iran and failed to secure America or our ally Israel. Instead of tough talk and no action, we need to do what Kennedy, Nixon and Reagan did and use all elements of American power -- including tough, principled, and direct diplomacy - to pressure countries like Iran and Syria.

Obama invoked Roosevelt and Truman and Kennedy during a victory speech following his win in North Carolina - presumably, he calculated that neither the moment nor the audience was right for an invocation of Nixon and Reagan as two of his guiding lights, and how many of his young supporters were likely to spot the error, or care?

Since Obama majored in international relations back in his Columbia days, I will opine that he knew he was blowing smoke with the "Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy" triumvirate, but liked its audience appeal.  That's new politics?

May 14, 2008

Good News From Basra

Betsy Newmark clips from the WSJ and the NY Times.

Almost Heaven, West Virginia

Hillary wins huge in West Virginia, with a 67-26 margin that doesn't count since it delivered by was older white people, some of whom are the sort of racists that would send a former Klansmen to the US Senate.  The critical significance of this result is explained by Matt Yglesias:

As the Clinton campaign sagely points out "no Democrat has won the White House without winning West Virginia since 1916" and therefore Obama's primary loss shows that despite his large lead in the polls over John McCain, he can't possible win the election.

What's even more interesting is that no Democrat has won the White House without carrying Minnesota since 1912 (it went for Teddy Roosevelt's Bull Moose party) so given that Obama won Minnesota and Clinton won West Virginia, McCain is guaranteed to win the general election unless the eventual nominee can somehow completely replicate the social and political conditions prevailing in pre-WWI America. The outlook, in short, is very grim.

If a vigorous discussion of Hillarity's renewed hope cannot hold people's attention, help me with this equally portentouus puzzle: is "Take Me Home, Country Roads" the best pick for state song of West Virginia (ignore this official list)?

Bonus Question - does John Denver score a second entry with "Rocky Mountain High"? 

And some real headscratchers:  First, I have a digitaly remastered version of Al Jolson singing "California, Here I Come", which can't be ruled out as a possible Best Song for California.  However, is Tony Bennet's "I Left My Heart In San Francisco" eligible?  It's really a city song, obviously, but if the judges let it in then they have to consider "New York, New York" as well.

Among Grand Champions it is very tough to beat "Oklahoma", but "Georgia On My Mind" could do it ("Midnight Train to Georgia" is a logical nominee and house fave, but we recognize our limitations, sometimes).

Some of these other states have songs that aren't obviously ghastly - Tennessee has "Rocky Top", and, if desperate, could share "Gimme a 'T" For Texas", and the Washington DC song ("Send In The Clowns") is a classic.  If folks have a great suggestion for New Jersey (A suggestion for a song) please share.  But that is where I am leaning for the big winner - Oklahoma.

OUTSIDE THE BOX:  Here it is - American President Idol!  The winner of each primary has to sing that state's song on national television.  Oh, you know that would be Must-See TV!  Must-See with the sound turned down, maybe...

May 13, 2008

History Is Bunk (Subcategory: Experience)

Dan McLaughlin writes on the importance of experience for a President; McQ provides the crib notes:

The "experience factor" is the most potent weapon the Republicans have to wield against an Obama candidacy. Sure there will be other factors which work against him as well, but in this age of terrorism and uncertainty (to include economic uncertainty), his lack of experience in just about every sphere should scare voters to death.

Obama's dazzle factor has, to this point, pretty well hidden his experience deficit. Now is the time to begin to bring out that deficit.

I deplore these distractions.

Creeping Towards A Denunciation Of Bill Ayers

Barack Obama took what might have been the first baby step towards renouncing and denouncing Bill Ayers, who worked with Obama on the Chicago Annenberg Challenge for several years in addition to their widely-publicized stint together on the board of the Woods Fund of Chicago:

Making a token appearance today in veteran-heavy West Virginia, Obama will say this at a rally:

One of the saddest episodes in our history was the degree to which returning vets from Vietnam were shunned, demonized and neglected by some because they served in an unpopular war. Too many of those who opposed the war in Vietnam chose to blame not only the leaders who ordered the mission, but the young men who simply answered their country’s call. Four decades later, the sting of that injustice is a wound that has never fully healed, and one that should never be repeated.

I'll take a chance and generously suggest that even though he specifically referred to "returning vets", Obama would not consider an attempt to bomb active duty officers as consistent with supporting the troops.  Let's cut to Salon for background on Bill Ayers' Weathermen:

Three Weathermen had blown themselves up while building a bomb in a Greenwich Village townhouse, no more than a mile from where Rudd is sitting today. To the group's everlasting shame, that bomb was intended for an officers' dance at Fort Dix, N.J., where it presumably could have killed not only military personnel but their civilian dates and whoever else might have been in the building.

Obama was heroically wearing a flag pin as well, but not in a gimmicky or pandering way - today, it was just his heartfelt desire to wear his patriotism on his sleeve, or lapel, anyway; on another day, he will no doubt offer a more nuanced expression of his patriotism through word and deed.

SPITTING ON VETS:  Don't even ask.  Let me set the stage by quoting fantasist Paul Krugman:

On the other hand, we should bear in mind that many people believe things about Vietnam that never happened, like demonstrators spitting on returning soldiers.

Uh huh.  Given the long back story and eventual resolution, I would say that Krugman serves as a useful example of a lefty believing what he wants to believe, aided and abetted by left-wing academic bias: the original notion that spat-upon veterans was a myth was coined by a Prof. Jerry Lembcke, a former Vietnam war protester intent on rehabilitating the image of war protesters in the  run-up to Desert Storm.   

And for a bit of perspective, let's note that Lembcke also argued that Vietnam post-traumatic stress disorder was a media construct from the late 70's intended to discredit protesting anti-war veterans, despite John Kerry's 1973 anti-war testimony about suicidal, drug-addled, unemployed vets intended to discredit the Pentagon war effort.  The grinding of Lembcke's axe is audible across the years (but not to Krugman).

 

Blacks And Hillbillies

I'm just glad it was not a thoughtful and sensitive righty who wrote this:

And the level of paranoia and stupidity in some areas of the Middle East eclipses that in Harlem or West Virginia.

I guess that answers the rhetorical question asked about Bill O'Reilly's visit to a Harlem restaurant:

"And I couldn't get over the fact that there was no difference between Sylvia's restaurant and any other restaurant in New York City. I mean, it was exactly the same, even though it's run by blacks, primarily black patronship," - Bill O'Reilly, on a Harlem restaurant. What was he expecting?

I guess he was expecting paranoia and stupidity, right?  Baffling.

Well, since this is coming from an Obama supporter, the "elitist" tag fits snugly.

EVEN PARANOIDS HAVE REAL ADDRESSES... Just what is the defense of this - that there are real paranoids in Harlem and West Virginia, and stupid people, too?  Who can doubt it?  But I would never single out those two areas as the pinnacles of paranoia and kookery in America without even entertaining nominating speeches in favor of California or the Upper West Side.

STRETCHING AND STRAINING:  How about a defense such as "The Clintons are headquartered in Harlem and campaigning in West Virginia, so really this was a swipe at them"?  Right.  Of course, it makes no sense in context, but someone might buy it. 

May 11, 2008

Focus On Obama - A SOFT Focus

The enterprising team at All The News That Fits The Narrative work hard to report on Obama's political history without actually disturbing his supporters.

Their coverage of his relationship with Bill Ayers is too incurious to be an accident:

Mr. Obama also fit in at Hyde Park’s fringes, among university faculty members like Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, unrepentant members of the radical Weather Underground that bombed the United States Capitol and the Pentagon to protest the Vietnam War. Mr. Obama was introduced to the couple in 1995 at a meet-and-greet they held for him at their home, aides said.

Now, along with Mr. Obama’s former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., Mr. Ayers has become a prime exhibit in the effort by Mr. Obama’s presidential rivals to highlight what could be politically radioactive associations. In 2001, Mr. Ayers said he did not regret the Weatherman bombings. Even so, in Hyde Park, he and his wife were viewed favorably for their work in addressing city problems. Mr. Ayers was just “a guy who lives in my neighborhood,” Mr. Obama said recently.

The two men were involved in efforts to reform the city’s education system. They appeared together on academic panels, including one organized by Michelle Obama to discuss the juvenile justice system, an area of mutual concern. Mr. Ayers’s book on the subject won a rave review in The Chicago Tribune by Mr. Obama, who called it “a searing and timely account.”

"The two men were involved in efforts to reform the city’s education system"?  Bill Ayers was instrumental in writing the grant proposal that led to the formation of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, and worked closely with the group for several years after its inception; the first chairman of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge was Barack Obama.  That seems to merit a lot more exposition than the Times delivers.  The Times might have started by asking the Obama team whether they would care to expand on their "Fact Check" on the Ayers-Obama relationship, which somehow overlooked their mutual interest in education.

Now, is it possible the Times was utterly unaware of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge connection, yet was broadly aware of their mutual interest in education reform?  Who can tell?  However, right now a Google on "Obama Ayers Chicago school reform" offers  links to four different posts on the first page (1, 2, 3, 4)that mention the relationship, including a Hot Air post helpfully titled "Did Obama Work For Bill Ayers?".  Yet somehow the Times either missed this or buried it.

Much later the Times covers the  current scuffle between McCain and Obama over Hamas - this is  pure cover-up:

But for all of Mr. Obama’s attentiveness to Jewish concerns about Israel, Republican Party officials have made it clear that they think this is an area of vulnerability. Though Mr. Obama has condemned Hamas, a militant Palestinian group, as a terrorist organization, just last week Senator John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee for president, suggested that the group wanted to see Mr. Obama in the White House. Mr. Obama denounced that suggestion as a “smear.”

Missing from the Times reporting is that McCain was not merely offering his opinion as to Hamas' likely view, but was simply passing along the assessment of Obama offered by a Hamas spokesperson on WABC radio.  And since Mr. Axelrod of the Obama campaign had reacted to the Hamas "endorsement", it is fair to assert that the Obama campaign is well aware that McCain is not simply offering his opinion - is McCain's statement a smear if it the truth?  [I now see that I missed this Saturday whitewash from the Times, eviscerated by Dean Barnett.  See "DOES NOT ADVOCATE", below]

FERTILE GROUND:  In a recent article with extended excerpts from Michelle Obama's stump speech she explained how Obama heroically turned down the millions of dollars available to him on a conventional corporate law career path in order to join a small law firm focusing on civil rights (1, 2).  The Times describes that as a carefully calculated political decision intended to jump start his career, which is flourishing, what with the best-sellers and the Presidential prospects.  Whatever.

Here we go:

This is a man who walked away from a career on Wall Street more than two decades ago to become a community organizer on the South Side of Chicago, setting up after-school programs, and bringing jobs to the jobless. Who turned down a lucrative career as a corporate lawyer to organize 150,000 new voters, mostly black, in one of Chicago’s biggest voter registration drives – and who, by the way, has been fighting for our voting rights ever since.

THOSE DARN STAFFERS:  On two different occasions reported by the Times Obama explains a seeming flip-flip by blaming staffers for misrepresenting his views.  Ooops!  A critic might note it is the boss's job to hire and organize the staff, but again, whatever.  [Jake Tapper extends and amplifies this point.]

DOES NOT ADVOCATE:  The Saturday Times "examined" the McCain-Obama-Hamas scuffle and included this howler (emphasis added):

But important nuances appear to have been lost in the partisan salvos, particularly on Mr. McCain’s side. An examination of Mr. Obama’s numerous public statements on the subjects indicates that he has consistently condemned Hamas as a “terrorist organization,” has not sought the group’s support and does not advocate immediate, direct or unconditional negotiations with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president.

Hmm, so why does that unscrupulous John McCain think he does?  Maybe it was this story from last summer in the Times describing the You-Tube debate:

Perhaps the sharpest point of difference came when the candidates were asked if, during their first year as president, they would be willing to meet without preconditions with the presidents and dictators of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea.

''I would,'' said Senator Barack Obama of Illinois. ''And the reason is this: that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them, which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration, is ridiculous.''

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, who has also criticized the Bush administration for ''not talking to our enemies,'' took a different tack, pledging robust diplomacy but refusing to make that promise of leader-to-leader talks.

Or maybe McCain was relying on this follow-up coverage:

For days, Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton have been exchanging retorts over the wisdom of sitting down for diplomatic meetings with hostile dictators. In case voters had not been following along, Mr. Obama sought to inform them, weaving his side of the dispute into the overarching message of his campaign.

“Some of you noticed that this week I got in a debate with one of my colleagues who is also running for the presidency,” Mr. Obama said Friday night, opening a two-day trip to Iowa. “The debate was about whether we talk to world leaders even if you don’t like them. My theory is that you do.”

The quarrel emerged from this week’s debate in South Carolina, when Mrs. Clinton said she would not meet with foreign leaders, including those of Iran and North Korea, without preconditions. She later criticized Mr. Obama’s response as “irresponsible and, frankly, naïve.”

Those four words touched off the most direct confrontation yet in the fight for the Democratic nomination. And Mr. Obama worked to keep the distinction alive during a weekend trip to Iowa, turning the disagreement into an example of how he would lead the country differently.

“Our standing in the world has diminished so much because people think that the United States wants to dictate across the world instead of cooperate across the world,” Mr. Obama said Saturday. “When we start sending a signal that we are ready to engage in serious diplomacy, then we’ve got the opportunity to stand before the world and say: We’re back. America is back.”

Or maybe McCain was relying on Obama's web site:

Renewing American Diplomacy

  • ...
  • Talk to our Foes and Friends: Obama is willing to meet with the leaders of all nations, friend and foe. He will do the careful preparation necessary, but will signal that America is ready to come to the table, and that he is willing to lead. And if America is willing to come to the table, the world will be more willing to rally behind American leadership to deal with challenges like terrorism, and Iran and North Korea's nuclear programs.

 

May 09, 2008

Don't Know Much About History... (Reprise)

Think about this - the probable next President of the United States does not know even the broad outlines of the history of American foreign policy from WWII forward and does not know the history of Democratic icons Roosevelt or Truman.  We had kvetched about this earlier.  The fateful quote from Barack's Tuesday victory speech is this:

"I trust the American people to understand that it is not weakness, but wisdom to talk not just to our friends, but to our enemies, like Roosevelt did, and Kennedy did, and Truman did."

Hope and change!

MORE: STALIN IT IS!  Here is Obama at a March 27 2008 fundraiser:

"I think people understand the notion of talking to our enemies," Obama said. "If FDR can meet with Stalin and Nixon can meet with Mao and Kennedy can meet with Khrushchev and Reagan can meet with Gorbechav, then the notion that we can't meet with some half-baked dictator is ridiculous."

Well, Stalin was a fully-baked dictator, but he was also our ally against Nazi Germany when he met with Roosevelt.  For a good example of "half-baked" we need look no further than Barack's proposed meeting with Ahmadinejad.

SOME BACKGROUND: Here is an account of the debate where this came up:

In the debate, Obama was asked if he would be willing to meet — without precondition — in the first year of his presidency with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea.

"I would," he responded.

Clinton said she would not.

"I don't want to be used for propaganda purposes," she said. Her campaign quickly posted video of her answer online, trying to show she has a different understanding of foreign policy than her chief rival.

RETURN TO SENDER:  No, letters don't count (and I already had pointed out the Roosevelt-Hitler letter) - letters do not provide the sort of propaganda photo-op being criticized.  Besides, Bush has sent a letter to Kim Jong Il, but where is the photo of the two of them shaking hands?

BRINGING IT TOGETHER:  McCain wants to bash Obama on Hamas, and has criticized Obama's intention to confer legitimacy on the Iranian regime by meeting without preconditions.  Well, if Obama is justifying that meeting by reference to historical parallels that exist only in the imaginations of himself and his speechwriters, that is troubling.

And having an Obama adviser caught chatting with Hamas is not helpful for Obama's cred, either.

EXPANDING THE ELECTORAL MAP:  Set aside his evident deficiencies in American post-war history (Nooo, not the Vietnam war) and think about this - Obama is still hazy on how many states there are in the Union, not to mention the normally uncontroversial status of Alaska and Hawaii.  Marc Ambinder has the video of Obama claiming that he has visited 57 states (Hmm, maybe he was sampling Heinz ketchups...).  Obama made a similar whoopsie when chatting with the AP a few weeks ago - back then, he was talking about forty-eight states, plus Alaska and Hawaii.

I would tell him to check the flag in his lapel, but of course he won't be wearing one.  [OK, maybe he did check his lapel pin...]

DOCTOR, DOCTOR, GIMME THE NEWS:  MRI, stat:

This faux pas is beyond weird; I know the guy is tired, but “How many states are there in America?” is the kind of question they ask you at the hospital after you've had a seizure to see if your brain is still working.

He Who Controls The Past Controls The Future

Some Duke academics are trying to re-write the history of the Duke lacrosse debacle; KC Johnson won't let them.

He's outnumbered but they are outgunned.  Sorry, scary metaphor which might alarm the Duke profs; please substitute "they are out-classed".  And Prof. Johnson's alliance with the truth won't hurt his chances either.

My guess is that this tussle will go on for years as the Duke profs continue their revisionism in various sympathetic outlets.

POLITICAL BONUS:  Per Prof. Johnson, Obama was the only Presidential candidate to call for a DoJ investigation of Nifong.

Sell Out (1)


Traffic



Wilson/Plame

Reading