« February 24, 2008 - March 1, 2008 | Main | March 9, 2008 - March 15, 2008 »
Saturday, March 8, 2008
Face Of The Day
08 Mar 2008 10:21 pm
Auschwitz survivor Mr. Leon Greenman, prison number 98288, shows his prison number tattooed on his arm December 9, 2004 at the Jewish Museum in London, England. Mr. Greenman O.B.E age 93 and a British citizen, spent three years of his life in six different concentration camps during World War II and since 1946 he has tirelessly recounted his life through his personal exhibition at the museum where he conducts educational events to all age groups. Greenman died today at the age of 97. By Ian Waldie/Getty.
Cookie Monster
08 Mar 2008 08:22 pm
Was Samantha Power half-right?
Email Of The Day
08 Mar 2008 06:47 pm
A reader writes:
Even though I am an Obama supporter, I have always resented your remarks about Hillary and thought you were being unfair. You were right, the woman is evil!
Inside Cheney's Brain
08 Mar 2008 06:34 pm
The question is: does McCain share it?
Obama's Wyoming Margin
08 Mar 2008 05:21 pm
Be careful when interpreting results:
Again, the 59-41 numbers you are seeing after 7 counties have reported are NOT the relevant numbers. The relevant numbers are the number of delegates each county sends to the state convention. Right now Obama has 62.8% of the delegates apportioned to the state convention - not 59%... this is an important distinction that most seem to be missing...
The current vote tally is 58 percent to 41 percent with 91 percent of precincts reporting. and the voting is more like most primaries than most caucuses:
Instead of the traditional caucus format, most of Wyoming’s 23 counties held caucuses conducted by paper ballots, where participants simply placed a check mark next to the name of their chosen presidential candidate and put the slip into a ballot box.
Money quote:
“Wyomingites are pretty independent,” Mrs. Dunn said. “We like somebody who speaks like him.”
The West has its share of Obamacans.
(Photo: Obama in Wyoming by Emmanuel Dunand/Getty.)
McCain's Temper?
08 Mar 2008 05:18 pm
I have to say I don't see much of a problem with his responses to Elizabeth Bumiller:
"The Clinton Rules"
08 Mar 2008 04:48 pm
A post perhaps worth a second weekend airing. It was a frenzied week and the blog zips by so fast, it's not even on the front page any more. My advice for Obama here.
The Clintons' Tax Returns
08 Mar 2008 04:45 pm
You can now sign an online petition demanding that they do what Obama has already done.
Wyoming
08 Mar 2008 04:31 pm
Huge turnout; small state by population and delegates. But Obama is leading by his usual caucus margin: around 60 - 40.
The View From Your Window
08 Mar 2008 04:30 pm
Ghent, Belgium, 5 pm.
Sex In Literature
08 Mar 2008 03:31 pm
Lee Rourke doesn't approve:
Sex does not belong on the page, not the type of sex scene we read in contemporary literary fiction anyway; for me, when I encounter it there, in countless modern lifestyle novels, it is a form of nothingness, hanging on the page, dislocated from the rest of the book.
When novelists try to make their sex scenes literary, when they try to orchestrate each moan and groan into the book, wasting all that time trying to create the perfect scene, trying to make it seem believable, they fail miserably. The literary approach to writing a decent, believable sex scene is the most embarrassing thing about contemporary literary fiction today.
Just do it.
Thinking, Re-Thinking Iraq, Ctd.
08 Mar 2008 03:27 pm
A reader writes:
I have come to view the Iraq occupation in terms of post Civil-War Reconstruction.
When the North ended its occupation of the former Confederacy, it arguably left something as bad as--or possibly worse than--the slavery it had deposed in the Civil War...the Jim Crow South. Possibly worse because it was built on a lie, the political lie that the black man was free and equal to his former white masters, while slavery was at least open and honest about the status of the black in society.
The North could have stayed until the South was ready to really live up to the words of the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments ... but that might have taken most of a century to achieve, a century in which the natives of the old Confederacy would have festered a deep resentment of their occupiers, as any occupied people will--while the North grew to resent the money and manpower required to control a restive South.
I think the analogy to Iraq is clear. Staying or going is harmful to the US as a nation. The question is which is worse. I think staying is worse, because it gives no chance for the people of Iraq to work out their own solutions.
Creating An Electronic Brain
08 Mar 2008 03:15 pm
As fascinating as it is, in many ways, disturbing:
After only a few electrical jolts, the artificial neural circuit began to act just like a real neural circuit. Clusters of connected neurons began to fire in close synchrony: the cells were wiring themselves together. Different cell types obeyed their genetic instructions. The scientists could see the cellular looms flash and then fade as the cells wove themselves into meaningful patterns. Dendrites reached out to each other, like branches looking for light. "This all happened on its own," Markram says. "It was entirely spontaneous." For the Blue Brain team, it was a thrilling breakthrough. After years of hard work, they were finally able to watch their make-believe brain develop, synapse by synapse. The microchips were turning themselves into a mind.
Hat tip: Mind Hacks.
Quote For The Day II
08 Mar 2008 01:52 pm
"I don’t know there was much she did apart from accompanying Bill [Clinton] going around. She visited when things were happening, saw what was going on, she can certainly say it was part of her experience. I don’t want to rain on the thing for her but being a cheerleader for something is slightly different from being a principal player," - David Trimble, former First Minister of Northern Ireland on Hillary Clinton's absurd lie that she "helped bring peace to Northern Ireland."
Washington Moment
08 Mar 2008 01:36 pm
I was lucky enough to be invited to an off-the-record dinner with the king and queen of Jordan last week. Under the rules, I can't say anything they said, but I did have a rare laugh. I was seated next to Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post who was impressed, as anyone would be, with the beauty of one of his hosts.
"I've never seen a queen with muscle tone like that," he whispered over the starter.
He's clearly never been to my gym.
Quote For The Day
08 Mar 2008 01:13 pm
"She isn't Satan, but they definitely hang out," - a commenter on Digg.
Maher vs McAuliffe
08 Mar 2008 01:05 pm
Good for Bill:
The Torture President
08 Mar 2008 12:38 pm
George W. Bush vetoes a bill in order to keep using torture techniques perfected by the Nazis and deployed by the Khmer Rouge.
The Campaign In One Minute
08 Mar 2008 12:33 pm
Reihan explains it all for you:
Beer Bot
08 Mar 2008 12:27 pm
The future is now. I have an ex-boyfriend who would love one of these.
Thinking, Re-Thinking Iraq
08 Mar 2008 12:07 pm
A reader writes:
One way of looking at the 'correction' in your thinking regarding the war is to say that in the wake of 9/11 your judgment was impaired by the sheer emotionally destabilizing power of that event. In this state you could simply not think clearly about what a decision to go to war really means and so once confronted with the realities attendant to all wars you became disillusioned.
Conservatives like myself sometimes use this defense to explain why they suddenly found themselves open to appeals made by those who believed Arabs capable of secular democratic self rule. We too have experienced (or re-experienced) disillusionment. As I said, we all make mistakes. But supporting a war is not like supporting other political positions we might take from time to time. If emotionalism caused you to support this war, perhaps it is the same phenomenon that now causes you to seek ways to abandon it even as hopeful signs continue to mount. The flip side of romanticism is paranoia and despair. The reason no serious person takes the get out argument seriously - even those who opposed the war originally - is that it is simply and manifestly unserious.
In my own case, while I still hold out hope that Iraqis will emerge from their ordeal with something better then what they could ever have hoped for with out it, my arguments have shifted more heavily towards the pragmatic. But part of that pragmatism is the certainty that whatever loss to our moral credibility you imagine Abu Ghraib to have represented, we could not survive the abandonment of the Iraqis to those who would fill the breach in our absence.
I'm grateful for the painfully tough critique. I'm particularly grateful because it exposes the rawness of the choice before all of us - whatever our various positions on this war since 2002 (and the polls alone will tell you that a hefty majority of Americans have shifted positions - quite rationally, I should add - since the war began). Let me respond to a couple of points as best I can.
Are "the realities of all wars" similar to what has befallen us in Iraq? I don't think so. Those of us who have changed our mind on Iraq have not done so because we have been shocked that war costs lives or money or suffers setbacks. In many ways, it was stunning to see how successful the actual war to depose Saddam was in terms of casualties and disruption. Awful - but by historical standards, very swift and remarkably free of collateral fatalities on any large scale. The problem is the occupation, which is now almost in its fifth year, and the multiple, shifting insurgencies, counter-insurgencies and insurgencies against insurgencies that have happened since - and the appalling human casualties on all sides that continue.
The occupation force was never big enough to prevent the disintegration of Iraq, and was also denied, retroactively, its primary justification: the securing of stockpiles of WMDs. Its sole legitimacy springs from its attempt to create a functioning non-dependent non-despotism in a unitary state called Iraq (a task self-evidently quixotic, at this point, for the foreseeable future). So now, its point is to prevent something worse. We have created a vacuum and only we can fill it. And so the occupation continues, with no logical or feasible end-point. Do we really believe we will ever be able to leave Iraq to a unitary, non-despotic, America-friendly government? And if we came up with the illusion that we had, how long would it take, after our departure, for it to become otherwise? I don't want to be too pessimistic here, but I also want to be realistic. This is the Arab Middle East. It has always defied the ability of external powers to control, shape or understand it. Once we lost the window of opportunity to use the shock and power of Saddam's removal to imprint a new country with a template strong enough to hold, it's been a vortex of unintended consequences (largely, the empowerment of Iran).
So we can say one of two things:
Continue reading "Thinking, Re-Thinking Iraq" »
Drugs And Enlightenment
08 Mar 2008 10:49 am
The more we are able to change the physical composition of the body and our brains, the more our societies can shift. That's partly what coffee did when it took off in the eighteenth century. What would happen if we invented a better, smarter drug - one that
can reduce your need for sleep, increase your concentration and make you smarter, with minimal side effects?
A second Enlightenment? Cranky dissent here.
A House Out Of Newspapers
08 Mar 2008 09:01 am
Very cool. There's got to be some good use for them these days.
Friday, March 7, 2008
Daily Zen
07 Mar 2008 09:07 pm
After this week, maybe we should all take a breath and relax a little.
Face Of The Day
07 Mar 2008 07:58 pm
Angelo Mozilo, founder and former CEO, Countrywide Financial Corporation, testifies during a House Oversight and Government Reform hearing on Capitol Hill March 7, 2008 in Washington, DC. The committee is examining the compensation and retirement packages granted to the CEOs of corporations deeply involved in the current mortgage crisis. By Mark Wilson/Getty Images.
What Foreign Policy Experience?
07 Mar 2008 06:33 pm
The Chicago Tribune does us all a service by examining what exactly is Senator Clinton's experience. Read the whole thing, but the Macedonia and Northern Ireland claims are the most revealing:
Pressed in a CNN interview this week for specific examples of foreign policy experience that has prepared her for an international crisis, Clinton claimed that she "helped to bring peace" to Northern Ireland and negotiated with Macedonia to open up its border to refugees from Kosovo.
Both claims are ludicrously untrue. All she did in Northern Ireland was have tea with some local peace activist women. Laura Bush could argue, by that token, that she has ended AIDS in Africa. But here's the beaut:
The Macedonian government opened its border to refugees the day before Clinton arrived to meet with government leaders.
Clinton has next to no foreign policy experience. And no executive experience. She has less legislative experience than Obama. And she has not just exaggerated, but flat-out lied, about her non-achievements. I'm glad the Tribune has done this. Can the rest of media follow up?
(Photo: Mannie Garcia/Getty.)
Quote For The Day
07 Mar 2008 06:24 pm
A reader offers:
We've all heard about the politics of personal destruction. Clinton is practicing the politics of Party destruction.
Marty Peretz On Obama
07 Mar 2008 05:44 pm
I have to say it makes me feel reassured that my old boss and friend has taken the position that he has in this election, however much that might tick off Matt. It's odd that I don't feel queasy about Obama the way I do about someone like Jimmy Carter or Tony Lake or even Madeleine Albright. After the last few years, the prospect of real diplomacy should not be ignored. But Obama is not, I think, a naive dreamer. Back to Marty:
A case can be made for sitting down with our enemies -- as long as we understand that they are our enemies.
So Barack Obama's belief in the power of speech worries me in the realm of foreign affairs. But otherwise he has won my confidence. Unlike the isolationists in the guise of idealists, or the cheerleaders for violence who pretend to be pacifists and populists, Mr. Obama is a patriot of the old cadence and the old convictions, and not easily pushed around. If he is elected president, he will disappoint many of his supporters, and surprise many of his detractors.
I have the same hunch.
Are Even Iowa's Delegates Decided?
07 Mar 2008 05:32 pm
Apparently not. This seems to be becoming a bigger clusterfuck with every passing day.
Splutters
07 Mar 2008 05:30 pm
How can the Clintonites justify tossing questions about Rezko at Obama but decrying his questions about her tax returns, equating his queries with Ken Starr's inquisition into Whitewater and Monicagate?
A better question: How can David still be asking "how can?" of the Clintons.
Advice For Obama
07 Mar 2008 04:48 pm
Matt Cooper's two cents:
Hope is a great message. Math isn't. Whining's even worse.
My view is still that Obama should not go negative. His surrogates and supporters should - especially those of us who remember the Clintons' sleazy, polarizing past. But he does need to become more aggressive and more direct. I should add: asking for the Clintons to release their tax returns is not negative. Pointing out that Clinton has very little experience in foreign policy is also not negative. It's simply true. One way of not going negative while being aggressive would be to explain, along the lines of this post, why the Clintons represent the past and the Washington establishment; why they actually mean a third term of Rovism. He has to stop hoping that his veiled references to Rove-Morris politics somehow sink in with people, without spelling it out. He needs not just to resist the Clintons' tactics, but to expose them. And show them as the bankrupt, irrelevant diversion that they are.
And then remind us whey we long to get past them; and why he alone can do it.
Your Moment Of Reihan
07 Mar 2008 04:33 pm
It's Friday. It's the Atlantic library. And Reihan's head explodes:
An "As If" Personality
07 Mar 2008 04:27 pm
Psychologist Ellen Ladowsky examines why Hillary Clinton remains so creepy to so many. I prefer Hitch's formulation: the kind of person who never wants the meeting to end. If you've ever been on a condo board, you know the type.
What Peggy Wrote
07 Mar 2008 04:24 pm
A fantastic column, in my view. She's one of the few conservatives with her eyes wide open. This was particularly good:
[Clinton] is hardy, resilient, tough. She is a train on a track, an Iron Horse. But we must not become carried away with generosity. The very qualities that impress us are the qualities that will make her a painful president. She does not care what you think, she will have what she wants, she will not do the feints, pivots and backoffs that presidents must. She is neither nimble nor agile, and she knows best. She will wear a great nation down.
Go, Already!
07 Mar 2008 03:48 pm
Jon Chait on the fratricidal maniac that is Hillary Clinton. Money quote:
Pennsylvania is a swing state that Democrats will almost certainly need to win in November, and Clinton will spend seven weeks and millions of dollars there making the case that Obama is unfit to set foot in the White House. You couldn't create a more damaging scenario if you tried.
If she cannot win the White House, she wants McCain to beat Obama. She is clearing the ground for him. A reader points out what the Clintons' next move would be as McCain takes office:
She and her numerous supporters will view this as a repudiation of Obama, not Clinton. If he loses the general election as a result of this, it will prove her right all along—that the only way to further the Democratic agenda is to beat the Republicans at their game. New politics will have been a sham. If the victors write the history books, then the triumph of cynicism will not be cause for despair, but rather cause for celebration of the one cynic who saw all this, and tried to save us hopemongers from ourselves.
This is the Golden Rule about the Clintons - and take it from someone like me who actually endorsed the guy in 1992 and came to see what lies beneath: it's always, always, always about them.
Cheney In A Pant Suit Watch
07 Mar 2008 03:27 pm
We're beginning to understand why the Clintons refuse to release their tax returns:
Mr. Clinton had gotten the nonpublicly traded stock from Accoona Corp. back in 2004 as a gift for giving a speech at a company event. He landed the windfall by selling the 200,000 shares to an undisclosed buyer in May 2006, commanding $3.50 a share at a time when the company was reporting millions of dollars of losses, according to interviews.
This is just the beginning. But the Clintons - and their media lackeys - refuse to abide by the most basic rules of campaign transparency.
What Samantha Should Have Said
07 Mar 2008 03:11 pm
If you apologize to monsters like the Clintons, they just go in for the kill more. Once you blink in a war with them, it's over. A reader suggests an alternative Power statement:
"Obviously, I am deeply sorry for calling a career public servant like Senator Clinton a name. It was disrespectful and downright immature. But it wasn't untruthful. Listen, a lot of people including myself have devoted immense time and energy to the Obama campaign because we firmly believe that a different kind of politics is possible. And Obama's lead in victories, delegates and votes makes us hope that this time, this year, after all of the swiftboating, that the old negative tactics aren't going to win the day. So when Clinton runs fearmongering ads about sleeping children and when her husband dismisses Obama as a merely black candidate, when Senator Clinton herself says that John McCain is more qualified to be commander-in-chief than her Democratic opponent ... it just seems monstrous to me.
And that sort of behavior is monstrous, it's a sickness of our political system, one that we desperately hope to cure through our efforts in this election. Perhaps these despicable tactics will, once again, win the day, and perhaps I have contributed to their victory with my regrettable outburst. But that doesn't make them any less deplorable."
Exposing The Clintons
07 Mar 2008 03:10 pm
This is a good start:
By saying that only she and John McCain are qualified to lead the country, particularly in times of crisis, Hillary Clinton has broken that rule, severely damaged the Democratic candidate who may well be the party's nominee, and, perhaps most ominously, revealed the unlimited lengths to which she will go to achieve power. She has essentially said that the Democratic party deserves to lose unless it nominates her.
That's Gary Hart. What the Clintons are doing to Obama on national security will be Karl Rove's trump card this fall. They know this. They don't care. What the Clintons always do is reduce everyone to their mediocre, hair-pulling level. It's essential that they drag the promise of politics down to their empty, careerist, poll-driven cynicism - or else they lose. That's why, I think, Obama is right actually to resist any personal negative campaigning. The rest of us have to do that for him. If he is reduced to the Clintons' level, the Clintons - and all they represent - win.
This is a generational struggle - although plenty of older folks get it completely. As such, it usually does take more than one insurrection to move past the past. Usually, we might wait for the forces of reaction and inertia and cynicism to fade away. The trouble is: we cannot afford more Rove-Morris politics given the enormous dangers we now face at home and abroad. And if you give the Clintons any power, we know they will use it to destroy - not just limit - any threat to them. They know the threat Obama and his politics present to them and their machine. They will never forgive his presumption. And you cannot assume they will at some point allow him to take over. The battle really is now.
The Return Of Rove-Morris Politics
07 Mar 2008 02:39 pm
A reader writes:
I’ve always been politically engaged (although this is the first time I’ve ever volunteered/organized/donated significantly to a presidential candidate), but I swear to Zeus, I can’t handle the thought of another 4 or 8 years of dynastic, cynical, politics-as-usual BS. Bush’s 2004 re-election already threw me for a major loop, and I think I will have to disengage from the process altogether if Hillary somehow wrests the nomination out of Barack’s hands. Mentally and emotionally, it’s like I can’t afford to care anymore. Even the thought of it is gut-punchingly devastating.
Quote For The Day
07 Mar 2008 02:30 pm
"I said to a producer once that I wanted to do a reality show called Project Britney instead of Project Runway, where I would take Britney for the next six months and I would do hair, makeup, wardrobe every day for her and become her personal staff every day. And then of course I would be, hello, the thanks that everyone has to give for saving Britney, ‘cause I would totally save her whole image and – oh my god, it would be flawless," - Christian Siriano, Project Runway winner.
Power Resigns
07 Mar 2008 01:58 pm
Ambers looks at the bigger picture:
If Clinton wins the nomination, there will be many Obama staffers, particularly mid-to-high-ranking aides, who will refuse offers to help with the general election. The walk-away rate will be unprecedented.
And let me add - since I am not an adviser, since I have kept a very long distance from the actual official campaign, since I am not a Democrat, since I cannot be accused of being a closet Bush-supporter, since I am just a blogger.
Samantha Power is right. The Clintons are monstrous. Samantha has quit because she told the truth.
Clinton Rules, Ctd
07 Mar 2008 01:49 pm
A reader writes:
You wrote:
"I have a simple prediction. It will mean a mass flight from the process. It will alter the political consciousness of an entire generation of young voters - against any positive interaction with the political process for the foreseeable future."
Mass flight from the process, Andrew, isn't a tactic. It's the point of her campaign. The point is not a mandate. The point is not actually governing. The point is 50% plus 1, 270 electoral votes, and the power that comes with it for its own sake. The Clinton's know how to win that fight, both in the nomination and in the general. That generation of young voters is what Rumsfeld would have called an "unknown unknown" and is inherently uncontrollable. They have no use for that at all.
The Clintons have, of course, never won 50 percent of the national popular vote - not even in 1996, for their second term against Dole.
The Clinton Rules
07 Mar 2008 12:42 pm
The new meme is that politics has returned to normal and that this election will now be run by Clinton rules. Many are relieved by this. You could sense the palpable discomfort among many in Washington that their world might actually shift a little next year. But if elections are primarily about fear and mud, and who best operates in a street fight, Beltway comfort returns. This we know. This we understand. This we already have the language to describe. And, the feeling goes, the Clintons can win back the White House in this atmosphere. What she is doing to Obama she can try to do to McCain. Maybe Limbaugh will help her out again.
What I think this misses are the cultural and social consequences of beating Obama (or McCain) this way. I don't mean beating Obama because the Clintons' message is more persuasive, or because the Clintons' healthcare plan is better, or because she has a better approach to Iraq. I mean: beating him by a barrage of petty attacks, by impugning his clear ability to be commander-in-chief, by toying with questions about his "Muslim past", by subtle invocation of the race card, by intermittent reliance on gender identity politics, by taking faux offense to keep the news cycle busy ("shame on you, Barack Obama!") and so on. If the Clintons beat Obama this way, I have a simple prediction. It will mean a mass flight from the process. It will alter the political consciousness of an entire generation of young voters - against any positive interaction with the political process for the foreseeable future. I'm not sure that Washington yet understands the risk the Clintons are taking with their own party and the future of American politics.
Continue reading "The Clinton Rules" »
Dissent Of The Day
07 Mar 2008 12:05 pm
A reader writes:
Before we all fall hopelessly prey to our own emotions and the daily spin surrounding the opposing camps at play in the Democratic Party, is it possible for us to pull back a bit from our ever-hardening positions to see what is really going on this election year, and (dare I say the words), to enjoy the process and be thankful for its meaning?
Continue reading "Dissent Of The Day" »
Obama In California
07 Mar 2008 11:41 am
Largely missed in this week's craziness: he just picked up a swing of 8 delegates after the certification came through.
The View From Your Window
07 Mar 2008 11:23 am
San Francisco, California, 3 pm.
The Scots-Irish Vote?
07 Mar 2008 10:47 am
Jonathan Martin sees a new demographic pattern in the Clintons' electoral support.
The Beltway And Iraq
07 Mar 2008 10:38 am
In a bunch of conversations - all casual, random, varied - with fellow journalists in Washington this past week, I'm struck when the talk moves to Iraq by one thing. I know no one who believes that either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton will actually remove any troops from Iraq beyond those that might conceivably be removed by John McCain. For those of you who believe that your vote in this primary season means anything, this might be worth passing along. Withdrawal in any meaningful way is off the table, as far as Washington is concerned. And when I have raised the serious possibility that this should happen, I am greeted with That Unserious Look.
Now, there are obvious pragmatic, short term arguments for staying with 150,000 troops or so in Iraq for the next ten years. There are also very powerful strategic, economic and moral arguments for getting out as fast as we can. But what troubles me is that these arguments are not really relevant. The Washington elites have already decided. It's unthinkable for the US to leave Iraq at any point in the foreseeable future. This, as Greenwald would say, is the Serious Position. You can challenge it in the campaign or on the blogs, but no one actually believes anyone will actually do this. They're humoring us.
And the primary candidate for maintaining the occupation indefinitely on the Democratic side is Hillary Clinton. As for Obama, I disagree with my fellow hacks. He will be in a very tough spot if he becomes president. But he will be able to leverage a unique movement in the country and a uniquely powerful honeymoon in world opinion with a uniquely potent rhetorical skill to at least attempt an exit from the quicksand of the Middle East occupation. He has a chance to shift the paradigm. The Clintons, to put it bluntly, will not. And Clinton will swiftly realize that the most potent antidote to conservative criticism of her at home will be buttressing her military image, working the Thatcher thing, constructing an Iron Lady persona that will both appeal to her white ethnic base and keep the Republicans at bay. She will no more withdraw troops from Iraq than John McCain will. Anything that could make her look weak - and it's Hannity and O'Reilly to whom she will defer in this perception game - she will resist. She has so little raw political talent and so few rhetorical skills she will be a captive of polls and caution and, as always, self-preservation. Bush knows this, which is why he is so keen to prevent Obama from changing the Beltway consensus and to preserve his own legacy. In some ways, a return to the Clintons, his fellow dynasts, as long as they legitimize and extend his new empire, is what he really wants.
There are four candidates still left in this race: Clinton, Clinton, McCain, and Obama. The first two are a seamless team. Only one has a small chance of extricating the US from a lifetime of occupation of the Middle East. It's Obama.
(Photo: Jewel Samad/AFP/Getty.)
Samantha On Hillary
07 Mar 2008 10:14 am
The good professor blurts out the truth. There is something monstrous about a couple so intoxicated with money, power and secrecy and so unencumbered by any ethical constraints that they will do anything, say anything, be anything in order to stay ahead.
Cheney In A Pant-Suit Watch
07 Mar 2008 10:11 am
The Clintons will not do what every other candidate does - release their tax returns - and they will not allow scrutiny of their period in the White House, the last time an unelected spouse exercized formal, unaccountable power (if nothing like what we will face if the Clintons both return to the White House in 2009). What are they hiding? The headline is misleading and more evidence of double-standards in the media with respect to the Clintons. This was ultimately the Clintons' decision, not the archivists':
That archivists' decision, based on guidance provided by Bill Clinton that restricts the disclosure of advice he received from aides, prevents public scrutiny of documents that would shed light on how he decided which pardons to approve from among hundreds of requests.
Clinton's legal agent declined the option of reviewing and releasing the documents that were withheld, said the archivists, who work for the federal government, not the Clintons.
My emphasis. David Brooks today argues that the Obama camp must not go negative. But this is one of those areas where the Clintons' sense of personal privilege and passion for secrecy simply has to be challenged. Demanding answers to basic questions of accountability and transparency is not negative in the Rove-Morris sense. It's called competitive campaigning. If Clinton is running on her so-called experience, why does she insist on keeping it under wraps?
The Substance Question
07 Mar 2008 08:36 am
Compared with McCain, Obama is a wonk's wonk. Matt:
Strolling through John McCain's policy proposals is a fascinating experience . . . lurking behind every link is a nearly-astounding level of vacuity.
Of course, I don't think that's such a bad thing. I've never believed that the presidency is about mastering policy minutiae.
Red Blue America
07 Mar 2008 07:56 am
Survey USA's data shows both Clinton and Obama beating McCain on electoral votes, but they win in different ways. Matt doesn't buy it:
Each of these polls has a sample size of 600, so the margin of error will come into play. What's more, there are 100 separate polls being aggregate here, so the odds are that several of these are just bad samples. On top of that you have all the usual problems with early polling...while I think this method is clever, I don't really see it as methodologically sound -- Clinton's not going to lose Washington, Obama's not going to lose New Jersey, and what happens in Michigan will have more to do with whether or not McCain runs demagogic attacks on the Democrats' global warming plans than on who the Democrats nominate.
I agree with Matt. But the map does show the benefit of the Pennsylvania primary. The more time Obama spends there - down in the nitty-gritty - the better for him. Even against Rendell, he has a chance to do well.
Science Fair
07 Mar 2008 07:38 am
What teachers encounter all the time.
When Christianists Sin
07 Mar 2008 07:00 am
Conservatives forgive.
Thursday, March 6, 2008
Dissent Of The Day
06 Mar 2008 08:37 pm
A reader writes:
I don't find it at all silly for Obama to select a nationally well-known and popular Senator from a large state that borders Pennsylvania and New Jersey, two states Obama would lose today according to SurveyUSA.
Also, selecting Clinton fits into Obama's whole rationale. He is the candidate who wants to unite the country, and what better display of unity would there be than selecting his fiercest electoral rival to date? There is nothing silly about uniting the Democratic Party in a must win election year.
Finally, Clinton brings abundant policy expertise to the table and a network of highly motivated supporters. Also, Obama would not have to deal with the frustration of the Clintons being somewhat insubordinate during the whole general election process by refusing to campaign for and with him, and by making statements that would compromise his ability to win.
Face Of The Day
06 Mar 2008 08:33 pm
World War I veteran Frank Woodruff Buckles, 107, talks with members of the news media after a ceremony unveiling his portrait at the Pentagon March 6, 2008 in Arlington, Virginia. Buckles, who enlisted in the U.S. Army on August 14, 1917, is the last known WWI survivor living in the United States. Buckles' picture is one of nine portraits of WWI veterans taken by photographer David DeJonge, who has donated them to the Pentagon for permanent display. By Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images.
Beware The Crocs
06 Mar 2008 07:41 pm
A rather cute and somewhat stupid Israeli back-packer nearly gets eaten alive.
Michigan Re-vote?
06 Mar 2008 07:12 pm
S.V. Date at TNR hears that Michigan will announce a new caucus within the next few days.
Gayest Song Ever?
06 Mar 2008 06:50 pm
How could I have forgotten this? The full lyrics are after the jump. Amazing for their time. And the original is on Chris Lowe's "Back To Mine" compilation
I'm walking through life in nature's disguise
You laugh at me and you criticize.
Continue reading "Gayest Song Ever?" »
Advice For Obama
06 Mar 2008 06:48 pm
Some constructive criticism from yours truly.
Pranking Macheads
06 Mar 2008 06:29 pm
Introducing the once-only Newton virus. Someone will blame me for posting this.
Who Has Recognized Kosovo?
06 Mar 2008 06:15 pm
Some silence and prevarication from several major Muslim states.
"The Money Quote"
06 Mar 2008 05:53 pm
A phrase becomes an entire blog.
The Other Rezko Scandal
06 Mar 2008 05:31 pm
Kos has it:
Of the other five defendants, three have donated to the Clintons or to Clinton supporters, three have donated mostly to Republicans, and at least two have donated to Obama’s political opponents. None have donated to Obama.
More here.
He Did Change Things
06 Mar 2008 05:20 pm
Thomas Barnett picks up on a meme that is still out there among the neocons:
Yes, there is plenty of anti-Americanism in the Middle East, and especially anti-Bush sentiment. But here's the deal, there's no pre-Bush thinking left there. Everyone's been forced to move on in some sense.
That's Bush's real legacy and its huge. I didn't say positive or negative, but huge. Anything that big will be debated forever.
Basically: borrow around a trilllion from the Chinese to give Iran a new client state next door, occupy it for the next thirty years, and still keep oil at $106 a gallon barrel. Yes: lots to debate.
Mental Health Break
06 Mar 2008 05:05 pm
Ms Jill Blumberg chases those Hillary blues away:
Hat tip: Tighten Up Report.
Obama-Clinton '08 Ctd
06 Mar 2008 04:55 pm
Ezra Klein on the "unity ticket":
...an Obama-Clinton ticket makes no sense. She is not the only Democratic politician with a connection to working class white voters. Moreover, she steps on his central narratives of unity and transformation. I think he probably has to pick a woman -- or at least would be wise to pick a woman -- but Clinton does him harm without doing him much good. And does he really think he can control an operation as brash and overbearing as hers? Will Mark Penn really defer to David Axelrod? Will Bill Clinton?
The whole idea is pretty silly, when you think about it for more than a couple of minutes.
It's Not About The Math
06 Mar 2008 04:47 pm
Craig Crawford on delegate counting:
It is understandable, but not excusable, that the news media is trying to fit the unprecedented chaos of the Democratic presidential race into the world as we have known it for many elections. That is what we do -- cram unknowable things into little boxes that everyone can play with...
Still, we think “the math” will make all the confusion disappear. Sorry, but no matter how many graphics generators, telestrators or calculators we deploy, this is politics. It is not algebra class. And in this campaign, it looks like the only count that matters will be the first ballot at the Democratic national convention.
Reality Check
06 Mar 2008 04:32 pm
Karl Rove on the race ahead:
Remember: It has only been eight weeks since Iowans voted in the first contest of the season, though it seems like a geological age has passed. There are now seven weeks until Pennsylvania, nine weeks until North Carolina and Indiana, and 10 weeks until West Virginia. Imagine how many twists and turns are possible.
Bob Dylan On The Clintons
06 Mar 2008 04:29 pm
A reader writes:
Raising money to make the Clintons go away reminds me of this line, classic Bob Dylan:
"And here I sit so patiently
Waiting to find out what price
You have to pay to get out of
Going through all these things twice."
The Wounds Deepen
06 Mar 2008 04:18 pm
A reader writes:
I never thought in a million years that Hillary Clinton could make me hate her as much as I do now. I am an Obama supporter who was kind of OK with the thought of voting for Hillary if need be. Now, I think I'll stay home if she steals this by daring to call Obama's tactics like those of Ken Starr. The sense of entitlement that she and Bill are displaying right now is amateurish and awful.
I'm moving in a few weeks and I've decided to lighten the load by throwing out Bill's narcissistic biography and her book as well. They don't deserve the place of prominence they've had on my bookshelf.
Please keep doing what you're doing.
Another writes:
I'm so depressed. I cannot decide which would be worse, four more years of Republican presidency or four more years of Clinton drama. I don't really have anything else to say.
All Hat. No Dildos.
06 Mar 2008 04:16 pm
The crisis in Texas continues.
The Tax Return Mystery
06 Mar 2008 03:53 pm
The Clintons' inexplicable refusal to be transparent until after the votes are in prompts this reader's speculation:
I can think of several non-scandalous reasons the Clinton's don't want their tax return out:
1. Their gross income is obscene, in the eyes of their key demographic, lunch pail Democrats. Remember how the Kerrys were portrayed in the media as rich and out of touch despite his modest income as a Senator.
2. Their marginal tax rate was relatively low due to the use of creative tax shelters (e.g. Clinton Family Foundation).
and several scandalous:
1- Bill's income from foreigners in unfriendly nations (Kazakhstan, China, Saudi Arabia don't have sister cities with Scranton and Harrisburg);
2- Income from sweetheart stock deals;
3- Income from large contributors, raising stories of influence peddling, especially when the national press starts linking it to her earmarks.
The notion that the Clintons have been vetted is one of the more preposterous of the campaign.
Quote Of The Day
06 Mar 2008 03:35 pm
"Rick Lazio can't explain why it took three months to release his taxes. Now he won't come clean with New Yorkers and reveal the real cost of his reckless trillion-dollar tax plan. It's time for Mr. Lazio to stop playing games and start talking straight," - Clinton spokesman, Howard Wolfson, in 2000.
It only took Lazio three months?
$55 Million
06 Mar 2008 03:28 pm
Obama brings in the money. I've been lambasting the Clintons today. Surprise! So allow me to make some critical points about the Obama campaign. He needs to get off the pedestal. The Clintons are awful but the race isn't over and there is an absolutely legitimate concern among some Democrats that among key white ethnic voters, he hasn't yet closed the deal. It's perfectly understandable that super-delegates are worried that Obama is too vulnerable on national security, too unknown, too risky a bet against McCain. I think they're wrong, but I've long since internalized and figured out why I think that. So has Obama. But many others haven't. And in a democracy, those many others count, as they should.
So some specific thoughts:
1. Obama himself should not go negative directly against the Clintons. His surrogates can and should. I, for o