Administrators of Team Sarah have uncovered evidence on a left-wing online thread that some Internet trolls sought to discredit the organization by posing as conservative racists on Team Sarah's forums.

Team Sarah, an online community supportive of Gov. Sarah Palin, claims over 60,000 members and is affiliated with the Susan B. Anthony List, a PAC that supports pro-life women for public office.

Apparently, about 90 left-wing participants on a thread at somethingawful.com pretended to be conservatives who loved Sarah Palin before writing racist or otherwise deranged rants against Barack Obama on the Team Sarah forums. Said one interloper on the somethingawful.com thread: "What I hope is that the fake posters eventually number the actual posters so it would be impossible to tell who is real and who is fake."

While other threads have been discovered in previous months at other websites that planned to go after Team Sarah, those attacks were more conventional and overt. Typically, posters would try to flood the site with anti-Palin comments. This new group wanted to be secretive. One of them posted a suggestion on the somethingawful.com thread (which is no longer accessible or doesn't exist) that the group "just encourage the crazy members [of Team Sarah] until it reaches the point where they drive away any sane members ... Make sure you bump any particularly crazy threads you see with a message of vague support for the original post, ensuring anything sane will be quickly relegated to the 2nd or 3rd page of the forum, and the crazy threads will appear to be the most popular ideas."

Margorie Dannenfelser of Team Sarah told me the plot was "to bring down the site by turning it into a place of bigotry and hatred." She thinks they wanted to destroy the site to embarrass Sarah Palin by way of extension. They disguised themselves with names such as "Palinin2012" and "PALINITE"

To an extent, their deceitful effort succeeded. On December 21, Geoffrey Dunn posted an article at the Huffington Post, which called attention to racist posts at Team Sarah. Even though the offending posts were taken down as soon as members of Team Sarah alerted the moderators, Dunn tried to link the thoughts of a few right-wing crazies to an entire political movement. Needless to say, Dunn's article received some attention in the lefty blogosphere.

It turns out that at least one of the supposed right-wingers Dunn cited is actually a left-winger associated with the somethingawful.com thread.

Dunn wrote:

Under a post entitled "Police prepare for RIOTS," by one BarbaraJo, one concerned blogger named Tommygun responded:

"For people in urban/Obama areas--do this now: 1. Stock up on some basic supplies--food, health and hygiene, water, etc. 2. Keep track of where your family members are. 3. Work up meeting points in your community for your family (different spots in town where members are to go if problems occur). 4. Check and prepare any weapons you may have."

In response, a blogger named Johnny got more to the point:

"Well niggers will occasionally chimp out like this, am I right?"

While several Team Sarah members condemned that particular post, it's remnants are still up on the web site.

Shortly after "Johnny's" post was removed, a participant on the somethingawful.com thread wrote:

OUR RIGHT TO SAY THAT NIGGERS LIKE TO CHIMP OUT IS BEING THREATENED HALP

While this kerfuffle doesn't matter much in the big scheme of things, it does reveal a vulnerability of the conservative grassroots. "We always say that the left is so much better at working the Internet--and that's true!" Dannenfelser told me.

Team Sarah's Bill Collier and the Washington Times's Victor Morton have more.

Last night Hillary Clinton spoke at the Democratic Convention, and technically threw her support behind Barack Obama. But bloggers agree with Real Clear Politics's Tom Bevan, who says that while she hit "almost all the right notes tonight...she did not say Obama was ready to be Commander in Chief."

Townhall's Matt Lewis says, "She endorsed Obama--but she didn't embrace Obama ..." TNR's Jonathan Chait explains that "she did not say anything positive about Obama as a person. Her reasons for supporting Obama were all ways of saying that Obama is a Democrat."

Townhall's Hugh Hewitt thinks the Obama camp might not be thrilled with her speech because "Hillary was looking great and communicating one message: But for our crazy rules, I'd be the nominee and we'd be 15 point ahead." Ace explains, "So she's announcing 'Yeah, I'll do the minimum required of me, but gee, if you wanted me to be an attack dog, you should have made me Veep, and if you wanted my full support of the Democratic nominee, you should have made me the Democratic nominee.'" And at The Corner, Rich Lowry concludes, "Nothing she said tonight will be incompatible with what she'll want to say if Obama loses in November: 'Told you so.'" Still, Power Line's John Hinderaker notes, "She was intensely annoying. You could just about hear the sound of television sets clicking off all across America. Good night, Hillary."

For the record: The orange pantsuit looked fantastic, especially against the blue backdrop, and Hillary's never looked better--the infamous bags under her eyes are gone!

Michelle Obama looked stunning during her speech at the Democratic Convention last night. Fashion's current golden girl sparkled in a soft turquoise Maria Pinto Jackie-esque sheath and perfect hair. With her two charming daughters waiting in the wings, she certainly looked the part to try to convince Americans that she's not the angry leftist who is proud of her country "for the first time in [her] adult life."

Did she succeed? Does she really believe, as she said in her speech, what many of us have known all along: that “this great country” is one where “a girl from the South Side of Chicago can go to law school and the son of a single mother from Hawaii can go all the way to the White House"?

Many bloggers--even those on the right--were impressed. At Contentions, Linda Chavez says, "If your first introduction to Michelle Obama was the speech she just delivered--as it is for many Americans--she hit a home run." The Corner's Jonah Goldberg concludes, "It was a nice speech, well delivered and not so over-the-top with her love of country refrains that it felt forced." Also at The Corner, Ramesh Ponnuru says she "did not seem aggrieved, entitled, whiny, extreme, unpatriotic, or even particularly liberal."

But Power Line's Paul Mirengoff wasn't convinced: "Plainly, Ms. Obama wishes to be viewed as an 'ordinary' American. To the extent that her real biography is known, or emerges over the course of the campaign, some voters may conclude she was a bit phony tonight." Michelle Malkin agrees: "Said with such practiced emotion. Such a professional performer." And at Contentions, John Podhoretz quips, "Michelle gets a huge ovation for saying she loves her country, 'this country that has given me so much.' I love my country too. You may begin applauding."

She might be a good actress--but I'd like to think that she's finally realized that America isn't so "mean" if a working-class South Side girl can grow up to wear a designer dress onstage as the possible future First Lady of the United States.

It's only Day 1 of the Democratic Convention, and there's already drama for Barack Obama.

First, things aren't looking so certain in the polls. CNN reports that the race is a "dead heat": "In a new CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll out Sunday night, 47 percent of those questioned are backing Obama with an equal amount supporting the Arizona senator." Don Surber explains, "This month, after his rock star world tour before 200,000 people in Berlin--and after picking as his running mate Democratic Sen. Joe Biden--Obama is now tied with McCain." What happened?

Jules Crittenden says, "Obama-Biden ‘08 going nowhere fast. Post-announcement poll shows Biden choice sucking whatever life was left out of Obama’s campaign." Hot Air's Ed Morrissey cites a Rasmussen poll that says only 39 percent think Biden was the right choice: "Not only has Biden not helped Obama, it looks like he’s actually damaging the ticket with his addition. He certainly hasn’t added any enthusiasm to the Democratic offering."

Meanwhile, there are signs of "Democratic disunity," says Townhall's Amanda Carpenter. The Politico reports tensions between the Clinton and Obama camps, and the Washington Times reports that some Hillary supporters are not too happy that she wasn't even vetted for the VP slot.

At Contentions, Jennifer Rubin says, "The real Hillary supporters are mad. Obama’s decision to put forth absolutely no effort to vet her (would an hour meeting and a request for documents have killed them?), after suggesting she would be on anyone’s short list, stings." Hot Air's Allahpundit retorts, "how insane it is that nominees have to contest 50 grueling primaries/caucuses to win the nomination but the next in line to the throne if they’re elected is chosen purely on their own say so. If the wisdom of Democratic voters is trustworthy enough to pick the top half of the ticket (superdelegates notwithstanding), why isn’t it trustworthy enough to pick the bottom half?" And although she is planning to release her delegates on Wednesday, Allahpundit also notes that a large percentage are "planning to go PUMA" (Party Unity, My Ass!, for the uninitiated).

Talk Left's Big Tent Democrat says, "Obama did not optimize his chances for winning in November when he chose not to choose Hillary Clinton. All the whining and complaining about PUMAS is not going to help that." It's going to be an interesting week!

It's "Veep Week," says The Trail's Dan Balz, and practically every blogger has a contribution to what he calls the "orgy of speculation." Both candidates are expected to announce their VP before the end of next week.

The New York Times reported yesterday that Barack Obama "has all but settled" on his pick, even though ABC's Jake Tapper reports that the pick hasn't been informed yet. Obama's top contenders seem to be Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh, former Virginia governor Tim Kaine, and the most buzzed about today, Delaware Sen. Joe Biden. Many lefty bloggers are pro-Biden, but Kos says that "even if we stipulate that he has foreign policy chops, how does that make him a good veep choice? It strikes me that any pick designed to cover up a 'flaw' in Obama (i.e. 'lack of foreign policy credentials') only accentuates those flaws." Wonkette's Sara Smith adds that Biden is the only acceptable choice: "Let’s review the list of people who will not be Barack Obama’s running mate: Hillary Clinton, because she would poison him; Jack Reed, because he isn’t interested; Tim Kaine, because of the eyebrows."

On the right, The Next Right's Patrick Ruffini calls both Biden and Kaine "lame" choices, and Jack M. at Ace of Spades asks, "Now, aside from Joe Biden himself, is there anyone that thinks that Biden brings much of anything to this ticket? Aside from hair-plugs and an over-inflated sense of self-worth, that is." But Hot Air's Allahpundit thinks we might be in for a surprise and notes that "leaking the names of Bayh, Biden, and Kaine seems odd when Obama’s playing everything else so close to the vest. Almost seems like a deliberate decoy, designed to draw us away from the actual nominee so that when the announcement drops it’ll go off like a nuclear blast."

Meanwhile, the Politico reported last night that John McCain will announce his VP on August 29, the day after Obama's acceptance speech (and McCain's 72nd birthday). Townhall's Amanda Carpenter says, "The timing cannot be coincidental. McCain rolling out his VP on the 29th is sure to distract the media from obsessing over his age and take some of the afterglow away from Obama's historic nomination speech."

Who will it be? While Marc Ambinder provides hints for determining a veep, at Contentions, Jennifer Rubin says we can be sure that it will be "someone McCain trusts deeply and who would be a credible commander-in-chief." The bloggers at The Corner note some of the many possibilities: Mitt Romney? Rob Portman? Rudy Giuliani? A pro-choice politician? We'll find out next week--and not by text message!

Before Congress adjourned for the August recess, Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she would not permit the House to vote on opening the Outer Continental Shelf for drilling, calling such proposals a "decoy." Meanwhile, many House Republicans stayed in D.C. to protest the lack of a vote, and recent polls show that the majority of Americans support offshore drilling.

On Monday, Pelosi told Larry King that she now might support offshore drilling if it is part of an energy package that includes funds for other energy sources, like wind power. Is she flip-flopping on her firm anti-drilling stance?

Bloggers think she is backing down on drilling for political reasons. Townhall's Amanda Carpenter concludes, "Surely, Pelosi's concession is due to the fact House Republicans have taken over her House over August recess protesting her decision to close the chamber without allowing a vote on offshore drilling." And Hot Air's Ed Morrissey tells us, "On October 1st, without that extension of the moratorium, the OCS and shale formations become available for exploration. If Pelosi wants to control that at the federal level before the states start issuing leases and permits, she has to cut a deal with the Republicans. All this means is that Pelosi has recognized political reality."

The polls might have convinced her, too. Power Line's John Hinderaker argues that it is "probably more accurate to say that she is open to not being crushed in November. She can read the polls, and an overwhelming majority of Americans support the Republicans' position, that it is important to develop our own energy resources. Pelosi says she could support drilling (or a vote, anyway) if drilling is part of a broader strategy." At Contentions, Jennifer Rubin agrees: "So much for 'saving the planet.' Nancy Pelosi needs to save her skin."

Michelle Malkin says, "Maybe Do-Nothing Nancy should enter the Olympic diving competition. She gets a 10 for her flip-flop-flop [Monday] on drilling. It is now no longer the 'hoax' she knew."

Want 2 B the first 2 know Barack Obama's VP choice? You can sign up to receive a text message alert when he decides!

Is this a good idea? Hot Air's Ed Morrissey concludes, "Instead of looking presidential in making this announcement, Obama looks like a parent trying too hard to be hip around his kid’s friends."

But it's good for Obama's contact list, bloggers conclude. At the Los Angeles Times Andrew Malcolm notes, "This modern tech announcement gimmick, of course, also has the added benefit of presumably getting thousands of people to offer the campaign their e-mail addresses and cellphone numbers, a priceless, free recruiting and fund-raising tool." The Democratic Daily's Pamela Leavey agrees: "Of course, the skeptics in all of us recognize this is a great way for the Obama camp to harvest more email addresses and cell phone numbers."

Can you expect your text message anytime soon? Maybe, but NRO's Jim Geraghty says, "I think a campaign would be mad to announce the running mate during the Olympics. And particularly with the news cycle we're having right now. The day of the announcement, we could have Russian planes bombing the Georgian capital, or some Cinderella story of a little-known American winning gold, or some detail in John Edwards' story being contradicted further."

If you can't get enough text messages from Obama, you can also text the campaign to receive hip-hop-inspired ringtones mixed with Obama's speeches. Now you can literally "answer the call to help change America" (as Obama says in Ringtone #12).

Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens was indicted yesterday "on seven counts of failing to disclose thousands of dollars in services he received from a company that helped renovate his home." MSNBC reports:

Prosecutors said Stevens received more than $250,000 in gifts and services from VECO Corp., a powerful oil services contractor, and its executives.

From May 1999 to August 2007, prosecutors said, the 84-year-old senator concealed "his continuing receipt of hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of things of value from a private corporation."

Many conservative bloggers argue that Stevens should resign from the Senate. The Next Right's Patrick Ruffini says, "At a minimum, Stevens must abandon his re-election campaign if not resign. Let's not act like Democrats, who shield their William Jeffersons." Hot Air's Ed Morrissey adds, "Stevens should resign, but he won’t without his colleagues making it necessary."

What's next for Alaska? Is this bad news for Republicans? TNR's Isaac Chotiner says, "Stevens is in a close--and closely watched--Senate race with Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich. In other words, this is not good news for the GOP." But Kos is worried and says, "It would've been better [for Democrats] for these indictments to hit after the late-August primary."

The Corner's Mark Hemingway remarks, "Stevens' indictment isn't exactly good news for the G.O.P., but he's a corrupt politician first and a Republican second." Most Republicans will be rooting for him to resign or at least drop out of his re-election race, ASAP. As Michelle Malkin says, "Republicans can’t tell the Dems to clean their House, if they won’t come clean about the GOP’s own dirtbags."

Barack Obama returned home to lots of press about his World Tour--but not the press he had hoped for. The candidate has been criticized for canceling his visit to wounded U.S. troops in Landstuhl, Germany. ABC's Jake Tapper says, "The campaign had initially said that Sen. Obama had said he thought it might be inappropriate to visit the troops since the campaign was funding his European swing." Then an Obama adviser said that the Pentagon disapproved of the visit because it was a "campaign event." Then, according to Tapper, "the Pentagon said that wasn't true, that Obama was more than welcome to come, it was just that he couldn't bring the media or campaign staff." What did Obama do? He went to the gym.

The Corner's Kathryn Lopez asks, "Is the world tour a campaign event or a citizen of the world event? If the latter, why couldn't he visit troops in Germany?" Hot Air's Allahpundit explains the mess and concludes that "he and his team have handled this lamely." Drew M. at Ace of Spades adds, "Obama almost made it through his World Tour without screwing up but he couldn't quite do it and even the MSM has followed up on the troop visit story."

The McCain camp responded with this ad:

Time's Mark Halperin calls it McCain's "toughest attack ad yet." At Contentions, Jennifer Rubin says, "The McCain camp successfully introduced two story lines: Obama snubbed the troops and he has too many excuses." Although Obama supporters like Chris Bodenner at Andrew Sullivan's blog say the ad is "nasty, petty, and desperate," Hot Air's Ed Morrissey counters that this "is very much fair game for McCain to highlight--and for voters to consider. Obama gave an demonstration of his priorities, and thanks to his media entourage, the nation saw it."

Power Line's John Hinderaker concludes, "Brutal. In the end, this character-revealing blunder may be the only thing voters remember about Obama's international excursion."

Did Barack Obama forget that people in Germany can't vote for him? Bloggers are convinced that his speech in Berlin tonight is just a campaign event and that the candidate has his priorities all wrong.

First, bloggers are posting the event flier (at right, and English translation from Political Punch) as evidence. The Next Right's Patrick Ruffini concludes that "this isn't just some sober, high-minded foreign policy speech, part of a foreign trip occurring under the auspices of his official Senate office. It is a campaign rally occuring on foreign soil. They are using the same tactics to turn out Germans to an event as they would to any rally right here in America." And Hot Air's Ed Morrissey adds, "The Obama campaign wants to hold a political rally in Berlin, apparently to impress upon American voters how popular Obama is among Europeans."

At Contentions, Jennifer Rubin is skeptical that this rally will help Obama win voters: "I find it hard to figure out which voters are going to be moved by a massive show of affection by Germans for Obama. Voters who think he’s 'not one of us' are going to be irked and the folks who are genuinely concerned about foreign policy smarts and credentials aren’t necessarily going to be wowed by a mass rally."

Not to mention, it appears that he is ignoring the Americans who are there. In another Hot Air post, Morrissey notes that Obama cancelled visits to U.S. military bases in Rammstein and Landstuhl. The American Spectator's Philip Klein says that "he's more concerned with playing rock star for German citizens than he is with visiting our troops. It's the type of thing that just makes your blood boil."

At Ace of Spades, Gabriel Malor simply concludes, "The whole campaign thinks that they've already won."

Today's catch phrase is "media bias." Yesterday--the same day Drudge revealed that the New York Times rejected John McCain's op-ed rebutting Barack Obama's op-ed in the same paper--Rasmussen released a timely report:

The idea that reporters are trying to help Obama win in November has grown by five percentage points over the past month. The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey, taken just before the new controversy involving the Times erupted, found that 49% of voters believe most reporters will try to help the Democrat with their coverage, up from 44% a month ago.

Just 14% believe most reporters will try to help McCain win, little changed from 13% a month ago. Just one voter in four (24%) believes that most reporters will try to offer unbiased coverage.

At Pajamas Media, Rick Moran asks, "With half the country able to see through the gushing idolatry of the press and their shameless promotion of Obama’s candidacy, where does that leave journalistic standards like objectivity and fairness?" Redstate's Pejman Yousefzadeh adds, "We need to ensure that an informed decision is made, and the more the media shows that it is in the tank for Barack Obama, the less confidence people will have that the appropriate information to make that decision is being afforded to the voting public." But Power Line's John Hinderaker finds the "silver lining": "I suspect that by November, lots of people will be in rebellion against the media's effort to make them vote for Obama."

Speaking of bias, it seems that the Obama campaign plays favorites, too--or rather, punishes journalists who make the campaign mad. Remember last week's controversial New Yorker cover? The Politico reported yesterday that the Obama campaign just couldn't find room for New Yorker reporter Ryan Lizza on the press plane.

Coincidence? The Moderate Voice's Joe Gandelman says, "If it was no coincidence, then it shows the Obama campaign is going to throw down the gauntlet to news organizations that run items that create big political problems." The Huffington Post's Rachel Sklar remarks, "Whatever one thinks of the New Yorker cover--that it was clear satire that clearly lampooned ridiculous rumors, that it went way overboard, that it was a comedic misfire--a robust press can't operate under threat of reprisal for unwelcome items." And Megan McArdle adds, "If you excuse petty punishments of reporters on the grounds that all that really matters is the policy, you'll soon find that you've lost not only the reporters, but the good policy."

As the Los Angeles Times's Andrew Malcolm says, "Now, that's Chicago politics."

Barack Obama's much-publicized Middle East trip is in full swing. As Newsbusters notes, his basketball games and photo-ops are getting a lot of attention from the mainstream media.

What has Obama been up to in Afghanistan? At Contentions, Jennifer Rubin says not much: Obama "hasn’t proved himself capable of doing much of anything other than walking and smiling. I wonder if the U.S. media will notice or have the nerve to explain the charade going on."

Obama is also shunning the foreign press, according to Christoph von Marschall, Washington bureau chief for Berlin's Der Tagesspiegel. LGF's Charles Johnson says that Obama's "staff is desperately worried that the candidate will make a gaffe, as soon as he ventures into uncharted territory. Foreign reporters tend to ask questions about...you know...foreign stuff." And Protein Wisdom's Karl adds, "Mr. von Marschall should not be surprised, inasmuch as hubris and control-freakishness are increasingly hallmarks of the Obama campaign."

And on Sunday we learned that it might be to Obama's advantage to avoid the press. Face the Nation aired Lara Logan's interview with the candidate, in which he said that "the objective of this trip was to have substantive discussions with people like President Karzai or Prime Minister Maliki or President Sarkozy or others who I expect to be dealing with over the next eight to 10 years." (Video at Hot Air.)

ABC's Jake Tapper says, "The notion that Obama will be dealing with world leaders for eight-to-ten years, possibly up through July 2018, suggests that either (a) he believes that not only will he be elected and re-elected, but the 22nd amendment will be repealed and he will be elected for a third term, OR (b) he was speaking casually and just meant two terms." At Ace of Spades, Drew M. notes, "Obama is either very bad at math, does not know how long the President's term of office is or he's planning on repealing the 22nd Amendment." And The Corner's Victor Davis Hanson remarks that this is "Why you must not let Sen. Obama talk extemporaneously and off the teleprompter."

As Patterico says of a possible 10-year Obama administration, "Whew. That’s a long time to govern 57 states."

Yesterday, President Bush lifted the executive ban on offshore drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf. In a press conference, Bush said, "With this action, the executive branch's restrictions on this exploration have been cleared away. This means that the only thing standing between the American people and these vast oil resources is action from the U.S. Congress." Bloggers agree that Congress needs to act or could face consequences.

Power Line's John Hinderaker explains what this means: "Rescinding the order will not, of course, allow exploration to go forward, since Congress has also banned exploration of the shelf. But what President Bush has done is to focus attention squarely where it belongs: Congressional Democrats are now the only force standing between American consumers and access to vast quantities of petroleum." And The Foundry's Nick Loris adds, "Gas prices are above $4 a gallon nationally, and without opening up exploration or drilling, these prices will continue to rise. Without increasing supply and easing regulations, there will be little relief in sight. Congress should take advantage of these closing months of the Bush administration and address America’s energy concerns."

Will this affect the presidential candidates? Hot Air's Allahpundit says, "This is one of the few gimmes McCain has right now; putting the ball in the Democrats’ court forces them to defend an unpopular position." And at Ace of Spades, blogger Drew M. adds, "Obama is opposed to lifting the ban because it won't provide immediate relief. When exactly with his mythical 'new technologies' be ready to roll?"

Nonetheless, bloggers are skeptical that Congress will act. Wizbang's Cassy Fiano explains, "No need for celebrating yet, though. With Nancy 'Pioneer' Pelosi & Co., it's highly unlikely that any action will be taken." And Michelle Malkin quips, "Ball’s in your court, San Fran Nan…will you cry 'hoax' again or get Congress off its collective arse and actually do something about energy independence now?"

It's official: Barack Obama has given up on the NASCAR vote.

On Friday, Sports Illustrated reported that Obama's campaign was "in talks to become the primary sponsor of BAM Racing's No. 49 Sprint Cup car for the Pocono race on August 3," and to be the first presidential candidate in history to sponsor a NASCAR car. The car is a Toyota and driven by Ken Schrader. Many bloggers found this ridiculous. Michelle Malkin said it was clear that Obama was trying to "buy the NASCAR vote." Sister Toldjah added, "It’s all part of his campaign to appeal for the working class white voters he lost in light of the Rev. Wright controversy." And TNR's Jason Zengerle asked, "Will it matter to the voters Obama's trying to court with this move that the car he's going to sponsor is a Toyota?"

Of course, many bloggers correctly predicted that Obama would flip-flop on the NASCAR sponsorship. Hugh Hewitt said that "given his record over the past month, he'll probably change his mind and skip the sponsorship." And Dave in Texas at Ace of Spades wrote, "Too inconsistent with his greeny marxism. But if it's true, we will enjoy kicking his carbon footprint over it." But of course, an Obama campaign spokesman said, "The Obama campaign will not be sponsoring a car in the Sprint Cup Series, though we will continue to look for ways to reach out to voters and convey Senator Obama's message of change."

As The Gateway Pundit says, "Obama was for fast cars before he was against them." The Los Angeles Times's Dan Neil notes that perhaps it is a good thing he didn't sponsor the car because "a losing outing for Obama's car--and Schrader has as much chance of winning as Jesse Jackson has of getting the democratic vice presidential nod--might actually hurt Obama with NASCAR dads." A Daily Kos blogger agrees: "the publicity behind a crashed Obama car, the car getting booed, or not qualifying would bring unecessary attention and claims of symbolism behind Obama's difficulty in breaking through with working white class voters from Appalachia."

The Next Right's Sean Hackbarth concludes, "McCain has an opening to connect to NASCAR fans. I'm not recommending he sponsor a car, but getting to a race as soon as possible to get some pictures taken with drivers would make for a nice contrast."

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton held a unity rally in New York to raise money to pay off Hillary's debt. The only problem, as the Los Angeles Times reports, is that Obama "forgot the fund part," and nearly ran off stage before remembering that he needs to raise funds for Hillary:

At Real Clear Politics, Tom Bevan calls this a "flub of the day": "Barack Obama exiting the stage at a NY fund raiser last night before belatedly remembering to implore the crowd of donors to give money to retire Hillary Clinton's debt. D'oh!"

Newsweek's Andrew Romano says, "Obama's forgetfulness was, of course, unfortunate. What it actually exposed--a subconscious resentment? a disinterested passivity? absolutely nothing?--is ultimately unknowable." Whether or not it was intentional, he was quite rude to Hillary. Hot Air's Ed Morrissey remarks, "Obama certainly doesn’t appear to feel the love, at least not for Hillary. At an event designed to bring her and her supporters back into the fold, Obama treats her as an afterthought." Curt at Flopping Aces adds, "Hillary is already humiliated by losing this race, being in debt to her eyeballs, and then asking Obama to help get her out of debt and what does Obama do? He pretty much forgets she exists."

Did this unity rally help the party? At Ace of Spades, Drew M. says, "I'm going to guess this isn't exactly helping heal the rift in the Democratic Party." And The Gateway Pundit notes, "Evidently, Obama's pleading did not persuade those in attendance. The room was littered with donation envelopes after the event." Oops.

After yesterday's Senate FISA vote, bloggers on both the right and left are in rare agreement over Barack Obama's character. The FISA bill passed 69-28, with Obama voting "yes"...and, interestingly, with Hillary Clinton appeasing the netroots and voting "no." As ABC's Jake Tapper explains, this is a major flip-flop for Obama.

At The Corner, Stephen Spruiell says that the left has "had their doubts about him since he was running as a centrist in Iowa, and it hasn't escaped their attention that the candidate they dumped in favor of Barack, Hillary Clinton, voted against FISA reform yesterday."

And boy, is the left angry. Glenn Greenwald proclaims, "Obama's vote in favor of cloture, in particular, cemented the complete betrayal of the commitment he made back in October when seeking the Democratic nomination." And Open Left's Matt Stoller says, "It's ironic so far I suppose that Clinton is of late a more reliable ally than Obama, at least on this issue." They're not just angry with Obama, either. As Daily Kos blogger Devilstower writes, "Following on the heels of the FISA 'compromise,' it's starting to look as if the Democratic strategy for 2008 can be summed up as 'give in on every point of contention so they have nothing to complain about in November.'"

The right seems to agree with these assessments of Obama. Power Line's John Hinderaker explains, "Like everything Barack Obama says, that pledge [to filibuster FISA] was operative only as long as it was in Obama's political interest. Last month, he announced a change in position. He still favored the Dodd amendment to strip telecom immunity from the act, but said he would now vote in favor of cloture and in favor of final passage of the FISA reform bill." Also at The Corner, Andy McCarthy adds, "Obama was against it before he was for it, but was for filibustering it before he was against filibustering it. The President will sign an English-only version into law, probably tomorrow."

And at Contentions, Jennifer Rubin says that vital information was lost while the passage of FISA was delayed, and concludes, "Obama’s greatest sin was not in playing politics and deceiving his base of supporters--who have every right to scream bloody murder. It was in putting politics above his country. That, much more than lying to his well-meaning base which foolishly trusted his words, is what voters should remember."

Big Democratic convention news yesterday: Barack Obama will give his acceptance speech at the 75,000-seat Denver Broncos' Invesco Field, rather than the measly 20,000-seat convention hall as originally planned.

Obama's campaign manager David Plouffe wrote in an email, "Barack will leave the convention hall and join more than 75,000 people for a huge, free, open-air event where he will deliver his acceptance speech to the American people. It's going to be an amazing event, and Barack would like you to join him." I'm quite honored, and so are many lefty bloggers who are excited about the venue change for this momentous occasion. Andrew Sullivan says it will be "quite a night." And Daily Kos blogger blitz boy proclaims, "This is going to give Obama a huge bounce after the convention. 75,000 people packing a stadium to see a politician won't go unnoticed."

Other bloggers are less enthused. NRO's Jim Geraghty notes the upsides and downsides but ultimately concludes, "Potential for rain. Probably all kinds of logistics issues for the networks, needing two separate booths at the arena and the stadium, etc." TNR's Jonathan Cohn says, "Maybe they can put umbrellas in the packages of swag that conventioneers and media get." And Marc Ambinder notes, "It's going to cost the convention committee a lot of money to make the move, but Invesco Field can handle more than 75,000 spectators and will make a much better picture."

Aha, that's it. As the Next Right's Patrick Ruffini asks, "Could Obama's desire for a final night worthy of the NFL, like his Presidential seal, go down as yet another example of his super-sized arrogance?"

Over the weekend, Barack Obama got quite a bit of flak for his most recent flip-flops.

First flip: Iraq. Last week he said, "When I go to Iraq and have a chance to talk to some of the commanders on the ground, I am sure I’ll have more information and will continue to refine my policies." He then clarified his statement and said, "My 16-month timeline, if you examine everything that I’ve said, was always premised on making sure that our troops were safe. I said that based on the information that we had received from our commanders that one to two brigades a month could be pulled out safely, from a logistical perspective. My guiding approach continues to be that we’ve got to make sure that our troops are safe and that Iraq is stable."

Power Line's John Hinderaker explains this latest flip-flop: "That represents an inversion of Obama's position in the primaries, which was that Iraq was not stable and could not be made stable--it was in the midst of a civil war, remember? An hour or so ago, after he started taking heat today for backing off the trademark stand that won him the Democratic nomination, Obama denied that he had changed anything at all."

Will this flip-flop hurt him? At Real Clear Politics, Tom Bevan says, "This may not be a flip-flop by the technical definition of the term, but it certainly is a substantial walk back on perhaps the defining issue of the election that will draw fire from both the right and the left." Hot Air's Allahpundit thinks that Obama is moving in the right direction: "I’m not going to rub his face in it. The important thing is to make the right decision and he’s nearer to that now than he’s ever been."

Second flip: abortion. Obama told Relevant magazine, "I have repeatedly said that I think it’s entirely appropriate for states to restrict or even prohibit late-term abortions as long as there is a strict, well-defined exception for the health of the mother. Now, I don’t think that 'mental distress' qualifies as the health of the mother." An Obama spokeswoman then "clarified" this statement: "He absolutely believes and has always said there has to be a health exception for serious physical and mental illness."

At Contentions, Jennifer Rubin says, "Obama’s latest effort to put a moderate face on his record belies an entire career of drastic stances on abortion rights." At The Corner, Ramesh Ponnuru adds, "Obama and Linda Douglass are obviously revising what he said, not clarifying it. Maybe his words just came out wrong in The Relevant interview--that happens even to famously eloquent people--but the latest remarks contradict the earlier ones." Also at The Corner, Yuval Levin explains, "To the growing list of Barack Obama’s tactical moves to the right on terrorist wiretapping, gun control, trade, Iraq and the like we can now add abortion as well. In this case as in the others, he has moved in what would be the right direction on the substance, but in a way that strongly suggests he is trying to play voters for fools."

The Supreme Court made a good, constitutional decision today, say bloggers, but yesterday's Kennedy v. Louisiana was a different matter. The Court ruled that convicted child rapists cannot be executed. The case was brought by Patrick Kennedy, who brutally raped his 8-year-old stepdaughter and was sentenced to death in Louisiana. Kennedy appealed, and the Supreme Court struck down Louisiana's 1995 law authorizing the death penalty for child rapists.

At the SCOTUS Blog, Lyle Dennison writes, "As part of the Louisiana decision, the Court made it definite that no death sentence would be upheld for a crime against an individual, when the victim is not killed." Power Line's Scott Johnson concludes, "What punishment is, to use the Court's test, 'proportionate' to the offense. Putting questions of constitutional jurisprudence to one side, it would take an oaf to conclude that incarceration is punishment 'proportionate,' or death disproportionate, to the offense committed by Mr. Kennedy." The Corner's Andy McCarthy adds that the punishment is not proportional "only because we do lethal injection. If we went back to drawing-and-quartering, that might inch toward proportional."

In the opinion, Justice Kennedy concluded that rape does not compare to murder "in terms of moral depravity." At NRO's Bench Memos, Ed Whelan says that in the dissent "Alito makes mincemeat of Kennedy’s claim that rape of a child cannot be compared to murder in its moral depravity and in the severity of injury to the victim and the public. Among his observations: 'I have very little doubt that, in the eyes of ordinary Americans, the very worst child rapists--predators who seek out and inflict serious physical and emotional injury on defenseless young children--are the epitome of moral depravity.'"

Whelan also notes that "when Kennedy declaims that '[e]volving standards of decency must embrace and express respect for the dignity of the person,' the only person whose dignity is the object of his concern is the rapist, not the victim and not other future victims." The Corner's Jonah Goldberg asks, "Are we more decent because we don't consider that a capital offense? I don't really see it."

Photo: Alex Brandon/Associated Press.

Barack Obama isn't president yet, but that didn't stop his campaign from Photo-shopping the official presidential seal. Obama's seal said "Obama for America" and "Vero Possumus," Latin for "Yes we can." The blogosphere was in an uproar, so Obama threw his seal under the bus, as they say:

Barack Obama’s communications director said Monday that the presidential seal the campaign unveiled last week at a meeting with Democratic governors won’t be seen again.

“That was a one time thing for a one time event," Robert Gibbs told CNN.

Marc Ambinder was told "that Obama recognizes that it was a silly mistake, that the universal reaction at Wacker and Michigan was, 'Boy, was that dumb,' and that they don't think the seal staging will matter to actual voters." Even lefty bloggers like The Democratic Daily's Pamela Leavey think that the seal "was a lame brain idea."

Hot Air's Allahpundit says, "so under the bus it goes, assuming there’s any room left under there with Wright, Pfleger, Rezko and who knows who else crowded in." At Michelle Malkin's blog, see-dubya adds, "He’s learned to skip the step where he says 'I could no more renounce that seal than I could renounce my (insert family member)' and cut straight to the renouncing." And Ace remarks, "Yes we won't, I guess."

CNN's Political Ticker notes, "Many wondered whether a seal--with Latin phrasing no less--was the best idea for a candidate fighting for the working class vote and trying to fend off allegations of elitism." As Jennifer Rubin says at Contentions, "Somewhere between the reneging on campaign finance reform and the Great Seal of Barack the mainstream media may have caught on. Do you think he might be arrogant, they ask?"

Can Obama move beyond the seal? Well, The McCain Report tells us that "the McCain campaign has made copies and will bring them to all future town hall events. We hope that Senator Obama will feel more comfortable attending if we place the seal on his podium--that he will feel more presidential, and important."

Over the weekend, bloggers were buzzing about yet another flip flop from Barack Obama: He now will support the House FISA compromise bill, even though he didn't back in February.

Obama said he will support the FISA compromise, which Politico's Ben Smith explains "offers retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies who helped the government listen in on American citizens--which Obama says he'll fight to remove from the legislation--and expands legal wiretapping powers. Obama praises it for restoring a legal framework and judicial oversight to the process." He claims that he will "try" to strip telecom immunity from the bill.

The Washington Post's Paul Kane notes that "Obama sought to walk the fine political line between GOP accusations that he is weak on foreign policy--Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) called passing the legislation a 'vital national security matter'--and alienating his base." But bloggers on both sides of the aisle just think that Obama is a typical opportunist politician.

On the right, Power Line's Paul Mirengoff says, "Obama is a default hard-leftist with a streak of opportunism as big as all outdoors." Hot Air's Ed Morrissey asks, "Does Obama support this FISA reform bill or not? Will he try filibustering a bill that won a large majority in the House and which is even more of a compromise than the bill that won 68 votes in the Senate in February? Will Obama try to do yet another flip-flop and still convince people that he has any principles at all?"

And on the left, Glenn Greenwald seems to agree: "Obama has obviously calculated that sacrificing the rule of law and the Fourth Amendment is a worthwhile price to pay to bolster his standing a tiny bit in a couple of swing states." And so does Talk Left's Big Tent Democrat: "I always knew Obama was just a pol." Meanwhile, Daily Kos blogger Hunter is insulted.

Redstate's Moe Lane has some advice for these scorned bloggers: "I want progressives to email the Senator and demand that he filibuster: he'll either not do so, and thus betray them further; or he'll cave to them, which will embarrass the Democratic Party at the very moment that they need to show Unity. And either way, the FISA bill still passes."

Coming to the United States?

As the calls for domestic drilling grow louder, some Democrats have another idea: nationalize the oil refineries! During a House briefing yesterday, Democratic Rep. Maurice Hinchey said, "We (the government) should own the refineries. Then we can control how much gets out into the market."

Many bloggers echo the Club for Growth's Andrew Roth, who says, "Explicit, in-your-face socialism. Hugo Chavez couldn't have said it any better." Michelle Malkin adds, "It’s a short trip from railing about 'obscene profits' to cheerleading Hugo Chavez-style takeovers of private industry."

At The Moderate Voice, Jazz Shaw asks Hinchey, "Is your Democratic Party so fearful of winning two elections in a row and having to take the reins of power that you’ve simply decided to throw yourselves on your swords? Or have you perhaps spent too long in cozy chats with Hugo Chavez that some of his thinking is creeping into the cloak rooms of Congress?" And Wizbang's Kim Priestap says that advocates of nationalization "are packaging this nationalization scheme in the same way all communists do: let 'the American people' own the oil companies. It's a complete sham, a lie, and an unbelievably manipulative and condescending one."

Hinchey's remarks remind bloggers of Democratic Rep. Maxine Waters's similar call to "socialization" a few weeks ago. How many more Democrats agree? Hot Air's Allahpundit says, "This makes two congressional Democrats on record within the past month as supporting an overtly socialist 'solution' to gas prices." As The Gateway Pundit says, "Viva la revolucion!"

Domestic drilling has been the buzz all week. Most Americans (67 percent per Rasmussen) support offshore drilling. And now John McCain, Florida Governor Charlie Crist, and President Bush are calling for an end to the moratorium on offshore drilling, while Barack Obama is taking the 33 percent side of the issue.

Yesterday McCain said, "We have proven oil reserves of at least 21 billion barrels in the United States. But a broad federal moratorium stands in the way of energy exploration and production. And I believe it is time for the federal government to lift these restrictions and to put our own reserves to use." Hot Air's Ed Morrissey notes, "This news comes as a relief to consumers who have waited for some promise of action at any level of the government."

Bloggers think drilling is a winning issue. At The Next Right, Matt Hurley explains why "campaigning against the Pelosi Premium is a winner": because "95% of the American people are very concerned or somewhat concerned about the the price of gasoline. That Speaker Pelosi and House Democrats continue to turn a deaf ear to this issue is amazing." Power Line's John Hinderaker says that while it is a good start, McCain needs to do more: "McCain needs to emerge as an aggressive, enthusiastic advocate of affordable energy and economic growth. If he can do that, he, and the Republican Party, will sweep to victory in November."

Obama then called McCain's support for offshore drilling "another example of short-term political posturing from Washington" and argued for a windfall profits tax. At Contentions, Jennifer Rubin argues that "opposing drilling for domestic oil production seems like a loser politically for Obama. How long and hard he argues that we should continue our present offshore oil ban will tell us for certain if it is." Redstate's Pejman Yousefzadeh adds that "it is impossible to take seriously the Obama campaign's argument that a removal of the ban on offshore drilling only serves to benefit oil companies." And the Political Machine's Dave sums up Obama's refusal to support offshore drilling: "Wow, that's a lot of words to say, 'yeah were still not drilling offshore, sorry about the $4 gallon gas, not much I can do.'"

Obama's National Security Council?

Will Obama's White House be Pooh Corner? Apparently, our potential president and his foreign policy advisers will implement the Winnie the Pooh Doctrine:

Richard Danzig, who served as Navy Secretary under President Clinton and is tipped to become National Security Adviser in an Obama White House, told a major foreign policy conference in Washington that the future of US strategy in the war on terrorism should follow a lesson from the pages of Winnie the Pooh, which can be shortened to: if it is causing you too much pain, try something else...

Danzig spelt out the need to change by reading a paragraph from chapter one of the children’s classic, which says: “Here is Edward Bear, coming downstairs now, bump, bump, bump on the back of his head behind Christopher Robin. It is, as far as he knows, the only way of coming down stairs. But sometimes he thinks there really is another way if only he could stop bumping a minute and think about it.”

Hot Air's Allahpundit asks, "Exit question: If it stops causing you much pain, is it safe to stick with it?"

No, it's not. Blogger Jon at Exurban League says, "We live in a world of medieval fascists who promise to rain destruction upon us and our allies. Rogue regimes rapidly acquiring nuclear weaponry. Unstable governments who could turn against us overnight. And the Democratic administration in waiting is talking about Hunny Pots and Heffalumps?" And Townhall's Carol Platt Liebau adds, "Well, let's just hope that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is as charmed by the philosophy of the 'little cuddly all stuffed with fluffies' as the Obama team is."

NRO's Jim Geraghty says that Obama "would be wise to articulate a national security policy that relied more on personal meetings with Gen. David Petraeus and less on reading Winnie the Pooh." And at Contentions, Jennifer Rubin adds that he should "get rid of advisors who make people wonder if he is really ready to sit at the grown-up’s table." But I, for one, will sleep more soundly knowing that the Obama administration would base security decisions on a children's story about stuffed animals.

At a Philadelphia fundraiser on Friday, Obama explained his new tactic for dealing with Republicans' attacks. "If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun," he told the audience. And bloggers, of course, are all over this latest Obama line.

At Pajamas Media, Bob Owens explains that this is "ironic--because the fact of the matter is that the Obama campaign recognizes no constitutional right to own firearms for personal or community defense." At Michelle Malkin's blog, see-dubya adds, "Obama was infamously quoted as wanting to roll back concealed carry laws. Apparently he sees some utility in them after all, at least when you’re under knife attack." And Hot Air's Ed Morrissey asks, "Is he endorsing concealed-carry and the right of people to defend themselves with firearms? Or are people only allowed to 'bring a gun' to defend themselves in debates, rather than in life-and-death situations?"

What does this latest line tell us about Obama's politics? The Los Angeles Times's Andrew Malcolm says, "Is this the new kind of politician full of hope who wants to change Washington's ways? He anticipates some kind of close-in fighting with his 71-year-old opponent, John McCain, and his gang of GOP suits with their own secret signs?" The Political Machine's Dave thinks that "Obama is reassuring supporters that despite his lofty rhetoric about a new kind of politics, he is willing to go into the gutter if he needs to, heck he will go deeper into the gutter!" And at Contentions, Jennifer Rubin adds that this line is "a schoolyard taunt, not the language of a presidential nominee."

Should McCain be worried? Probably not, but as the McCain Report says, "we're having second thoughts about our proposed series of town halls."

Remember Jim Johnson? The former head of Fannie Mae was on Obama's VP-vetting team until the media highlighted his shady Countrywide loan deals--a bit of a problem since Obama has criticized Countrywide for such deals. As expected, Johnson resigned because he "would not dream of being a party to distracting attention from" Obama's campaign.

Bloggers agree that Obama's initial defense of Johnson could cause problems. The Washington Post's Dan Balz says, "It isn't clear whether the uproar over Johnson is a passing storm or a more serious problem for the Obama campaign. For now, the campaign has decided to treat it as a minor annoyance that will soon disappear. But the candidate's response has raised questions about the candidate himself that could well linger past the moment." Joe Gandelman at the Moderate Voice adds, "His initial reply to this controversy didn’t help him and made him look like one more evasive pol, or an incredibly naive candidate."

Right-wing bloggers are more blunt. Hugh Hewitt says, "Obama has blown his first week as the Democratic nominee defending a DC insider who took the special deals from the deep pockets which Obama has been blasting his opponents for for months." And NRO's Jim Geraghty explains that "we see that Obama's first instinct when encountering a skeptical questioner is to challenge the questioner; 'no, you're wrong.' Twenty-four hours ago, this was 'a game' and Johnson didn't work for Obama. Once again, as with Wright, and the flag pin, and Trinity United, etc., the initial answer is now inoperative."

As Townhall's Amanda Carpenter notes, Obama has had quite a few "distractions." And Hot Air's Allahpundit says, "Doesn’t this qualify in Obamaworld at the very least as a 'distraction'? Or does the fact that it’s being presented as Johnson’s own decision mean Barry can’t use his favorite rhetorical device?"

Perhaps Obama should find some new VP vetters. After all, as Ramesh Ponnuru says at The Corner, "A large part of that job is to keep Obama from forming an unfortunate association with a shady character or a person who could prove politically dangerous. A person, that is, like James Johnson."

Have you heard of Jim Johnson? The former head Fannie Mae is one of Obama's "VP vetters." And as the New York Sun reports, Johnson

took at least five real estate loans totaling more than $7 million from Countrywide Financial Corp. through an informal program for friends of the company's CEO, Angelo Mozilo, the Wall Street Journal reported Saturday. The Journal said at least two of the mortgages, among a series of loans made available to people Countrywide officials called "friends of Angelo," were at rates below market averages, though it is difficult to predict a market rate without access to nonpublic information about a borrower's credit history and other factors that can reduce interest charges on a loan…

On the campaign trail, Mr. Obama has criticized Countrywide's executives. "These are the people who are responsible for infecting the economy and helping to create a home foreclosure crisis. Two million people may end up losing their homes," Mr. Obama said in March.

Add Johnson to the list of controversial Obama friends. As Hugh Hewitt says, "Like Obama receiving special favors from Tony Rezko, Johnson seems to have benefitted nicely from his public 'service.'"

At Real Clear Politics, Blake Dvorak notes, "Might not be such a big deal had the Obama campaign not gone after Mark Penn for his ties to Countrywide." Goldfarb has more on this at the McCain Report and concludes that "it looks like the Obama campaign is not too worried about who its top officials do business with."

Bloggers agree that Johnson's actions do not embody Obama's message of "change." Hot Air's Ed Morrissey explains: "Obama has run on a promise to change politics in Washington. Given that he has no executive experience, no foreign policy experience, no military experience, and no legislative track record, it’s about the only platform he has left. Does appointing an ethically-challenged, long-time party fixer to a VP search committee look like New Politics or the same old garbage?" At The Corner, Mark Hemingway adds, "Bear in mind that Jim Johnson is the guy that's supposed to be helping Obama vet VP candidates, and yet he's hardly a spokesman for ethical standards. When Barack Obama talks about reforming Washington, it's not exactly comforting to know that the likes of Jim Johnson is helping him do it."

Slate's Mickey Kaus asks, "Is Obama really going to let this story drag out all week? Are Johnson's allies so powerful he must be protected--the way Rev. Wright was protected, for a time? Why not say 'This is not the Jim Johnson I know' and throw him overboard?" But at Contentions, Jennifer Rubin says "rather than just throwing Johnson overboard it may be more productive to examine their entire fact-checking and vetting operation."

The weekend buzz was Hillary Clinton's speech suspending her campaign and endorsing Obama. But many of her supporters--particularly older, feminist women--are "devastated and angry," according to ABC News. Hillary thus "made gender a central theme of her concession speech":

"I ran as a daughter who benefited from opportunities that my mother never dreamed of. I ran as a mother who worries about her daughter's future," Clinton said. "To build that future we must understand that women and men alike understand the struggles of their mothers and grandmothers."

"Although we weren't able to shatter that highest, hardest glass ceiling, thanks to you it's got about 18 million cracks in it and the light is shining through like never before," she said.

Bloggers on the right didn't care for Hillary's "feminist wake," as Jennifer Rubin calls it. Power Line's Paul Mirengoff says, "While Clinton talked about a glass ceiling, the reality is that initiallly the race was hers to win. If there are identity barriers associated with obtaining the Democratic nomination for president, the one Obama faced is at least as formidable as the one Clinton complains about." I'm with Townhall's Amanda Carpenter, who says, "The end of the speech made it seem like all women owed her something for being the first female to run for president. Like us girls would never be successful if it hadn't been for her." And Hot Air's Allahpundit adds, "Yup, she’s really pouring on the grrrrrl power near the end here."

American Spectator's James Antle says, "Clinton alternated between celebrating her best shot at the presidential 'glass ceiling' and trying to persuade these women that the causes they believed in would best be advanced by electing Obama." Michelle Malkin asks, "Can the PUMAs and the Bitter Wimmin Brigade be tamed and appeased?" At Contentions, Jennifer Rubin concludes, "Hillary can’t deliver these people. Her mere presence is a reminder that Obama did her wrong."

Many on the left are gushing over what Taylor Marsh calls the "best speech of Senator Hillary Clinton's political career." Bob Ostertag writes at the Huffington Post, for example, "She spoke as the worthy spokeswoman for gender equality. She radiated confidence and appeal. She called us to our better selves. She made us believe that we could move past the divisions that have hobbled us."

But, as The Corner's Kathryn Lopez reminds us, "The only thing worse than Clintonism may be what replaces it."

Obama should have been able to breathe a sigh of relief since she's finally gone. But instead, loyal Obama supporter Tony Rezko was convicted on 16 of 24 charges of corruption. What did Obama say? "I am saddened by today's verdict. This isn't the Tony Rezko I knew." Seriously.

Power Line's Scott Johnson has some background on the Obama-Rezko connection and concludes, "Obama's comment on Rezko's conviction reaches a new height of absurdity." His colleague John Hinderaker adds, "I don't doubt that Obama is saddened by his mentor's conviction, but the rest of his statement is from outer space." Michelle Malkin asks, "How many times can Barack Obama claim to be shocked, shocked by the behavior of his longtime friends?"

Could this latest news about an Obama supporter cause problems for the Democratic nominee? Hot Air's Ed Morrissey says, "The Rezko conviction itself provides an indirect shot at Barack Obama for the moment, showing the kind of people with whom he associated while a Chicago politician...Now we can add a convicted crook to that circle of associates, especially since Rezko raised over a quarter-million dollars for Obama during the same period in which he committed the crime and corruption for which he was convicted today." And Ace wonders, "Only found guilty on 2 of 6 counts of 'corrupt solicitation,' which I assume is bribery of a public official. Wonder if they found him innocent of any charge that would bring him closer to Obama here." But as Townhall's Matt Lewis concludes, "If it had to happen, the timing couldn't be better for Obama."

But, we should probably just ignore it, because as Malkin says in another post, "you know, it’s just a 'distraction.'"

Hillary gets?

Word is that Hillary is "open" to being Obama's veep and is "withholding a formal departure from the race partly to use her remaining leverage to press for a spot on the ticket," according to the AP. Bloggers are yet again buzzing about the possibility of a Democratic "dream" ticket.

Is Obama game for the dream ticket? As Jules Crittenden put it, "At last check, I thought he wasn’t much interested, but maybe she and her peeps will bully him into it, now that they’ve got him softened up. Limping, battered, confused, more like it, wondering where the next hit comes from, who’s this she-devil he just can’t stick a stake in."

Is this a smart move for Hillary? At The Corner, Lisa Schiffren says, "Since Hillary has probably had enough martyrdom for a lifetime, she has every incentive to play hardball now, and to be just plain disruptive if she doesn't get what she wants." But Patrick Ruffini at The Next Right says the veep slot would be a "dead end" for her political career whether Obama wins or loses. And Hot Air's Allahpundit wonders, "If she was interested in that, why didn’t she press for it last month? Her leverage now is near zero, with some fundraisers already ready to abandon ship and others doubtless soon to follow after he’s declared the presumptive nominee."

And would Veep Hillary be good for Obama? At Contentions, Jennifer Rubin says, "I think the answer is 'yes,' only if he lacks confidence in his ability to broaden his coalition and win in the easiest election year for Democrats in a generation." Townhall's Amanda Carpenter counters, "Does she really have the power to make her supporters stay home and not vote for Obama or against McCain? What does Obama get out of the deal? Seems like all he'd get is her baggage and campaign debts." At The Corner, Jonah Goldberg adds, "The black guy with the funny name, plus the 'woman candidate' who also happens to be Bill Clinton's wife. It would take Obama's 'change' brand and cause it to capsize under the weight of its PCness."

Either way, the situation is no good for Obama. As Townhall's Carol Platt Liebau says, "If Barack puts Hillary on the ticket, it's a serious admission of weakness--if he can't stand up to the Clintons, what's he going to do with Kim Jung Il and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? But if he keeps her off the ticket, what's it going to do to her supporters?" And as Marc Ambinder reported this morning, Obama might have trouble ahead.

Yesterday, John McCain gave a speech to AIPAC, in which he reiterated U.S. support for Israel and called for tougher sanctions on Iran. He also jabbed Obama on his willingness to meet with Iranian leadership:

Even so, we hear talk of a meeting with the Iranian leadership offered up as if it were some sudden inspiration, a bold new idea that somehow nobody has ever thought of before. Yet it's hard to see what such a summit with President Ahmadinejad would actually gain, except an earful of anti-Semitic rants, and a worldwide audience for a man who denies one Holocaust and talks before frenzied crowds about starting another.

As if on cue, Ahmadinejad gave us even more reason to negotiate with him:

Ahmadinejad predicted on Monday that Muslims would uproot "satanic powers" and repeated his controversial belief that Israel will soon disappear…

"I must announce that the Zionist regime (Israel), with a 60-year record of genocide, plunder, invasion and betrayal is about to die and will soon be erased from the geographical scene," he said.

He also called for the fall of the "satanic" United States. Dean Barnett asked here, "Is there any possibility that A’jad already feels emboldened by the anxiousness to appease shown by one of the two finalists for the American presidency?" And Hot Air's Ed Morrissey asks, "Does this qualify as the 'common interests' that Obama sees between Iran and the United States?"

The Obama camp rebuked McCain's speech as a continuation of "failed" Bush foreign policy. But Hugh Hewitt concludes, "Americans who care about Israel will have a very difficult time voting for the naive Obama, though some will talk themselves into believing that Ahmadinejad doesn't count, that Obama will wise up, or something else."

At Contentions, Abe Greenwald says, "Well, Senator Obama, Tehran is talking. What is your reply?" The right-wing PAWaterCooler blog predicts that Obama will give the usual response he gives when a friend says something a little too outrageous: "Ahmadinejad Is Not the Man I Knew..."

Trinity United Church of Christ, "days after the Rev. Michael Pfleger, a visiting Catholic priest, mocked Obama's Democratic rival during a sermon at Trinity United," reports CNN.

Bloggers have many questions for Obama. At Contentions, John Podhoretz says, "There’s something about this decision that raises more questions than it answers. Is Obama doing this now because he is on the verge of securing the nomination and no longer needs to worry so much about disappointing his base? Or is he worried there is more to come on YouTube from the Trinity United stage and he wants to have dissociated himself from it all beforehand?" At The Corner, Byron York asks, "Has the church somehow changed in the past few weeks from the Trinity he attended, apparently happily, for 20 years? Are ministers somehow making unacceptable statements from the pulpit that they did not make when Obama was going there earlier?" And Power Line's John Hinderaker adds, "The question that is still left hanging, of course, is why [the sermons] didn't offend Obama until they appeared on YouTube."

Also at The Corner, Pete Wehner says that this "is yet one more blow to Obama’s image as a different kind of politician." Hot Air's Ed Morrissey explains further: "If the Obamas quit TUCC, they will confirm it as a political problem, and the act won’t convince anyone that they disagree with its rhetoric. They may convince people that he only joined TUCC for its political connections in Chicago--but that doesn’t exactly reflect well on Obama, either."

Obama's getting a reputation for throwing his friends under the bus. Jules Crittenden exclaims, "First grandma, then his preacher, how the whole darn church. All under the bus. With abandon!" And how will Obama's latest denunciation affect his campaign? As blogger see-dubya writes at Michelle Malkin, "Whew! It’s a good thing Obama got out in front of this controversy before it started to hurt him."

Yesterday, the AP reported that John McCain "sharply criticized Democratic rival Barack Obama for not having been to Iraq since 2006, and said they should visit the war zone together." Why not? They could visit the troops, bond a little before the coming bitter end of the campaign season, and not to mention, Obama could at least create a better-informed foreign policy platform. But Obama's spokesman told TPM that the "proposal is nothing more than a political stunt."

At Contentions, Jennifer Rubin says, "It is odd that on the most important foreign policy issue of the campaign (and of the next presidency) Obama can’t bestir himself to run down all the facts, get all the viewpoints, look Iraqi and U.S. officials in the eye, and demonstrate to the public he can operate confidently with a wide array of military and diplomatic officials." So, why won't he go?

Bloggers agree: He is scared of what he will find in Iraq. Stop the ACLU Blog sums it up: "Obama is too scared he will see something outside the lines of his pre-conceived notions of failure. He obviously doesn’t want to find a reason not to surrender." Redstate's Dan McLaughlin adds, "McCain is betting that Americans want a wartime leader who actually cares what the war looks like from Baghdad to the people charged with fighting it--not what it looks like from the streets of Chicago to the people fighting against the mission." And Jules Crittenden is more blunt.

Obama might have problems whether or not he goes. Hot Air's Ed Morrissey says, "If Obama goes, he risks his standing with the hard-Left haters of the military and exposes himself to the optimistic findings in the briefing. If he doesn’t go, McCain can openly wonder why Obama wants to meet with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and not David Petraeus." It is interesting who Obama thinks is fit to visit. Drew M. at Ace of Spades explains, "I guess the idea of sitting down with American troops, their leaders and the elected government of Iraq isn’t as interesting as a world tour of thugs and killers. Perhaps if McCain had suggested skipping Baghdad and going right on to Tehran to chat with Ahmadinejad Obama would have been more interested."

Obama supporters are asking why their man had to go and open his mouth again. As ABC's Jake Tapper says, Obama is a "one-man gaffe machine," and this Memorial Day was no exception. At his Memorial Day speech in New Mexico, Obama said (along with other questionable statements),

On this Memorial Day, as our nation honors its unbroken line of fallen heroes--and I see many of them in the audience here today--our sense of patriotism is particularly strong.

What's wrong with this statement? Power Line's John Hinderaker says, "Memorial Day honors those who have died in our nation's military service. Is it possible that Obama does not know this? Sometimes the things that come out of his mouth defy understanding." That wasn't the only bad part of Obama's speech. As Hot Air's Ed Morrissey explains, "Obama decided to use his time to do a lot of self-promotion and criticize the Bush administration as his way of honoring the war dead. In politicizing the holiday, Obama portrayed veterans as victims of the current administration, and used the platform to promise all kinds of new spending, helpfully reminding his audience that we spend $10 billion a month in Iraq."

Bloggers agree that Obama has a gaffe problem. QandO's McQ says, "Of course all pols say things like this from time to time, but in Obama's case, these sorts of utterances seem to be increasing and only reinforcing the growing belief that he's not really ready for prime-time." And Hugh Hewitt concludes that "with his nomination assured and the most important job in the world on the line, the criticism-free zone in which Obama has long prospered simply cannot be sustained, and even MSM's many accommodations cannot camouflage the gaffe parade that is Team Obama from top to bottom."

Many bloggers concede that perhaps Obama does have special abilities. Michelle Malkin quips, "No wonder his supporters attribute Messiah-like powers to their candidate. He sees dead people." Sister Toldjah adds, "Methinks the O-man has watched The Sixth Sense one too many times, eh?" But, as The Corner's Kathryn Lopez concludes, "Perhaps it wasn't a gaffe. Maybe the messianic talk is getting the best of him."

Obama sure has been saying some goofy things lately.

First, Obama shocked many of us when he said, "We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times...and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK." We can't? Isn't this America?

Power Line's Scott Hinderaker explains, "In his imagined future Obama assigns the American people the role of the poorhouse orphan beseeching Mr. Bumble: 'Please, sir, I want some more.' In his imagined future Obama aligns himself with Mr. Bumble." And Townhall's Carol Platt Liebau has another take on Obama's philosophy: "In Barack Obama's America, other countries are going to help dictate what we drive, how we cool our homes, and how much we eat!?" At The Corner, Yuval Levin asks, "at what temperature would other countries like me to keep my home, then, and how much should I eat?"

Then, Barack got mad when the Tennessee GOP released this video highlighting Michelle's statement that she was proud of America "for the first time in [her] adult life." On Good Morning America, he told the GOP, "Lay off my wife."

Bloggers feel little sympathy for Mrs. Obama. At Contentions, Linda Chavez explains that "the Obamas can’t have it both ways. Michelle Obama doesn’t just show up at fundraisers or make the occasional, canned surrogate speech. She is...involved in shaping campaign strategy, and her speeches have sometimes generated as much attention as his. Why shouldn’t she be fair game for speculation, dissection, and criticism?"

At the Jawa Report, BlutoComments notes, "Obama also trotted out the 'snippet' defense to explain away his wife's belief, spoken aloud at at least two different campaign stops, that, '...for the first time in my adult life I am proud of my country [because her hubby is running for president].'" And at the Corner, Charlotte Hays adds, "And, come to think of it, this isn't the first time Obama has said that anti-American 'snippets' by a close associate were taken out of context. We get to decide if we think this is relevant, not the candidate."

Hot Air's Ed Morrissey says simply, "If Obama doesn’t want his wife to receive criticism, then he shouldn’t use her as a surrogate on the campaign trail." Or, as Michelle Malkin put it, "If the Missus cannot take the heat, keep her away from the microphone."

Yes Nancy, the surge is working.

Is Speaker Nancy Pelosi now pro-surge? After her "surprise visit" to Iraq, bloggers wonder if she is finally coming to terms with reality.

As Goldfarb noted yesterday, "According to the AP, she 'welcomed Iraq’s progress in passing a budget as well as oil legislation, and a bill paving the way for the provincial elections in the fall that are expected to more equitably redistribute power among local officials.'" Hot Air's Ed Morrissey adds that "Pelosi sounded like General David Petraeus, although I doubt the suspension of disbelief was all that willing." And Steve Gilbert at Sweetness & Light reminds us that just a few months ago, Pelosi was calling the surge a "failure."

Why the change of heart? Scott at Flopping Aces explains that progress is "so undeniable now that even people who support the troops but not their efforts, people who want success but oppose the war can no longer ignore the fact."

At Contentions, Abe Greenwald has some questions for Pelosi: "Does this mean that the surge worked? And if so, does this mean Pelosi–gasp!–disagrees with Barack Obama, who has been against the surge from its inception?" Townhall's Carol Platt Liebau hopes Pelosi's rhetoric will be the same once she gets back to the Hill. But Power Line's Paul Mirengoff thinks this new rhetoric may cause some problems for the Speaker: "acknowledging this much progress is dangerous for those who advocate our withdrawal since (a) the public may be less enthusiastic about pulling out entirely if it thinks we're succeding and (b) in the event of serious deterioration post-withdrawal, it will be clear that we snatched defeat from the jaws of victory."

Will Obama and Edwards be hoping and changing together?

Yesterday's big breaking news: John Edwards endorsed Obama. Although Edwards's delegates may begin to move to Obama, bloggers wonder if this endorsement will really help the candidate at all.

Michelle Malkin explains the endorsement: "One effete, big government liberal embraces another." Should we be surprised that Edwards endorsed Obama now? Gawker says, "The timing of the endorsement certainly shouldn't improve Edwards' reputation as a slick, ambulance-chasing lawyer. He waited until the Democratic presidential hopeful had a virtual lock on the nomination, but not so long that his endorsement would be totally useless."

Can Edwards help Obama? Allahpundit says, "He couldn’t even deliver North Carolina to Kerry when he was on the ticket. The left adores him for his fight-fight-fightin’ nutrootsy rhetoric, but for all his alleged boldness he waited around here until Obama locked up the nomination before daring to announce for him." At Redstate, Pejman Yousefzadeh says it's just "bandwagoning." And at the Fix, Chris Cillizza concludes, "Edwards has been out of the race--and the limelight--for months now and his endorsement doesn't matter as much as it might have three months ago or even one month ago. Make no mistake: Both Clinton and Obama worked hard for and wanted Edwards's support. But, his endorsement alone does not--and will not--drastically affect the race." Still, as Reason's David Weigel notes, "Something that really drives a stake into Hillary: Edwards has delegates."

Drudge asks if Obama-Edwards could be "The Ticket." But at The Corner, Victor Davis Hanson says, "McCain should pray that Obama picks (he won't) John Edwards as VP--he brings no executive record of experience, and offers less ideological balance; he has a poor record of winning primaries over two failed runs for the Presidency, has never appealed to working-class whites, hurt the Kerry ticket as a mediocre VP candidate, did poorly in past and present debates, and went even harder to the left (in scripted fashion) in the primaries." Sounds like a winning endorsement!

Newsweek hearts Obama

Bloggers have been buzzing about Newsweek's startlingly biased cover story, "Sit Back, Relax, Get Ready to Rumble" by Richard Wolffe and Evan Thomas. The article explains "how Obama and his team will battle the GOP onslaught." Bloggers agree that Newsweek is now officially shilling for the Obama campaign.

Just how biased is the article? At the Corner, Rich Lowry posts comments from McCain adviser Steve Schmidt: "It's one of the top five most biased pieces of journalism ever written. It's a broad attack on the Republican party. It deliberately fails to mention the increasing negative energy on the MoveOn.org side and the 527's on the left. It tries to define issues of great importance as illegitimate." Hot Air's Ed Morrissey further dissects the article and concludes, "That’s a lot of propaganda to pack into such a small space, but Wolfe and Thomas are pros." And the STANDARD's own Sonny Bunch, blogging at Doublethink, explains, "Just in case Newsweek didn’t spell it out for you in stark enough terms: Obama=America’s last great hope; McCain=Worse than Nixon."

And Newsweek might as well be considered part of the Obama campaign. At Newsbusters, Noel Sheppard calls it "a truly disgraceful Newsweek article which continued to demonstrate just how in the tank media are for Democrat presidential candidate Barack Obama." At Contentions, Pete Wehner says that Obama is lucky: "Few people are fortunate enough to receive the kind of love and tenderness we find in the Newsweek story." And The Corner's Kathryn Lopez discusses the moving black-and-white cover: "Nothing like the MSM driving home the 'historic moment' (you want to be a part of! Yes We Can!) point."

Luckily, Mark Salter wrote a sharp letter to the Newsweek editor, calling out the authors on their misleading statements. But, as Goldfarb noted here, "It's also worth noting what Salter does not say. After furiously denying that the campaign will make an issue out of Obama's race or religion, Salter makes no mention of whether hanging around with America-haters is fair game. But the GOP won't need to 'paint' anything to make that case." As the Gateway Pundit agrees and says of Obama's friends, the truth will "speak for itself." And no adoring Newsweek profile can stop that.

Over the weekend, bloggers discussed a few more of Obama's problems. And as these bloggers note, you have to rely on the blogs to hear about these issues, since the mainstream media just loves him too much.

First, Obama had to get rid of yet another friend. Obama fired Robert Malley, his Middle East policy adviser, because "he had held meetings" and "had been in regular contact with Hamas." (Well, at least Malley isn't a terrorist himself, like other Obama friends, right?) Power Line's Paul Mirengoff notes that Malley, "like several other of his advisers, oozes hostility towards Israel and sympathy for its enemies." And at the Corner, Mark Hemingway has more on Malley. At Contentions, Jennifer Rubin asks, "what did Malley communicate to Hamas and did Malley’s contacts with Hamas have anything to do with the endorsement of Obama by Hamas’ Ahmed Yousef?" And Ace asks, "How do all these terrorist-sympathizing radicals keep mistakenly thinking that Obama is one of them?"

Then, Obama had a bit of a geography problem. You may recall Obama's interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer last Thursday, during which Obama said, "I’ve said [Hamas] a terrorist organization and we should not negotiate with them unless they recognize Israel, renounce violence, and unless they are willing to abide by previous accords between the Palestinians and the Israelis. So for him to toss out comments like that I think is an example of him losing his bearings as he pursues this nomination."

This was unfortunate timing since Obama was the one who lost his bearings late Friday, when he said he had visited 57 states. Marc Ambinder says that Obama was tired, but adds that "if John McCain did this--if he mistakenly said he'd visited 57 states--the media would be all up in his grill, accusing him of a senior moment." As Newsbusters notes, the media is definitely not "up in his grill." Power Line's John Hinderaker says this gaffe will "be worth keeping in mind in the fall, when every time John McCain misspeaks, the Democrats' whispering campaign will suggest that he's getting senile."

But where exactly are those extra states? At The Corner, Mark Steyn asks, "Is Hillary tossing in new states just to prolong the nomination process? Or is Obama having McCainesque senior moments?" Some bloggers have other ideas. While I'm sure this is just an ill-timed and funny gaffe, I have to agree with a Flopping Aces commenter, who wrote, "Maybe if here weren’t so averse to wearing a flag pin, he’s know how many stars were on it [sic]."

After losing to Obama in North Carolina and barely winning Indiana (as of now, anyways), Hillary is nearly finished.

As I write this, Drudge is already calling Obama "The Nominee." The Fix's Chris Cillizza explains, "A substantial margin by Obama in the Tarheel State and--at best--a VERY narrow Clinton win in Indiana could be just the sign that donors, superdelegates and party leaders need to begin the process of bringing the nomination fight to an end." Marc Ambinder adds that she "needed to find a way to give superdelegates their 'Holy Moly' moment, and she failed. Absent an extraordinary intervening event, the question for Hillary Clinton now is how she ends the race."

Bloggers across the spectrum agree that it's only a matter of time before Hillary exits the race. On the right, Michelle Malkin says, "She gave it her all, found her voice, lost her voice, smiled through her lies, lied through her cries, schemed, clawed, and cackled. But alas, it was not enough." Richelieu simply calls her "Toast." And at Hot Air, Allahpundit concludes that "she has nothing left to commend her to the supers except an electabilty argument unsupported by a single key metric or even circumstantial evidence that Pastorgate has done Obama grievous damage at the polls. Are they going to take the nomination from the first serious black candidate for president without any compelling data to hang their decision on? Not a chance. It’s over."

The left is much the same. Kyle Moore at Comments from Left Field proclaims, "Final analysis of the primaries that have transpired last night: Obama won the nomination, again (I am of the mind that he won it back at the end of February, and for all intents and purposes, thanks to the math, he did)." And TNR's Jason Zengerle concludes, "I don't think this speech was supposed to be Hillary's valedictory, but, despite her best efforts, it sure felt that way."

Still, some bloggers, like Hugh Hewitt, think that Hillary should fight to the death. Jules Crittenden thinks she will and says, "The only way she dies soon is if the superdelegates organize themselves to club her." But as John Podhoretz noted last night, "Hillary Clinton will come under the most withering personal assault of her career should she fail to drop out of the race tomorrow. It will be far worse than the Republican 'attack machine' because it is going to come from her fellow party members, her peers, and even a great many of her supposed friends." Is this the fall of the house of Clinton at last? And more importantly, can we be finished with the Democratic primary now, please?

Yesterday, ahead of crucial primaries in North Carolina and Indiana, two people caused trouble for Obama: his wife Michelle, and his first fundraiser Bill Ayers. Will he disown them if he loses today?

Michelle Obama has been projecting anger and bitterness on the campaign trail. First, bloggers are catching on to Michelle's bitter stump speeches. Hugh Hewitt says that in her typical speech, "Michelle Obama discounts all the good that is going on in the country, skips over the deep generosity of Americans, and ignores the astonishing economic and social progress made in the U.S. since the close of W.W.II as she indicts aspect after aspect of American life." Power Line's Scott Johnson adds, "Michelle Obama seethes with bitterness. While she preaches the gospel according to Barack, she wears resentment and bitterness on her sleeve. It is therefore painful to listen to her. She's apparently even still angry about her SAT scores." And at NRO, Yuval Levin calls her simply "America's unhappiest millionaire." Where's the hope and change?

Second, as Brian Faughnan noted here, Michelle said at a weekend fundraiser that Obama has had to hold back "anger" and "frustration" over the campaign. Don Surber explains why this is a problem for Mr. Obama: "If Obama is as his wife says he is--impatient and angry--then he is far younger than his 46 years would indicate...Youth has many things to offer. Sound judgment and patience are not among them."

And then there's Bill Ayers, the radical criminal/terrorist/Weatherman whose recent America-hating words made blogosphere headlines not long ago. Obama has claimed that he was just a child when Ayers was most radical.

But Marathon Pundit posted a photo of Ayers stomping on the American flag in 2001. Radio Patriot posted another version. Power Line's John Hinderaker notes, "This would be after Ayers and Dohrn launched Obama's career with a fundraiser at their home, and in a year when Ayers donated to Obama's State Senate campaign fund and served with Obama on the board of the Woods Fund." As Ace says, "Obama was but a sprightly lad of eight forty one years old." Hot Air's Ed Morrissey says these photos "will again raise questions about Obama’s judgment in working with America-hating radicals and lunatics. At some point, one has to wonder whether this shows bad judgment or reveals something about Obama’s real views on America and politics."

Remember what happens when plants have rights?

There's lots of predictable buzz in the blogosphere this morning. Oprah left Trinity United because of Wright (wouldn't anyone?), the same Wright who, according to the New York Post, "stole a wife." And--surprise, surprise--the Clintons are ruthless.

But more than a few bloggers also picked up on Wesley J. Smith's article in this week's issue of the STANDARD, The Silent Scream of the Asparagus. Smith writes,

You just knew it was coming: At the request of the Swiss government, an ethics panel has weighed in on the "dignity" of plants and opined that the arbitrary killing of flora is morally wrong. This is no hoax. The concept of what could be called "plant rights" is being seriously debated.

Most bloggers found the concept of "plant rights" laughable. Hot Air's Ed Morrissey explains why "plant rights" is a contradiction: "Doesn’t this also negate the animal-rights movement? After all, if humans do not occupy a privileged position in nature, then we have every right to exploit animal and plant life as, say, foxes, hawks, chickens, cows, and fish." And at Michelle Malkin, see-dubya notes another contradiction: "Sure, you vegans thought yourselves so morally pure. But according to the Swiss government, your hands are stained with the chlorophyll of innocent beings." (And see-dubya also notes that this shouldn't surprise us, coming from Europe.)

What do these people think we should eat? At the Moderate Voice, Jazz Shaw says, "It seems foolish to the point of dangerous folly to extend our sympathies so far that we cut ourselves off from the ability to feed ourselves. What will be left for us after this… a diet of air, water and… what? Some sort of rocks?" And blogger Bird Dog at Maggie's Farm has another suggestion: "One is forced to wonder whether the only dining acceptable to Greenie Gaia-worshippers would now involve cannibalism, since they want us to worry about the souls of asparagus and lobsters, and view human life as an obnoxious intrusion on an otherwise beautiful Eden." But like most of us, Jules Crittenden's diet won't change.

As the Evangelical Ecologist says, "So much for veggie burgers and ethanol."

I don't know about you, but I'm getting a salad for lunch.

Last night, Hillary appeared on The O'Reilly Factor with part one of a two-part interview in the "no spin zone."

The left was up in arms about the interview. Blogger "SilentPatriot" at Crooks and Liars, for example, complained, "I really don’t understand why Clinton (and Obama last Sunday) would agree to go on FOX and legitimize them as a news organization when they’re clearly a GOP propaganda outlet created with the sole purpose of smearing Democrats and praising Republicans." And according to TPM, MoveOn.org also condemned the interview. If this is such a great election year for the Democrats, why is the left worried about big, bad Fox News?

Right-wing bloggers were surprised by Hillary's performance. At Contentions, Jennifer Rubin says that Hillary came across as "pugnacious, funny (she says with a twinkle in her eye that she’d expect nothing but 'fair and balanced' coverage from Fox), quick on her feet and, within the confines of her shtick, somewhat candid. She’s a phony, but sort of a real phony." Perhaps the bubblegum-pink jacket enhanced her charm?

At the Corner, Kathryn Lopez posted emails from Republicans who found Hillary to be more likable than expected--although I'm sure the recent Jeremiah Wright episode helped with that, too. (Speaking of Wright, the big soundbyte from the interview is that Hillary called Wright's remarks "offensive and outrageous.")

But others disagree. At the American Spectator, Philip Klein says that "she was generally her phony self, giggling like a school girl, rattling off one big government program after another, and in John Edwards mode repeatedly saying 'I'm a fighter.'" Allahpundit notes that "Her Majesty did defend her socialist plan to take oil companies’ windfall profits just because they’re way too much in her considered judgment." (And although he hates to admit it, even he nonetheless found her "almost charming." What's going on here?) At the Corner, Andy McCarthy has more on her plan to take on the oil companies: "My favorite part of the interview: Hil's plan to reduce oil prices by...filing a WTO complaint. Evidently, the same folks who thought they could indict radical Islam into submission now figure they are going to break OPEC by filing a lawsuit." And Tyler Gray at Radar concludes, "The closer was a classic. O'Reilly asks Clinton if she's enjoyed the fair coverage Fox News has given her. Cue Clinton cackle." Yes, same old Hillary.

The Corner's Lisa Schiffren suspects that the interview was scheduled before Hillary's recent boost. O'Reilly may regret airing an interview that made Hillary seem like a normal, likable person, but we can rest assured that many voters won't buy her "one of the people" act.

After Jeremiah Wright's recent speeches to the NAACP and the National Press Club, Obama took the advice of bloggers and denounced his former pastor once and for all:

Barack Obama said he was "outraged" by Wright’s comments at the National Press Club Monday, and "saddened by the spectacle."...

"The person I saw yesterday is not the person I met 20 years ago.”

Bloggers are skeptical that Obama never heard the true Wright. Michelle Malkin says, "Anyone with eyes...saw that Wright’s was a finely-honed, time-tested act." At the Corner, Byron York explains that "watching Rev. Wright for the last few days, watching the fluidity with which he moved from educational theories to musical theories to racial theories, it's hard to believe that that material hasn't been in the sermons Obama has heard Wright preach over the last 20 years, so I'm skeptical about Obama's new outrage over Wright's words."

As for Obama, Rich Lowry says, "What's been most disturbing about this entire episode is how dishonest Obama has been, from his pretense that he didn't know about Wright's radicalism to his excuse now that Wright has somehow become a different person." It simply "strains credulity," says Tom Bevan at the Real Clear Politics blog.

At Contentions, Jennifer Rubin asks, "How low did the poll numbers go? How many superdelegates had to warn him? What finally changed his mind? Because, as anyone following the story knows, Wright has been remarkably consistent." Goldfarb has the answer: "Obama sat in the pews for 20 years, indifferent to the hatred Wright spewed towards all quarters of American life. It was only when Wright turned on Obama that he repudiated him." At Pajamas Media, Rick Moran agrees that "he has only addressed his pastor’s hateful remarks when they have become a political problem for him."

But it seems that Obama might have even more problems now. Hugh Hewitt says, "Either way it creates a huge issue for voters. Is Obama a dupe, or just duplicitous? Do you want him in charge of the nation's security, making judgments about our enemies?" Hot Air's Ed Morrissey adds, "It doesn’t address questions of judgment at all to finally act after being backed into a corner." And NRO's Jim Geraghty says that it makes Obama's race speech "look ridiculous now"--to which Mary Katharine Ham adds, "If you'd Sister Souljah-ed [Wright] instead of your grandma, maybe you wouldn't be here now."

Rev. Wright continues to sink Obama. At the Real Clear Politics blog, Tom Bevan sums up the buzz after Wright's National Press Club speech: "Jeremiah Wright has managed to do the impossible this political season: unite pundits from the left and the right in agreement about how badly he's hurting Barack Obama's quest for the White House." And bloggers across the spectrum are much the same.

Some bloggers question Wright's motives. Live-blogging the NPC speech, Michelle Malkin asked, "Is he working for the Hillary campaign? Is he angry at Barack Obama? Because he has got to know this is killing his spiritual protege’s campaign." As John McCormack noted here earlier, Wright doesn't seem like he'd even support a President Obama: "What will come of Wright if Obama captures the White House? 'I said to Barack Obama last year, "If you get elected, November the 5th, I'm coming after you because you'll be representing a government whose policies grind under people."" The Left agrees; Time's Joe Klein says, "Wright's purpose now seems quite clear: to aggrandize himself--the guy is going to be a go-to mainstream media source for racial extremist spew, the next iteration of Al Sharpton--and destroy Barack Obama."

And bloggers agree that Obama must denounce and distance himself from Wright if he wants to save his campaign. Yesterday Obama said that Wright's views "don't represent my views and they don't represent what this campaign is about. But he's obviously free to make those statements." But is that denunciation enough? At the Corner, Byron York says, "It's pretty clear that the most urgent task today for the Obama campaign and its advocates in the media is to cut Obama free from Rev. Wright." Hugh Hewitt explains, "Unless Senator Obama moves quickly and decisively to completely repudiate Reverend Wright, his fall campaign will be doomed. (And even a complete repudiation of Wright may not save the nomination if Hillary Clinton stays to her own course and begins to talk about Michelle Obama's vision of America for the rest of the primary season.)" At Contentions, John Podhoretz thinks Obama still has a shot: "If Wright and Ayers had come to dominate the news in October, that would have spelled the end to Obama’s presidential hopes. The fact that they have dominated the news in April will, I suspect, prove to have been something of a lucky break." But Jennifer Rubin thinks it's too late and concludes, "Wright is twisting the knife by pointing out that Obama never denounced him and that he merely 'distanced' himself (like any good politician). This spells only bad news for Obama."

Whatever happens to Obama, I think we can all agree with Ross Douthat's characterization of Wright: "a pure creep straight out of an Augusten Burroughs memoir, who's happy to sabotage a younger, finer man who might just be the first black President of the United States in the hopes of feeding his own ego and becoming...what? The next Al Sharpton? The next Willie Horton? How vile and pathetic."

It seems like Obama's pastor problem isn't going away anytime soon.

Obama appeared on Fox News Sunday yesterday, and Hot Air's Ed Morrissey sums it up: "It wasn’t a disaster, but it still reveals Obama to be out of touch and hard to the Left. Don’t expect this to help in Indiana."

The most talked-about soundbyte from the show is Obama's admitting that Rev. Wright is a "legitimate political issue." After denouncing the NC GOP's attack ad featuring Wright, McCain seems to have changed his tune as he said after Obama's FNS interview, "I believe that Senator Obama does not share those views. But Senator Obama himself says it’s a legitimate political issue so I would imagine that many other people would share that view and it will be in the arena." Politico's Ben Smith explains that "he said, more or less, that he didn't plan to attack Obama on Wright, but that Obama--by calling the question 'legitimate'--had legitimized it." As NRO's Jim Geraghty says, "Apparently the Obama campaign expected John McCain to argue with Obama that his relationship with Wright wasn't a legitimate issue." And this is unfortunate timing for Obama: Wright provided more outrageous comments while speaking to the NAACP last night (and surely will provide more after his speech at the National Press Club this morning).

The Corner's Byron York says simply, "Wright is a continuing disaster for Obama." At Contentions, Jennifer Rubin explains why: "Wright seems to be on a speaking tour designed to test the endurance of Democratic primary voters for deeply offensive rhetoric about America, whites, Israel, Italians, and numerous other topics."

And bloggers think that the latest from Wright will certainly hurt Obama. As Marc Ambinder put it, Wright "seems not to care about Barack Obama's politics or aspirations anymore." Hugh Hewitt says, "With a week of wall-to-wall Wright ahead, it is hard to see how Obama wins Indiana, a near home-field loss which would be yet another hammer blow to the collective consciousness of the super-delegates." And Hot Air's Ed Morrissey concludes, "Wright spent his time talking about differences; McCain can now start talking about what we all have in common. While Obama’s pastor reminds everyone that his Trinity United years, with Obama in attendance, focused on neurological buncombe to divide blacks and whites, McCain can unite Americans based on the American concepts of freedom and liberty."

Aside from Pennsylvania, the recurrent buzz this week has been Obama's connection to terrorists/criminals Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn. The conservative blogosphere has been particularly dilligent in covering yet another of Obama's alarming connections. Power Line's John Hinderaker describes them as "famous radicals, and fugitives from the law, in the late 1960s and early 1970s." In 1995, they held a fundraiser for Obama, and Obama continues to defend his relationship with them despite their anti-American comments as late as 2007. Hot Air's Ed Morrissey explains why all of this is important: "Obama and the Left want to demand an end to the probing of the years-long Obama-Ayers association as irrelevant. Never mind that Ayers has openly bragged of bombing the Pentagon. Never mind that Obama and Ayers voted to give $75,000 to Rashid Khalidi, a Yasser Arafat protege in the PLO, during their tenure with the Woods Foundation."

The past two days, John Hinderaker posted numerous audio clips of Ayers's and Dohrn's hateful comments both past and present. Radio host Guy Benson uncovered the audio. "These clips show that Obama's pals are as unhinged as ever, and they severely undermine Team Obama's spin that Ayers and Dohrn are now 'respectable' members of the political 'mainstream,'" he said. Hinderaker added, "Obama emerged from the far-left fringe of Chicago politics, and his relationship with Ayers and Dohrn, like his relationship with spiritual mentor Jeremiah Wright, raises important questions about Obama's own political beliefs." Hugh Hewitt has also been covering the story, and wonders why the MSM didn't find these clips a long time ago, "What else will we be discovering about Barack Obama's friends, and about the candidate?"

Why are these clips, particularly the most recent ones, important? Obama's supporters have claimed that Obama was only a child when Ayers and Dohrn were terrorists, but Ace reminds us that they were "engaging in the hardest of hard-left America-hating rhetoric in 2007 (when, as they note, Obama was at the tender, potty-training age of 47." And Hugh Hewitt reports Politico's Mike Allen's conclusion: "[I]t undercuts Senator Obama’s, one of Senator Obama’s defenses, which is that Bill Ayers’ outrageous statements were made when he, the Senator, was in elementary school."

What does this relationship tell us about Obama? Goldfarb wrote here that "Obama doesn't view left-wing radicals the way the rest of the country does, he doesn't understand why anyone would be upset that he associates with them, and more than that he seems dismissive of any such concerns." Ace adds, "The left continues to insist that prior terrorism against the United States and her citizens, if part of a leftwing 'movement,' is all just a 'youthful indiscretion' easily forgiven and better forgotten. I don't agree, and neither do most Americans."

Obama has some more explaining to do.

Not John McCain, that's for sure.

Despite being out-spent, out-hoped, and out-changed, Hillary won yesterday’s Pennsylvania primary by about 10 points. She will continue the primary fight, even though she remains out-delegated, and unless she unexpectedly sweeps the upcoming primaries, Obama will be the likely Democratic nominee. Bloggers say this is terrible news for the Democrats, since yesterday's primary really only makes McCain look good.

First, not all Democrats support the inevitable Obama. At the Politico, David Paul Kuhn says, "Hillary Rodham Clinton won Pennsylvania with the same base of white women, working-class voters and white men that revived her candidacy in Ohio last month. The demography that has defined the Democratic race went largely unchanged, according to exit polls." But Hot Air's Ed Morrissey says, "A compelling front-runner should have a large majority of late-deciders breaking his way, not away from him. Obama’s supposed inevitability should have swept him into victory at this late stage. If he can’t swing undecided Democrats, he won’t win independents or centrist Republicans in November against John McCain."

And Bittergate might have contributed to Obama's loss. John Podhoretz explains at Contentions: "Obama outspent Hillary 3-to-1 in Pennsylvania because he thought he could win it. Instead, he lost it. He lost it. He said rural Pennsylvanians cling to their religion and their guns because they’re bitter and they told him to go jump in the nearest vat of Scrapple." And at the Corner, Rich Lowry says simply, “If Barack Obama can make Hillary Clinton a tribune of the people, just image what he'll be able to do for John McCain.” If his snappy comment to a reporter Monday while eating his waffle is any indication, Obama seems like the bitter one now.

Bloggers agree that the Democratic party has trouble ahead. Vodkapundit Stephen Green concludes that Hillary's win "is pretty clear and quite convincing--that Hillary will go on, that Obama is a great pitch man but a lousy closer, and that the Democratic nominating process is dysfunctional at best and bipolar at worst." McQ at QandO explains further: "Democrats are left with the unenviable choice of ending the democratic process by appealing to the superdelegates to choose now and not allowing remaining Democratic primary voters to vote, or letting this run its full course and suffering the consequences in November."

Whatever the Democrats do, it seems like it will be a lose-lose situation. Richelieu says here that the race will drag on and "the only realistic albeit long-shot Clinton scenario, a super delegate reversal and last minute Hillary coup, would rupture the Democratic party." But on the other hand, Hot Air's Ed Morrissey asks, "And just how would it look to Democrats in upcoming states to see Hillary shoved aside after winning Ohio and Pennsylvania by 10 points each? It would look like Obama couldn’t beat her in a tough but fair contest, and he had to be rescued by the party establishment. That, combined with his apparent refusal to meet Hillary in another debate, makes it look like Obama is a cream puff."

Either way, fight it out, Democrats.

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are facing a difficult primary in Pennsylvania today, and bloggers are sizing up each candidate's chances.

Hillary is doing well in PA. Yesterday Marc Ambinder said that Hillary's campaign has "a fierce urgency of the now." The Fix's Chris Cillizza noted that "polling conducted in the runup to a series of states that voted earlier in the year seems to suggest that surveys underestimate support for the New York Senator. Polls in California and Ohio in advance of those states' votes showed Clinton and Obama running neck and neck, but she claimed solid margins in each. Her campaign has to hope the same pattern holds true in Pennsylvania tomorrow." If the numerous polls reported by the Real Clear Politics blog are any indication, Hillary has a shot at winning by as much as 10 points.

Another big polling buzz yesterday was a Drudge report of an internal Clinton campaign poll that predicted an 11-point win. Although the Clinton campaign denied the existence of this poll, Dave at the Political Machine pointed out that "the perception is more important than the actual numbers. Appearing to be ascendant is more important than the difference between nine points and 11 points." But Hot Air's Allahpundit said the report could actually hurt her: "All it does is make it easy for the media to frame a close win as a de facto loss while giving those late deciders she’s banking on an excuse to stay home or toss a sympathy vote at Obama to keep him from getting blown out."

Still, most bloggers see Hillary coming out on top. Hot Air's Ed Morrissey predicted: "Hillary wins Pennsylvania by eight. I suspect that Obama’s support in Philadelphia will keep him competitive, but the twin blows of Crackerquiddick and his awful debate performance will have convinced Pennsylvanians that Obama needs more experience--a lot more experience." Slate's Christopher Beam agreed: "Conventional wisdom suggests that Clinton needs to win by about 10 points in Pennsylvania in order to stay in the race. Her campaign puts the number around one point. What this means, of course, is that Clinton will win by eight points--just high enough for her to stick around, just low enough for Obama supporters to claim she's done."

Even Barack Obama himself said, "I’m not predicting a win. I’m predicting it’s going to be close and that we are going to do a lot better than people expect," Politico's Ben Smith reported.

With such a close race and so many different polls, Democrats in PA may feel like each vote really counts this primary. So it's really a shame that, as Michelle Malkin says, the choice boils down to, "Will it be the snob or the liar?"

In the wake of last night's debate, bloggers disagree about the performance of the moderators, but as to who won, well, nobody thinks it was Barack.

The debate certainly defined the differences between the candidates, says the Fix's Chris Cillizza: "Clinton billed herself as a known commodity and a pragmatist, Obama cast himself as a transformational figure and an unapologetic idealist." Or, as Michelle Malkin put it, "Hillary Clinton’s message: I am not a pathological liar! Barack Obama’s message: I am not a pathological snob!”

On Hillary's win by default, Real Clear Politics's Tom Bevan explains: "He got absolutely grilled during the first 40 minutes (when most people were watching) and with every mediocre answer Hillary Clinton was there to hang the issues back around his neck one by one like so many Hawaiian leis." Townhall's Matt Lewis says, "Obama--the most likely nominee--was battered most. Aside from being beaten up, you can now add 'wimp' to his list of qualities." And Hot Air's Ed Morrissey adds, "Barack Obama got exposed over and over again as an empty suit, while Hillary cleaned his clock."

Not only did Hillary look better than Obama, but Obama also completely lost his message. Townhall's Carol Platt Liebau sums it up: "Hillary came off as at least marginally more polished than Barack, who seemed off his stride, defensive and altogether unconvincing in his responses about his 'small town' comments, his relationship with Rev. Wright...and his attitude toward the American flag. Let's put it this way--there wasn't much 'hope' or inspiration there." Power Line's Scott Johnson says that the "most striking" aspect of the debate "was Obama's dour attitude. The man is not a happy warrior." Macsmind's Macranger simply called it "Obama's meltdown."

And even Obama supporters admitted defeat. Andrew Sullivan mourned his candidate's fall from grace: "It was a lifeless, exhausted, drained and dreary Obama we saw tonight. I've seen it before when he is tired, but this was his worst performance yet on national television. He seemed crushed and unable to react."

Tonight, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama will debate in PA ahead of next week's primary. Given the recent ad wars between the candidates--over Bittergate and campaign money from oil companies--the debate might provide some hilarious prime-time nastiness. Bring the popcorn!

The Bittergate ads generated the most buzz. After Obama's "elitist" remarks about PA voters, Hillary released an ad attacking him, and Obama, of course, quickly responded. Who won?

Townhall's Mary Katharine Ham analyzed the ads and concluded that Hillary is "determined to keep battering" Obama, while Obama serves up "bland and standard Obama fare, but it's nice. He remains the nice guy and she remains the bully." The Swamp's Frank James notes that Hillary's ad was "falling flat" with voters: "After being shown the ad, not many people shifted their views. When asked before and after seeing the ad who they would vote for if the election were held today, Obama's support went to 44 percent to 45 percent, pre versus post. Meanwhile, Clinton's support went from 43 percent to 44 percent, pre versus post."

But both ads had a few mistakes. Josh Drobnyk at the Morning Call reported that “At least one of her supporters featured in the spot hammering Obama for his small town comments isn’t registered to vote in Pennsylvania.” He's in fact registered to vote in New Jersey. And Hot Air's Allahpundit comments on the audience booing Hillary in Obama's ad: "The left’s been singing his praises the last few days for 'counterpunching' when he’s in a tight spot, a trait that appeals to the fightin’ nutroots in someone they like and which would be cited as a failure to accept responsibility in someone they don’t, like McCain or even Hillary Clinton. Naturally left unmentioned here is the allegation that it was Obama’s own supporters who were booing her."

According to TPM, "In most of Pennsylvania's markets, the only TV ad Hillary is running right now is a negative one -- the spot hitting Obama over his 'small town' comments." Can this strategy work? Bloggers disagree.

Politico's Ben Smith says, "This is the kind of pounding Obama's critics used to say he'd never faced, and would never survive." But Swampland's Joe Klein says that "with a spate of recent polls showing Obama holding close to Clinton in Pa, it may be that this Republican-style 'values' attack just doesn't work with Democrats."

Either way, there is one person that the ad wars help: John McCain. Mary Katharine Ham notes that Obama's nice-guy ads will look "wimpy" compared to McCain. Joe Sudbay at AMERICAblog says, "This should make all the Clinton staffers, consultants and supporters very, very proud. They can't win the nomination, but they are willing to participate in the effort to destroy the Democratic nominee." And at Contentions, Jennifer Rubin puts it best: "McCain doesn’t need his own money for an ad budget right now: he’s got Hillary’s."

Last week, former president Jimmy Carter made headlines with his plans to meet with Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal in Syria. Carter arrived in the Middle East on Sunday, and Reuters reported yesterday that "Israeli leaders shunned former U.S. President Jimmy Carter during a visit because of his plans to meet Hamas and Israel's secret service declined to assist U.S. agents guarding him," which was "unprecedented."

Reuters reports today that Carter was denied a visit to the Gaza Strip, likely because:

Despite heavy Israeli criticism since his arrival on Sunday, Carter met Naser al-Shaer, who served as deputy prime minister in the Hamas-led government formed by the Islamist group after it won parliamentary elections in 2006.

Shaer, who has frequently met Abbas since Hamas's takeover of Gaza, is an Islamist with close ties to Hamas…

Carter said on Tuesday he would use his meeting with Meshaal to "get him to agree to a peaceful resolution of differences, both with the Israelis ... and also with Fatah".

Not only have "Israel and the United States...sought to isolate Hamas in the Gaza Strip," but the State Department was openly against Carter's meeting with Meshaal. Bloggers agree that Carter is undermining official U.S. foreign policy and should not meet with Meshaal, although they disagree on how to handle Carter and this very bad situation.

Michael Kraft at the Counterterrorism Blog writes that while Carter does not technically violate any U.S. law, the meeting is still a bad idea: "For a high profile person like Carter to publicly meet with Hamas leader Mashaal at this stage only encourages Hamas to believe that if it remains steadfast in its 'resistance' and rhetoric, the West will try to make deals or concessions without Hamas having to yield on its support for terrorism and opposition to Israel’s existence. And why should Hamas expect anything but 'understanding' from a man who writes a book that so blatantly and erroneously tries to pin the 'Apartheid' label on Israel?" But at Contentions, Jamie Kirchick makes a case that Carter possibly violated the Logan Act, because "[b]y calling on the United States to include Hamas in peace talks, and by meeting with the leader of said terrorist group in the capital of a country with which the United States does not even maintain diplomatic relations, Carter undermines a crucial plank in America’s Middle East policy." Nonetheless, we shouldn't be surprised, as Little Green Footballs points out that Carter has been meeting with Hamas "for years," in Carter's words.

Conservative bloggers disagree on how to best handle the situation. At Hot Air, Ed Morrissey says that while he understands Israel's stance, even though "Carter may be the worst ex-president in American history," he should still be protected since his visit poses huge risk to all Americans on the trip. (Isn't that reason enough that he shouldn't be there?) Jules Crittenden, however, is less sympathetic and says that the U.S. "might consider withdrawing his Secret Service protection, and let Hamas protect him."

Meanwhile at the Corner, Andy McCarthy links to further evidence that the meeting with Meshaal should not take place: "A sermon last Friday by a prominent Muslim cleric and Hamas member of the Palestinian parliament openly declared that 'the capital of the Catholics, or the Crusader capital,' would soon be conquered by Islam." At Contentions, Abe Greenwald is confused by Carter's logic: "So, the Pope visits the United States while simultaneously former U.S. President Jimmy Carter goes to talk righteousness with the gang who wants to unseat the Pope. This must be how Democratic diplomacy is going to restore America’s image abroad." At least among terrorists.

Barack Obama's "bittergate" blew up the blogosphere over what would have been an otherwise quiet weekend. At a San Francisco fundraiser last Sunday Obama said,

You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

Obviously, this statement caused quite a bit of drama for Obama's campaign. Hot Air's Ed Morrissey "break[s] the statement into its component insults" and concludes, "It would be difficult to be any more condescending or insulting in so many ways to so many voters in a single sentence." And at Contentions Jennifer Rubin asks, "[J]ust how many religious voters and NRA members could there be in Pennsylvania, Indiana, North Carolina, Kentucky and West Virginia?"

And Hugh Hewitt says quite simply, "The past 72 hours built on the disconnect many were already feeling about Pastor Wright's anger, and the corrosive effect on Obama's appeal will be profound and prolonged."

What does this statement say about Obama's beliefs? At Contentions, Abe Greenwald explains: "With last Sunday’s revelation—that he looks at smalltown America and finds armed, hate-filled, irredentist religious zealots—the last piece of the Obama puzzle fell into place. He is not, it turns out, an agent of change; he is a walking checklist of modern liberal inanities." Michelle Malkin adds, "Now, we don’t need to guess anymore what he’s thinking when he’s on the campaign trail in rural and small-town Pennsylvania. Instead of hard-working, patriotic, faithful Americans, he sees 'bitter,' 'frustrated,' resentful scary people whom he’ll readily diss while sipping Chardonnay in Baghdad by the Bay." And Power Line's Scott Johnson concludes that Obama "looks down his nose at the mystifying enthusiasms of his fellow citizens as symptoms of psychic damage."

Obama, of course, tried to spin his statement and said that he regrets wording "things in a way that made people offended," which Goldfarb translates to "Sorry You're Too Stupid to Understand What He Meant." At Pajamas Media, Roger Kimball (via Instapundit) doesn't buy it: "I think we all know exactly what he meant. He meant that he regarded most Americans as bitter, small-town, gun-toting, God-fearing, xenophobic, unemployed isolationists who needed help. That is bad enough. Even worse, however, is the disgusting pretense that he actually meant something more emollient." And Michelle Malkin snarks, "Keep spinnin’, pal. You’re going to land right back into the gutter, with your bowling ball."

Still, Allahpundit says this isn't necessarily good news for Hillary either, since the Democrats' only solution is to "[n]ominate a former First Lady who’s worth $109 million." But she can just drink her troubles away.

And what would Bittergate be without a little humor? At the blog Chris Matthew's Leg, the Oracle sums up the entire affair: "It seems small town Americans are prickly about having their feelings caricatured by hyper-ambitious, Harvard-educated, self-styled Messiahs for the entertainment and ego-massaging of Left Coast beautiful people. As crazy as that sounds."

The big news today is Bill Clinton's latest campaign-ending remarks about Hillary's 1996 Bosnia trip . ABC reports:

President Clinton's described his wife's experience, saying, "There was a lot of fulminating because Hillary, one time late at night when she was exhausted, misstated and immediately apologized for it - what happened to her in Bosnia in 1995. Did y'all see all that. Oh, they blew it up. Let me just tell you." Clinton then criticized the press, saying, “You woulda thought, you know, that she'd robbed a bank the way they carried on about this. And some of them, when they're 60, they'll forget something when they're tired at 11:00 at night, too."

Well, there are a lot of problems with this account, as Political Radar explains. For example, "Hillary Clinton actually made the exaggerated comments numerous times, including at an event in Dubuque, Iowa on Dec. 29th, in Waco, TX on Feb. 29th, and twice -- bright and early in the morning -- on March 17." And another: He got the year wrong. ABC's Jake Tapper also fact-checked Bill's remarks and found them lacking in, well, facts. And the Power Line bloggers concluded that the "whole story is bogus."

Bloggers say this can only be bad news for the rapidly sinking Clinton campaign. The Vodkapundit Stephen Green says, "Bill just has to remind us that they’re both big liars, just when the last lie was fading from view. Is there any other conclusion to reach other than Clinton is sabotaging his own wife’s campaign?” And Ariel Alexovich at the New York Times's Caucus blog notes, "Perhaps he’s forgotten his own admonition after catching a lot of heat for speaking out on her behalf earlier this year. Just a month or so ago, Mr. Clinton announced that he had learned a lesson--that he should stick to simply promoting her, not defending her."

The Jawa Report's Mike Pechar provides some convincing evidence that Bill might be purposely sabotaging the campaign. After all, Bill already enjoys the perks of the presidency. And his line about Hillary forgetting "something when [she's] tired at 11:00 at night" prompts the Swamp's John Riley to ask, "But at 3 am, she'll be wide awake?"

Perhaps Bill just can't help himself. As Allahpundit says, "This sort of thing simply has to be compulsive for him. In no rational world does it make sense to reintroduce this subject, lie about it, and lie about it so clumsily that the press would have to rub his face in it even if they didn’t want to." Jennifer Rubin agrees: "Maybe he’s a hopeless, pathological fabulist. Or maybe he just doesn’t understand how hard it is to get away with easily fact-checked lies in a 24/7 news environment."

Elton John sang at a Hillary Clinton fundraiser last night at Radio City Music Hall. The event raised over $2.5 million for the campaign--but I'll leave the potential legal issues to others. What really made headlines after the event was Elton John's comments to the 5,000 concert-goers. The New York Daily News reports:

"I never cease to be amazed at the misogynistic attitude of some of the people of this country, and I say to hell with it," said John, clad in a sequined black dinner jacket, red silk shirt and red sunglasses. "I love you, Hillary, and I'll be there for you just like all the times you were there for me. Hillary should be the next President of America."

That's touching--but what is he talking about? I've seen plenty of Hillary lies and Hillary tears reported in the news, but I seem to have missed the blatant misogynistic, anti-woman rhetoric directed towards her. After all, according to the dictionary, "misogyny" is defined as "hatred, dislike, or mistrust of women." Not "hatred, dislike, or mistrust of Hillary Clinton." And most bloggers on both the left and right aren't too happy about being accused of misogyny just because they don't support Hillary.

Michelle Malkin explains why Hillary is really losing: "Sure, there are Neanderthals who won’t vote for any female candidate based on her gender. But there are far more anti-Hillary voters who are opposed to her pathological dishonesty–not her biological make-up." Wizbang's Cassy Fiano sums up my thoughts exactly: "She tries to present herself like a tough woman who can handle being the most powerful person in the world, someone who will have to handle being a rare female in a mostly male world (especially when it comes to foreign politics). But what happens when things don't go her way? She cries, she blames it on the 'boy's club,' she demands special treatment."

And Jazz Shaw at the Moderate Voice explains why the misogyny argument falls flat: "This was yet another reference to the all too common meme that anyone not supporting or disagreeing with Hillary Clinton is biased against women. So if that is fair game, then clearly we should be able to say that Sir Elton’s lack of support for Barack Obama means he’s a racist, yes?"

TNR's Christopher Orr says that John might be Hillary's Rev. Wright, as he notes, "No, it's not quite 'God damn America.' Though the technical sentiment is the same, Sir Elton is at least limiting his eternal damnation to those people (or perhaps states) who declined to vote for Hillary Clinton."

As I said, I'm curious to know more about this "misogyny" towards Hillary, because it seems to me that the only ones who are taking advantage of the gender issue are Hillary and her radical feminist supporters.

Fox News is reporting that former president Jimmy Carter will meet with Khaled Meshal, the leader of Hamas, later this month. Hamas has been designated by the U.S. government as a "foreign terrorist organization." It is committed to Islamic fundamentalism, destroying Israel, and, according to the Council on Foreign Relations, "is believed to have killed more than five hundred people in more than 350 separate terrorist attacks since 1993." Joseph Abrams reports:

Meshal, who lives in Syria to avoid being arrested by the Israeli government, leads Hamas from his seat in Damascus, where he is a guest of Bashar al-Assad's regime.

The State Department has designated Hamas a "foreign terrorist organization," and some groups hold Meshal personally responsible for ordering the kidnapping of Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack once said of the prospect of meeting with Meshal, "That's not something that we could possibly conceive of."...

Carter would be the first Western leader of his stature to meet with the Hamas chief. Though Meshal met with Clinton officials in the 1990s, the Bush administration has sought to isolate Hamas, enforcing rigid sanctions on its government in Gaza and refusing to meet with its leaders unless it recognizes Israel and abandons terror.

Carter may claim he is working for peace, but bloggers aren't at all convinced. Allahpundit reminds us of Carter's view of Israel, so it's no surprise that he'd consider a friendly little fête with Hamas. Michael van der Galien agrees: "First Carter accuses Israel of being an Apartheid state, then he goes to meet with the leader of an organization [whose] sole purpose is to destroy Israel and to kill all Jews." And at the American Thinker, Rick Moran adds, "Hamas's latest peace offering was to send a gunman to a Jewish seminary and slaughter 9 innocent people. I'm sure Meshal and Carter will have a lot to talk about considering the former President's previous statements about Israel being the biggest obstacle to peace in the Middle East are perfectly in line with Meshal's own fantasies."

Who's next? After all, as the Gateway Pundit says, "There's never been a violent dangerous dictator that Jimmy Carter did not have friendly relationships with or prop up in some way, so it should come as no surprise that he is going to meet with the leader of the violent terrorist group Hamas."

For our part, we wonder whether Carter will ask Meshal about the Hamas-sponsored children's television show that showed Bush being murdered? Was production affected by the writers strike, or can we expect a new episode featuring the murder of the vice president in the near future?

Bloggers on both sides of the aisle say good riddance to Mark Penn, pollster and now-former chief Clinton campaign strategist. Penn--who continued his PR work while working for the Clinton campaign--created huge controversy last week when he met with Colombia's ambassador to discuss a free-trade deal, which Hillary opposes. He quit the campaign on Sunday, and Hillary was happy to accept his resignation.

Most bloggers say that Penn should have been fired as "chief strategist" a long time ago, since her strategy clearly wasn't working. Hot Air's Ed Morrissey says, "He could just as well have been fired for the fumbling manner in which the campaign has declined from a coronation to a collapse." Townhall's Matt Lewis adds, "Penn was finally pushed out because he met with the Columbian government to promote a policy Clinton disagreed with. Still, Hillary's mistake was not in hiring Penn, but in not identifying the misdiagnosis of her campaign, sooner." And Time's Mark Halperin lists the many reasons why Penn deserved to be fired.

But why did she wait so long--and why now? Marc Ambinder says, "For Clinton, who has tolerated Penn's public errors in judgment because she believed in his strategy, [the Colombian meeting] was the last straw." Contentions's Jennifer Rubin also wonders why she waited until now to fire Penn: "Not for frittering away her lead, not for running on the 'experience' message in a 'change' election, not for engendering the hatred of peers, and not for his foul mouth...No, he was ousted because he was caught representing the government of Colombia in the trade deal Clinton opposes." And the Fix's Chris Cillizza says, "Penn's demotion is the latest in a series of moves made by Clinton as she seeks to convince voters and superdelegates that she remains in contention for the Democratic nomination."

Many lefty bloggers show their disdain for Penn, perhaps because his strategy for Clinton didn't really work and led to the long, nasty Democratic nomination battle. And TAPPED's Dana Goldstein explains that Penn was just one of the many problems with the Clinton campaign: "Penn's long, controversial tenure, and his axing, just echo a string of Clinton managerial mistakes, from over-relying on now ousted campaign manager Patti Solis Doyle to the whopper of this campaign season: failing to adequately contest the caucus states." While I don't really care what happens to Hillary's campaign, anything that continues the Democratic nomination fight is good news.

And right-wing bloggers like John Hinderaker explain the even worse news for Democrats: "The incident [Penn's firing for meeting with Colombians] has further damaged our relations with Colombia, which said that it showed 'a lack of respect to Colombians.' It is deeply ironic that Obama and Clinton both vow to restore America's standing in the world, while in fact impairing our relations with allies to a degree that is remarkable for candidates who haven't even been elected yet." As Rich Lowry said at the Corner, "Only in the Democratic party do you get canned (or demoted) for meeting with an ally."

The latest celebrity endorsement, via TMZ: Jane Fonda.

Andrew Malcolm at the LA Times's Top of the Ticket blog reports:

Jane Fonda, the actress and ardent anti-Vietnam War advocate who visited North Vietnam during those hostilities, has endorsed Democrat Barack Obama for president...

The problem for those of a certain generation that endured the Vietnam War and the sometimes violent domestic conflict that accompanied it at home is that during Fonda's controversial wartime visit to North Vietnam, she was photographed at a Communist anti-aircraft gun battery.

According to the photo caption distributed at the time, she joined North Vietnamese soldiers there in singing an antiwar song while preparing to shoot at attacking Americans.

And she thinks Obama would make a good U.S. president. Bloggers on both the left and right agree that this is one endorsement that definitely won't help him.

For one thing, Fonda contrasts sharply with John McCain. Power Line's Scott Hinderaker says, "Close observers of the campaign may recall that Senator McCain admits to having been tied up at the time of the 1969 Woodstock festival. He was still tied up at the time of Fonda's 1972 visit to Hanoi." And Goldfarb wrote earlier today, "Part of Obama's electability argument is that he can win in otherwise red states, but having Jimmy Carter and Jane Fonda endorse...that isn't going to play well in Kansas." Ed Morrissey adds that this endorsement might even help McCain: "McCain’s narrative as a Vietnam War POW who suffered torture while Fonda gave his captors photo-ops will resonate even further if she takes to the stump on Obama’s behalf."

If blogger sentiment is any indication of how Americans feel about Fonda, then this could mean big trouble for Obama. For example, blogger McQ at QandO says, "For many Vietnam and Vietnam era vets she symbolized those who crossed the line from responsible dissent to materially aiding the war effort of the enemy. Legally she got a pass. But in the minds of many veterans she is a despicable creature that few have forgiven."

And even some lefty bloggers are disgusted by Fonda and think this endorsement is no good. Like Dustin at Comments From Left Field says, "Even if she is just another over-the-hill Hollywood elite answering an ambush reporter’s question she’s damning company to keep. What Fonda represents to the many Americans is everything that’s wrong with liberalism and all she can do is harm the Democratic nominee."

If Jeanne Assam didn't convince you that individuals should have the right to carry a gun, perhaps this case of a Des Moines pizza deliveryman who shot an armed robber in self defense will:

An armed pizza deliveryman told Des Moines police that he shot a man who tried to rob him at gunpoint Thursday night outside a south-side apartment building...

The suspect, Kenneth Jimmerson, 19, was arrested when he later called for medical help. Jimmerson was hospitalized Friday with multiple gunshot wounds and faces a charge of first-degree robbery.

Melanie Stout, 18, who allegedly placed the pizza order, was arrested for conspiracy.

Spiers, who has a valid permit to carry a concealed weapon, escaped injury, although his bosses at Pizza Hut suspended him Friday until police sort out the details of the Thursday-night incident.

"We have policy against carrying weapons," said Vonnie Walbert, vice president of human resources at Pizza Hut's corporate offices in Dallas. "We prohibit employees from carrying guns because we believe that that is the safest for everybody."

In short: A man who is legally carrying a weapon saves his own life AND helps police capture two criminals, but is suspended from his job because Pizza Hut thinks guns are bad. Bloggers are outraged.

At Hot Air, Ed Morrissey links to numerous stories about pizza deliverers killed on the job--evidence that deliverers should perhaps carry a weapon. Of Pizza Hut, he says, "If they think that their corporate image is better served by having their deliverers die on doorsteps around this nation than to have the ability to defend themselves, that’s entirely their decision." Frank J. at IMAO is also confused by Pizza Hut's logic: "They concluded no one is going to care about dead pizza delivery men, but some people, out of irrational fear, might not order a pizza if they hear that the delivery men could be armed."

Ragnar Danneskjold at the Jawa Report wants "to ask Pizza Hut corporation why they would prevent their employees from having the means to lawfully defend themselves from violence."

And of the criminals, Instapundit Glenn Reynolds says, "Pizza delivery guys are doing God's work. People who try to rob them deserve to be shot."

Happy April Fools Day! I know you wouldn't believe me if I tried to trick you and said Goldfarb was henceforth replacing all guns-and-aircraft posts with fashion coverage. But here are some funny--true and untrue--tidbits from around the blogosphere. Enjoy!

10. A true story yesterday that got more than a few laughs from bloggers: Hillary Clinton didn't pay campaign staffers' health insurance bills. Kevin Kusinitz joked here, "No wonder Democrats want the government to cover health care. They don’t want to do it themselves."

9. Last night, Townhall's Carol Platt Liebau noted that a "chyron on the Fox News Channel just minutes ago read, 'Breaking: Obama May Be More Liberal Than He's Letting On.'" "Breaking? Really?" she says. April Fools prank from Fox, perhaps?

8. Michelle Malkin's website goes dark for a few hours to "raise awareness of empty awareness-raising gestures by Gulfstream liberals, Google energy hogs, and Gore-worshiping cultists whose DAISNAID (Do as I say, not as I do) environmental alarmist policies would send us back to the Stone Ages."

7. Karol Sheinin at Pajamas Media reports on another pastor problem for Obama: Rev. James Meeks, close friend and pledged delegate to Obama. Sheinin says, "The racist, angry, conspiracy-laden language used by Meeks is reminiscent of Pastor Wright’s." Whoops.

6. Really not a joke: Newsbusters tells us about the newest Muppet movie--featuring liberal indoctrination at its best. Warner Todd Huston writes that "the story will center around all our favorite Muppets producing a show to raise money to save their old theater. They need the money, of course, because an 'evil character is trying to buy the building so that he might tear it down to 'get at the oil underneath.'" Hide your children!

5. According to TNR, two of our favorite campaign-trail wives are meeting up to share some gaffes: Teresa Heinz-Kerry and Michelle Obama! H/T Mary Katharine Ham.

4. The New York Times reports: The Obamessiah "is moving to down-to-earth oratory" with speeches containing "more prosaic language of white-working-class discontent" and the humble "town-hall-style meeting." As Newsbusters notes in a funny April Fools Day post, the media's love of Obama is laughable.

3. Just in time for the First of April, another masterpiece from humor blogger Iowahawk: "Dreams of My Foosball: The Lost Excerpts from the Barack Obama memoirs." An excerpt:

But there was something in Reverend Wright's blah-blah-blah that rang hollow. Was it really true that the black man was doomed to live under the yoke of oppression? Even though I was scarcely more than 40 years old, I had seen and experienced amazing changes: from foosball and air hockey and electric football, to Wii and Madden and PS3. And, through all those changes, I had spent a lot of change.

2. The best April Fools joke on the web, via NRO's Phi Beta Cons. I would have fallen for it!

1. Finally, so you don't fall for media pranks like the one above, Slate's Jack Shafer has tips on how to keep your wits about you this April 1.

Former vice president Al Gore is back in the media spotlight, and the blogosphere is buzzing about what's next for everyone's favorite sore loser. The weekend news was Gore's $300 million campaign "to try to push climate change higher on the nation’s political agenda." The Politico reported yesterday:

The three-year campaign by the Alliance for Climate Protection will begin Wednesday with network television advertising that will include “American Idol” and other non-traditional shows that reach a non-news audience...

Pat Robertson and Al Sharpton just filmed an ad for the We Campaign, sitting on a couch on the beach...

The campaign is being paid for in part with profits from Gore’s global-warming book and movie, “An Inconvenient Truth,” and with the prize money from his share of the Nobel Peace Prize, which he matched.

As blogger McQ at QandO notes, "for a guy who just said in an interview that skeptics are a 'tiny, tiny minority now with their point of view, they're almost like the ones who still believe that the moon landing was staged in a movie lot in Arizona and those who believe the world is flat,' he sure is behind spending a lot of money to convince the world there's a 'climate crisis' problem."

And of Gore's ad choices, Ed Morrissey says, "What other strange bedfellows can Gore pair for his campaign? Jeremiah Wright and David Duke? Eliot Spitzer and Ashley Dupre?" Michelle Malkin also finds it ludicrous.

The launch of the campaign coincides perfectly with a Telegraph report that some Democratic party bigwigs are discussing the possibility of a Gore nomination in hopes of uniting the party. Conservative bloggers tend to find this idea equally laughable.

Gateway Pundit snarks, "It looks like Al Gore has already saved the planet from warming as evidenced by the record snow and low temperatures this past year and scientific data proving the planet is cooling...Can Al Gore save the Democratic Party, too?" And PoliGazette's Michael van der Galien imagines Gore's stump speech: "'I invented the Internet and I won the Nobel Peace Prize (which I also may have invented); elect me president!'"

Clearly the Democrats are panicking, as Ed Morrissey says, "Desperation leads the unwise to folly, and this is perhaps the best example yet seen." Jules Crittenden adds, "I think my favorite part … aside from the whole thing, that is … is the idea that replacing the Hero of Tuzla and the change-hoping bigot buddy with an exaggerating doomsayer somehow gets this train back on the rails."

Most bloggers think a Gore nomination would not be the best idea--for the Democratic party, or democracy in general. Dave at the Political Machine thinks this could never happen: "Both sides would have to be convinced that Gore is an acceptable alternative to their candidate winning in their own right. And we're not there yet at all. Barack has a lead in the delegates, and Hillary still thinks she owns the nomination." And Mark Levin at the Corner explains exactly why a Gore nomination would be bad for the Democrats, concluding, "It seems to me that a Gore nomination creates serious problems for the Democrat Party. So, I would encourage the Democrats to do it."

Are you sick of Jeremiah Wright yet? Bloggers aren't--and it seems Obama, of all people, won't let the issue die. His "typical white person" comment blew up, and his campaign circulated a photo (right) of Wright shaking hands with President Bill Clinton at the White House in 1998. Now bloggers wonder: Who exactly does this photo hurt?

Kate Phillips at the NYT Caucus blog reported last night:

During one of the most difficult periods in the presidency of Bill Clinton, he addressed a group of clerics at an annual prayer breakfast in September 1998 just as the Starr report outlining his dalliance with Monica Lewinsky was about to be published.

Among those in attendance, was the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr., who is seen shaking hands with Mr. Clinton in a photograph provided today by the Obama campaign.

The report continues: "There is nothing in the picture or the note that addresses whether Mr. Clinton had met Mr. Wright prior to the White House meeting or whether he or Mrs. Clinton knew anything about Mr. Wright’s views."

Politico's Ben Smith reports that the campaigns got into a war of words over the photo, with Clinton's spokesman calling the stunt "pathetic" and Obama's spokesman responding that Clinton's response is "hypocrisy." And McCain is looking better by the minute.

Most bloggers agree that this actually hurts the Obama campaign. Real Clear Politics' Tom Bevan says, "The idea that a photo of Bill Clinton shaking hands with Wright at a White House breakfast is anywhere in the same ballpark with Obama's 20-year relationship with the controversial pastor is downright silly and insulting to voters' intelligence." Jake Tapper agrees and snarks, "I can't even believe anyone had the temerity to push the photo. The audacity of hope, I suppose."

Right-wing bloggers see that both campaign spokesmen were correct: Obama's campaign is pathetic, and the Clintons are, as expected, hypocritical. Jules Crittenden says, "I suppose they could say, fool me once, shame on you, fool me for 20 years, shame on you. No wonder Hill doesn’t want to tackle this directly." Come to think of it, we never heard a vociferous denunciation of Wright from Hillary, did we? Allahpundit adds, "Is Billy Jeff’s culpability in not thoroughly vetting his audience the same as Obama’s in patronizing a hate merchant for 20 years? Not remotely, but anything that makes the Clintons squirm is worth linking." Agreed. And Ace notes that they're all the same: "Isn't it funny that previous bad Democratic behavior is being used by the media to excuse current Democratic bad behavior?"

Allahpundit updated with another important point: Is Obama's circulating the photo "a tacit admission that associating with Wright is improper and scandal-worthy?" If Obama wouldn't denounce his pastor--and if Wright is no different than Obama's "typical white" grandmother--why even circulate the photo, hm?

Yesterday, the Clinton Presidential Library released, to much fanfare, 11,000+ pages of Hillary's schedules from her time as First Lady. Journalists were eager to dig up dirt on the presidential candidate, hoping the schedules would reveal truths about Hillary's proclaimed executive and foreign policy experience. Unfortunately, it seems the "dirt" uncovered so far isn't particularly new or interesting.

Do the documents tell us whether or not Hillary has real foreign policy experience? According to the Politico, the schedules "offer only the skeleton of her life as first lady and neither confirm nor rebut her claims that her White House experience prepared her to one day hold the office of president." Obama supporter Andrew Sullivan points us to a Guardian report that Hillary was far from the White House during "key foreign policy moments": For example, Hillary was touring Egyptian ruins while the United States was bombing Serbia. But, as the WSJ Washington Wire blog reports, the documents don't settle the dispute between Hillary and Sinbad, who both "have offered differing accounts of what happened during a March 1996 trip to Bosnia -- a trip that Clinton has listed as part of her foreign-policy credentials in her bid for the Democratic nomination." Useless!

Other bloggers say we just get more of the same Hillary tactics. The American Spectator's Philip Klein agrees that she exaggerated her experience, at least from what he can see in the choppy schedules: "There is, of course, one thing Hillary gained a lot of experience in during the 1990s -- secrecy. So it should come as no surprise to anybody who has been following the Clintons that the much hyped release of her schedules as first lady have become a farce, omitting her private calendar, and deleting key parts that would have been of interest to journalists and historians." And the Swamp's Jim Tankersley reports Clinton campaign "talking points" about the schedules, noting that we see the expected Clinton Spin.

Other journalists and bloggers note the "non-stories" found in the schedules. The Washington Post reports that "after the collapse of her health-care plan in 1994, she largely retreated to a more traditional first lady's calendar of school visits, hospital tours, photo ops and speeches on a narrower set of issues." Hasn't that been reported before? Hot Air's Ed Morrissey points us to another non-story: a WSJ headline "Clinton's Calendar and Vince Foster," the former Clinton adviser who committed suicide. But Morrissey says, "I searched in vain for anything newsworthy in this post, but found absolutely nothing. There are no connections to Foster’s death. Hillary was not in town when he committed suicide, and hadn’t had a scheduled contact with Foster for over a month." Boring.

Some journalists went straight to the days of the Lewinsky scandal, discovering that Hillary was in the White House the day of the infamous "Blue Dress Incident." Glenn Greenwald is outraged by this reporting tactic, and TNR's Jason Zengerle says, "I don't blame Hillary for wanting to keep this stuff under lock and key if this is what investigative reporters are going to use it for." But as Mary Katharine Ham reminds us, this factoid just tells us that Bill is "even trashier than previously thought." No surprise, given his numerous affairs and his slimy campaigning for his wife.

Hotline's Jennifer Skalka calls this reporting a "lousy shameful shortcut. Why not take a closer look at her work in the Northern Ireland peace process, which she's claimed on the trail of late without much support. Or examine her work around the president's failed health care plan. She's said she was instrumental in crafting SCHIP? Yeah, well, prove it.” Given the uselessness of the schedules so far, it seems that Hillary will have to try a little harder to prove that she has the experience she claims.

The blogosphere is still flooded with talk of Obama's pastor problem, and the big buzz is Obama's race speech from yesterday (watch the speech highlights). Was the speech effective? Did it adequately address the Rev. Wright issue? Bloggers are mostly divided by ideology.

Left-wing bloggers conducted a group worship service for the Messiah's rhetorical gifts. Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum says, "It was, as usual for him, a helluva good address: intelligent, sane, sympathetic, and broadly appealing." Glenn Greenwald calls it "riveting, provocative, insightful, thoughtful and courageous." TNR's Jonathan Chait adds: "extremely smart and intellectually subtle." Choose your favorite lefty blog, and you'll find similar adjectives.

As a race speech, Andrew Sullivan gushes "that this searing, nuanced, gut-wrenching, loyal, and deeply, deeply Christian speech is the most honest speech on race in America in my adult lifetime." Even Charles Murray at the (right-wing) Corner got in on the worship: "As far as I'm concerned, it is just plain flat out brilliant--rhetorically, but also in capturing a lot of nuance about race in America." MyDD's Jonathan Singer concludes, "The speech truly fit in with the overall belief driving the Obama campaign -- that in the end, we are all not so different, and we can still come together as Americans to form a more perfect country." Beautiful.

These bloggers think he sufficiently addressed the Wright issue--or at least smoothed it over. Matthew Yglesias says that "channeling the Jeremiah Wright controversy into a 'major speech on race' was a savvy move." American Spectator's Kate Sheppard concludes, "It was the appropriate tone for the speech, not denying the validity of Wright's concerns while at the same time not embracing bitterness or divisiveness." In short, it was a smart political move that allows the left to sweep Wright under the rug.

Right-wing bloggers weren't impressed. Ross Douthat says that this speech will actually hurt Obama: "[I]t undercuts an important aspect of Obama’s promise as a politician: Namely, his potential to break the mold of American politics, by transcending both the recent templates for African-American political activity (grievance-based shakedown politics on the one hand, Afrocentric separatism on the other) and the larger red-blue polarization in the country as a whole." The Corner's Amy Holmes adds, "Pastor Wright has singlehandedly turned Obama into the race candidate."

What about Wright? Ed Morrissey says the speech was "essentially a non-distancing distancing, akin to the non-apology apology. He excuses Wright’s anti-American rhetoric with a mixture of rationalizations." Mary Katharine Ham explains further: "Deflect, deflect, deflect. It's not Rev. Wright's fault for saying horrible, hateful things, nor my fault for having the bad judgment to associate with him for 20 years."

And what does this speech say about Obama? Blogger DRJ at Patterico's Pontifications sums it up: "[E]ven though Obama emphasizes that his goal is to talk about what Americans can do, his examples and his core message are primarily about what Americans can’t do. In this speech, Obama’s focus was largely on how America and Americans have failed: Failed to bridge racial divides, failed to educate our children, and failed to provide meaningful opportunities to poor and disadvantaged Americans." Sharp distinction from the candidate who is running because he feels he owes America, isn't it?

Bloggers are still buzzing about Obama's pastor Rev. Jeremiah Wright and his controversial, America-hating sermons. On Friday, Wright left his post on Obama's campaign, and Obama has since denounced the most offensive sermon in a Huffington Post op-ed and claimed he was not aware of Wright's anti-America rhetoric.

The Chicago Sun-Times's Lynn Sweet reports that at a campaign event on Sunday, "Obama sought to portray Wright as more than a polarizing figure--someone who bears the scares of racism--while conceding that 'if all I knew was those statements that I saw on television, I would be shocked.'" Even if Obama wasn't present at that specific sermon, bloggers think it's impossible that Obama wasn't aware of Wright's views. In fact, he was aware, as both Ben Smith and Rich Lowry recall a passage in Obama's memoir Dreams of My Father that quotes a Wright sermon about "white folks' greed." Gabriel Malor at Ace of Spades reminds us of Obama's close relationship with Wright. And according to Byron York at the Corner, the campaign knew that Wright was trouble.

Contentions' Jennifer Rubin asks, "Was Obama really clueless about the septic nature of the man he knew, his mentor, for thirty years? (If so, you have to wonder about those touted people skills.)" Good Lt. at the Jawa Report chimes in: "Hey! Obama's just been extended family to this guy for 20 years and has tithed tens of thousands of dollars to this church. How can you expect him to know what the preacher actually preached in the sermons every week?"

Allahpundit wonders what Obama will do now: "If the media starts going through old sermons week by week, with new and ever more nuanced conspiracy theories emerging periodically, is he going to roll out weekly statements to the effect of, 'Nope, never personally heard him say that, or that, or that either'?"

As Sweetness & Light and Hot Air point out, it seems the official Obama website's "Faith Testimonials" page has been scrubbed of Jeremiah Wright. A good move--but bloggers find it laughable. Don Surber calls it "the Audacity of Oops": "His church condemns those who 'smear' Rev. Wright, while Obama erases the good reverend from his Web site. Whither Oprah?" And Allah says, "In Obama’s defense, he had no reason to delete it earlier; after all, he you only found out about Wright’s hate sermons this week."

Here, Dean Barnett noted: "There is some good news for Obama. America will indeed judge him on his values and judgment. But there's bad news, too: To get a picture of his values and his judgment, voters will need to look at his personal life...And the inferences one can make regarding Obama’s 'values' from his relationship with Reverend Wright are a lot more likely to move voters away from Obama rather than towards him."

It's just too bad that this didn't happen after Obama secured the nomination.

Last week, Hillary suggested that she could run on a ticket with Obama--provided she is at the top of the ticket, of course. Bloggers were mostly skeptical of the idea of this "dream ticket." This week, the Clintons are continuing to push the idea on the campaign trail: Bill said the duo would be "an unstoppable force."

Bloggers wonder why Hill is pushing this idea. Slate's Christopher Beam says it is strange: "To deliberately plant the idea in people's heads is at odds with the campaign's never-say-die ethos. It's the equivalent of saying 'if I win' rather than 'when I win.'" Marc Ambinder agrees: "When Bill and Hillary Clinton tout the virtues of a joint ticket with Barack Obama, they're trapping themselves in a bit of a box about the qualifications necessary to be vice president. The subtext of HRC's 'ready from day one' argument is that she IS, and he ISN'T."

So what is she trying to say? We can always count on Bill to clear things up. MSNBC's First Read reports his answer to these questions:

But given the Clinton camp's implicit argument that Obama is not ready to be commander-in- chief or handle a 3:00 am phone call, Clinton was asked why then would she consider Obama for the No. 2 spot. "That's politics," Clinton said, not taking the bait, as he would put it.

Meanwhile, Allahpundit reports the speculation that Hillary might want to be VP herself, and wonders why: "Even if you assume the worst, that she’s after power any way she can get it, arguably she’ll retain more in the senate as a Moynihan-esque Democratic counterbalance capable of thwarting Obama’s legislative initiatives than in the vice presidential sinecure, where he’s bound to try to marginalize her. Is this just her way of leaking bogus info suggesting she’s a good soldier, willing to do what’s best for the party if need be, so that she can chide Obama later if he refuses to be equally 'magnanimous'?" Along those lines, Blake Dvorak at the Real Clear Politics blog wonders, "does Hillary keep mentioning a unity ticket for Obama to knock it back down in an effort to look conciliatory?"

Regardless of Hillary's intentions, I'm not so sure that this "dream" ticket would be unstoppable. Left-leaning Marty Kaplan at the Huffington Post describes his long journey to choosing a Democratic candidate: "I was for a Clinton-Obama ticket, or an Obama-Clinton ticket, because who wouldn't want a best-of-both-worlds dream team? Then I was against a Clinton-Obama ticket, or an Obama-Clinton ticket, because the risk of combining their negatives is scarier than the upside of combining their constituencies."

What's scarier than Madam President Clinton or President Obama?

A Clinton-Obama ticket (or vice versa). Bill and Michelle included.

From the CNN ticker:

The morning after primary wins in Ohio, Texas, and Rhode Island, Hillary Clinton said she would consider being part of a Democratic "dream ticket" that would include both her and presidential rival Barack Obama.

"That may be where this is headed," she told the CBS Early Show during a marathon set of appearances on the network morning news shows. "But of course we have to decide who is on the top of ticket. I think the people of Ohio very clearly said that it should be me."

CQ's Craig Crawford explains how this could happen: "If Clinton or Obama cannot find some miraculous way to lock down a nominating majority in the remaining primaries and caucuses, look for undecided super delegates to opt for the easiest way out and urge them to run together for the November election."

Hillary seems convinced that she would be at the top of the ticket. But at Contentions, Jamie Kirchik notes that if Hillary is even able to get the nomination, "[t]o prevent the party from tearing itself to shreds, Clinton will have no choice but to offer Obama a position as her running mate."

Most bloggers are skeptical that either candidate will agree to a "dream ticket," or that it's even worthwhile to either of their political futures. While Marc Ambinder is in favor of the dream ticket, the TAPPED bloggers say it's an all-around bad idea. Allahpundit says we shouldn't worry: "Hillary doesn’t want to be outshone by a vice president with ten times the appeal she has, who’ll be expected to have a major role given all the media attention lavished on him. Likewise, Obama doesn’t want to languish for eight years in a do-nothing job Hillary will only use to try to isolate him."

Drew M. at Ace of Spades has more observations that show Hillary doesn't want this scenario: "She cackles when giving the answer and she only does that when she hates what’s being said, so I am not sure how sincere she is about this."

Obama responded that it is too soon to talk about a "dream ticket." The Vodkapundit Stephen Green reminds us why Obama shouldn't want to be VP: "The Dems don’t exactly have the best record (Gore, Mondale) at electing former veeps to sitting presidents."

It's time for Republicans to rally around the official nominee: John McCain. He won every primary yesterday, and his last remaining opponent, Mike Huckabee, has dropped out. Now pundits and bloggers forecast the coming months for McCain.

At the WEEKLY STANDARD Online, Fred Barnes describes "three things McCain must do that won't be easy": "The most important is to bring Barack Obama down to earth from his pedestal in the heavens…organize a turnout effort to match President Bush's in 2004--or exceed what Bush put together…And he must gear his campaign to attract independents while not antagonizing conservatives, who constitute the Republican base."

The Wall Street Journal's Laura Meckler adds that he "now faces a daunting challenge: how to transform his tight-knit, shoestring primary into a machine able to win the presidency."

But things nonetheless look good for McCain. At Townhall, Carol Platt Liebau says that McCain is the strongest on the war on terror, and Americans know it: "Anyone who has insisted that there are real differences between Democrats and Republicans when it comes to the war on terror -- and who believes it's vital not only to our security but to the future of the free world that we win -- has no choice but to join McCain's cause."And at Contentions, WEEKLY STANDARD contributing editor John Podhoretz notes that Republicans luckily nominated "the only Republican candidate who could possibly win in November, given his potential to pull independent voters back into the GOP camp -- and given the stark contrast he offers to the likely Democratic nominee."

Power Line's John Hinderaker explains: "Lots of pundits crossed McCain off the list of contenders before the first votes were recorded. Once people actually started voting, we were reminded why McCain had been the frontrunner for the nomination to begin with."

And bloggers think the continued Democratic fight will only help McCain. Swampland's Michael Scherer says, "McCain got the greatest gift of all: An increasingly nasty Democratic nomination fight that will last at least through April."

Today's Texas and Ohio primaries could decide the Democratic nominee. If Obama is able to sweep both states, he will likely be the nominee--and given his swoon-inducing factor, many Republicans think he will be more difficult to beat than Hillary.

But now it looks like the media is getting tougher on the Divine Barack. Even if you're not a Hillary fan, Saturday's SNL skit portraying the mainstream media's adoration of Obama was right on the mark: Hillary has been critically yet fairly questioned about the issues, while Obama...hasn't. Until now. What happened? Is the Barack Love Potion No. 9 wearing off as the press realizes there isn't much substance behind Obama's "hope" and "change"? Even if the tough questions come too late to change the outcome of today's primaries, it's clear that Obama has lost a little of the media's love.

Bonney Kapp at the Fox News Embeds blog reports:

The 15 1/2 minute press avail began with a question about Austan Goolsbee, the Obama economic advisor who reportedly told someone in the Canadian government that Obama’s anti-NAFTA campaign rhetoric is just political speak...The second topic du jour was about Obama’s relationship with Tony Rezko, an Obama contributor whose federal corruption trial began today in Chicago. A fair number of Chicago reporters headed south to San Antonio to question Obama on fundraisers held by Rezko, who was in attendance, and on Obama’s transparency on the issue.

First Read's Domenico Montanaro has more details, particularly about Obama walking out on the press corps, pausing "only to say, 'Come on guys; I answered like eight questions. We're running late.'" He then ignored the reporters on the following flight to Dallas.

Obama-fan Andrew Sullivan says "the honeymoon is over." Now blogging at Hot Air, Ed Morrissey adds, "It appears that the local press has managed to do what the national media could not -- treat Obama as a politician and not a secular messiah." And Power Line's John Hinderaker has a video of Obama's huffy exit--can't you see the fear in his eyes?

Will Obama survive? Don Surber asks, "Has his walk on water just become a dip in the reporter pool? Answer: Apparently. And he’s not a good swimmer." At Contentions, Jennifer Rubin concludes, "Lacking McCain’s easy-going and established rapport with the press, Obama now cannot venture into the lion’s den without risking another mauling."

Hillary has a fighting chance, but she could easily be finished by tonight. And Obama thinks he has the nomination--and the presidency--wrapped up in a pretty package delivered by the media and swooning celebrities and college kids. But it looks like he has a long nine months of tough questions ahead--and he will need more than "hope" to survive.

Gloria Steinem
Not a good role model for politics OR style.

Gloria Steinem is no role model of mine. In fact, I'll say something outrageous: I think women would be better off if she had pursued a career as a Playboy bunny rather than a political activist. Although I do think Hillary Clinton's candidacy is an admirable achievement, I think that women would be, quite frankly, stupid to support her simply because she is a woman. Especially since Gloria Steinem supports her.

While stumping for Hillary this weekend, Ms. Steinem said some horribly un-American things about war hero John McCain--and it seems most bloggers agree with me (although, uber-feminist blogs like Feministing have yet to comment). The New York Observer reports:

From the stage, the 73-year-old seemed to denigrate the importance of John McCain’s time as a prisoner of war in Vietnam...

And she claimed that if Clinton’s experience as first lady were taken seriously in relation to her White House bid, people might "finally admit that, say, being a secretary is the best way to learn your boss’s job and take it over."...

"Suppose John McCain had been Joan McCain and Joan McCain had got captured, shot down and been a POW for eight years. [The media would ask], 'What did you do wrong to get captured? What terrible things did you do while you were there as a captive for eight years?'" Steinem said, to laughter from the audience.

McCain was, in fact, a prisoner of war for around five and a half years, during which time he was tortured repeatedly. Referring to his time in captivity, Steinem said with bewilderment, "I mean, hello? This is supposed to be a qualification to be president? I don’t think so."

Disgusting. But IF Steinem is correct, then all Hillary can offer us is the distinction of being the first female president. Steinem may think Hillary's lack of military experience is a good thing, but bloggers don't.

At Hot Air, Allahpundit asks, "Question: What’s more impressive, bearing up under routine bastinadoing by the North Vietnamese for five years -- or being Bill Clinton’s secretary?" (Don't forget, "secretary" is Steinem's word.) Ed Morrissey adds to the post: "What did Hillary Clinton do to show her prowess at military leadership? She called General David Petraeus a liar to his face when he reported the improvements in Iraq."

Jules Crittenden says Steinem's politics are irrelevant: "Women have achieved something close to equality...They’ve led nations from Britain to Israel to Pakistan and India. There are even women trained to kill, wearing jump suits and saluting. Because the world still respects military experience, and women are seeking it."

But Don Surber reminds us that this isn't much of a hit to McCain: "Mac’s a big boy. He beat the Viet Cong. He beat cancer. By comparison, Steinem is a flea."

Hillary's spokesman later apologized and said, "Senator Clinton has repeatedly praised Senator McCain's courage and service to our country. These comments certainly do not represent her thinking in any way." Obviously not, since the WSJ Washington Wire reported that Clinton said at the rally, "We need a president who can come in on day one and take care of some of that damage [from the Bush administration]...We’re going to have to clean house, and women are pretty good at that." For some reason, I don't think Ms. Steinem would like that un-feminist comment.

Nearly every conservative blogger has something to say about William F. Buckley Jr., who died yesterday morning at the age of 82. All agree that he had a profound impact on conservatism and the country--and that he was a profoundly great man.

Scott Johnson at Pajamas Media writes, "The death of William F. Buckley, Jr. deprives the modern American conservative movement of its founder, for Buckley was preeminently the founding statesman of the movement that gained its political expression first in Barry Goldwater and then Ronald Reagan. When Buckley founded National Review in 1955 at the age of 29, he lit the fire that sparked the movement."

More from Peter Suderman at the American Scene, who remarks, "He was not merely clever and smart; he was wise. Conservatism lost a great defender and advocate today, and the larger world of ideas and letters lost one of its greatest minds." And Captain Ed concludes, "Buckley will be missed, but his work will remain as lively and vibrant as ever. Few men and women can claim that kind of intellectual achievement and impact on society."

Yet Buckley, says John O'Sullivan, "took it all very humbly and even a little quizzically. It was as if he didn't quite believe that he had blown a trumpet and, lo, the walls of Communism had tumbled down -- 'literally,' to use a word whose misuse he occasionally denounced."

Buckley influenced many of our favorite bloggers, including Power Line's Paul Mirengoff, Blackfive's Uncle Jimbo, Hugh Hewitt, and Michelle Malkin, who says, "He was an engaged and engaging Renaissance man who joined conservatism and libertarianism, fought statism, and served the Lord."

The folks at National Review's blog The Corner have posted numerous tributes to their founder and former editor. Ramesh Ponnuru writes, "Bill's kindness and generosity of spirit really were remarkable. He was as interested in listening to the college senior to his left as to the former secretary of state to his right." And Mona Charen's tribute to "Bill's smile" is particularly touching: "Bill had the capacity to make everyone feel that they enhanced his life. If you ran into him on the staircase, he would make you think that you had just capped his day. It need hardly be said that few men are great. But even fewer great men are so good."

On Tuesday morning, a fierce Hillary Clinton was ready to throw the "kitchen sink" at Barack Obama. But by Tuesday night's debate, Hillary was again whiney and defensive. Bloggers say Obama won the debate--not due to the substance of his arguments, but because Hillary just plain blew it.

Susan Davis at the WSJ Washington Wire reports, "Clinton let her temper flare tonight over an issue no one anticipated: the fact that moderators tend to pose questions to her first more often than rival Sen. Barack Obama."

When asked a question about NAFTA, Hillary said, "In the last several debates, I seem to get the first question all the time. And I don't mind, I'll be happy to field them, but I do find it curious. And if anybody saw Saturday Night Live, maybe we should ask Barack if he's comfortable and needs another pillow." And the audience booed. Hot Air has the video.

This was a bad move. Swampland's Joe Klein says, "If you go there--which you shouldn't--you do it cleverly. She didn't." Duane Patterson at Hugh Hewitt's blog agrees: "Hillary should have relished the opportunity to go first. Explaining her position wouldn't even have been as important as using the opportunity of going first and framing the views of her opponent...Obama doesn't get into specificity, so Hillary could easily have put him on the defensive. She didn't." And Gabriel Malor at Ace of Spades rightly asks, "This is presidential material? She doesn't think the president of the U.S. is always going to be faced with the tough questions before anyone else?"

Overall, bloggers agree that Hillary was shrill while Obama was rather calm. Vodkapundit Stephen Green remarks, "On the attack, she sounds rough, rehearsed, and yet somehow uncertain. On the defense, Obama deflects as smoothly as a very smooth thing having been recently resmoothed by a professional smoothing company."

Stephen Green also writes at Pajamas Media, "Clinton was at great pains to separate herself from her husband’s trade legacy. She was at great pains to separate herself from her Iraq War vote. She was at great pains to draw distinctions between herself and Obama. Mostly what came across was, Hillary Clinton was in great pain."

Mary Katharine Ham concludes that Hillary's problem is that she is "more substantive than Obama, but it doesn't matter most of the time. She outperformed him in multiple parts of this debate, but he parried with a smart line and the audience was laughing with him, at her."

Goldfarb already noted that Contentions liveblogged, with this great line from WEEKLY STANDARD contributing editor John Podhoretz: "Hillary Clinton complains about her press treatment. And while she has a point, she does so with crazy eyes. The way this is going, she is going to wish she dropped out a week ago."

Things are looking ever worse for Hillary. A new USA Today/Gallup poll gives Obama a national double-digit lead, 51-39 percent, over Hillary. The outlook for next week's Texas and Ohio primaries is not good either: While Hillary still has the lead in Ohio, Obama is now ahead in Texas.

But Hillary is fighting back, the New York Times reports today:

After struggling for months to dent Senator Barack Obama’s candidacy, the campaign of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton is now unleashing what one Clinton aide called a 'kitchen sink' fusillade against Mr. Obama, pursuing five lines of attack since Saturday in hopes of stopping his political momentum...

After denouncing Mr. Obama over the weekend for an anti-Clinton flier about the Nafta trade treaty, and then sarcastically portraying his message of hope Sunday as naïve, Mrs. Clinton delivered a blistering speech on Monday that compared Mr. Obama’s lack of foreign policy experience to that of the candidate George W. Bush.

Other attacks include criticizing "Obama on Monday for not distancing himself from outside groups running advertisements that promote his candidacy" and for his reaction to the photo of him in traditional Somali clothing.

Bloggers agree that this tactic isn't likely to work very well for Mrs. Clinton.

Tom Bevan at the Real Clear Politics blog explains: "[T]he Clinton campaign's biggest sin this cycle was buying into their own hype of inevitability early on and underestimating Barack Obama. They didn't attack him when they should have because they felt they didn't need to. Big mistake."

Allahpundit adds, "She can’t club Bambi now or else she’ll look desperate, but she couldn’t club Bambi last year when she was ahead or else she would have looked mean and … Hillary-ish."

Some bloggers remind us that "going negative" hasn't worked for Hillary in the past, either. Captain Ed says her demise began "when her campaign started discussing his kindergarten essays as evidence of his supposedly overweening ambition. Until then, she ruled the polls." And lefty blogger Kyle Moore at Comments From Left Field agrees: "From South Carolina to Wisconsin, going negative for Hillary has proven to be a technique that only backfires and blows up in her own face."

Attacks aside, Jules Crittenden remarks that this "kitchen sink" metaphor is kind of weird: "Never mind the mixing of domestic and martial metaphors, it’s awkward choice of words for someone engaged in 1960s feminism’s last stand."

This weekend, Ralph Nader announced on Meet the Press that he will run for president for the fifth time, as the Green party candidate. Nader was never much of a threat to candidates in past elections, and while bloggers agree that he has no chance of winning, they disagree about how his run will affect the race.

If Nader's run affects the race at all, bloggers say, it will hurt the Democrats. Abe Greenwald at Contentions says, "The Democrats’ change mantra, pacifist imaginings, demand for universal healthcare, anti-lobbyist fervor, environmental hysteria, and young voter turnout all spell good news for Nader...If Nader’s 2.7 percent of the national vote was enough to douse Al Gore in 2000, things could get interesting." Joe Gandelman at the Moderate Voice says that although Nader faces a different political landscape this year, "the most he will gain in 2008 would indeed be siphoning-off Democratic votes if it’s a razor-thin-victory-margin election."

And it seems that Nader would hurt Hillary more than Obama. Captain Ed tells us that while Nader "took more than the gap between George Bush and Al Gore in Florida" in 2000, "the Naderites of 2000 have aligned themselves enthusiastically with Barack Obama. Having Nader attack him from the Left won't hurt Obama's prospects in the middle." Allahpundit adds, "Nader won’t do a lick of damage to Obama, who’s liberal enough to please all but the greenest greens and charismatic enough to make Nader seem decrepit by comparison. He’d be dangerous for Hillary, though." Evidence? Shortly after his announcement, the Politico reported that Hillary "slammed" Nader, calling his run "a passing fancy." Obama, meanwhile, is "not concerned," the WSJ Washington Wire reported.

Still, other bloggers say his run is meaningless. John Hinderaker doesn't buy that Nader could help Republicans. He does the vote math and concludes, "many things could happen between now and November to tilt the landscape in the Republicans' favor. But Ralph Nader's candidacy is far down on the list." Lefty bloggers like Pat Paulsen at American Prospect's Tapped say his bid is a farce, and the Atlantic's James Fallows--who knows Nader personally and likes and respects him--says, "it suggests detachment from political reality...and, worse, narcissism. The fact that it won't make any difference in the outcome actually is sad." But you have to wonder: Are Democrats just a little bit worried?

Today, the New York Times unloaded this story about John McCain's supposed ethics issues and insinuates that he had a "romantic relationship" with lobbyist Vicki Iseman. The ethical issues are very old news, both McCain and Iseman have denied the allegations of an affair, and the McCain campaign issued a statement with facts the Times left out. Practically every blogger is on the story--and after dissecting the Times's painfully long rant (the Swampland has Cliffs Notes), many agree that the tale might not get the reaction its editors had hoped.

This morning, Richelieu made a few important points here. He asks, "No allegation of corruption, no favors, both sides deny an affair. Why is this even a story, and why is the timing so partisan?"

Most bloggers seem to agree with the Cardinal. Matt Lewis at Townhall says that although the Times might have more information, "the only people I can find who leveled allegations were 'two former McCain associates' who reportedly became 'convinced' (read: not 100% sure) something was going on."

Greg Pollowitz at NRO's Media Blog wrote, "With the McCain piece, the Times needs to answer why they held this piece until after McCain won the nomination, as well as the Times' endorsement before the New York primary. If the Times thinks eight-year-old allegations and innuendo are newsworthy, they had a duty to bring this up in their endorsement of McCain. " Allahpundit explains further: "A sex scandal that may not be a scandal tucked inside an ethics scandal that may not be an ethics scandal tucked inside an ethics scandal that was a genuine scandal 20 years ago, and for which McCain has begged forgiveness ever since. The Paper of Record."

How will this affect McCain? Mary Katharine Ham's post's title says it all: "What's the Quickest Way to Rally Conservatives 'Round McCain?"

Clay Waters at NewsBusters agrees: The story "promptly fizzled out among conservatives and liberals alike, who dismissed the story...as a strained mix of sex innuendo and old news...being attacked by the New York Times might accomplish what no conciliatory CPAC speech could: rally skeptical conservatives to John McCain's side." Proof: Even Rush Limbaugh is defending McCain, the Politico reported today.

This article mostly makes the New York Times look bad. Marc Ambinder says that the McCain campaign has had an effective, convincing response so far. And while some lefty bloggers say this article will hurt McCain, still others are skeptical of the story. Jamie Kirchik at the New Republic's Plank says, "If you had been wondering whether the Times was in the tank for Obama, well, here's your answer."

Hmm...

Do Barack Obama's wins in Wisconsin and Hawaii yesterday--now 10 primary/caucus wins in a row--mean that Hillary Clinton's campaign is nearly finished? Bloggers think so.

Richelieu wrote here last night, "This Wisconsin loss means that Obama's surging momentum will grow even more powerful. New polls showing Obama closing in Hillary's Texas redoubt provide more evidence." Read the entire thing.

At the Corner, Larry Kudlow echoes, "The Clinton Restoration is over. President Bill Clinton's political invincibility is over. Hillary's electability is over...As of tonight, the market has officially pulled the plug, terminating her campaign."

Similar words from Allahpundit: "She’s got a few weapons left -- brass knuckles at tomorrow’s debate, 527s taking off and strafing the Messiah in Texas and Ohio-- but that won’t roll back the advance." And Captain Ed: "Right now, it appears that the more she tries to press, the worse she performs. Negative attacks and ridiculous charges of plagiarism only dug the hole deeper. We are just about to the end of the Restoration."

Will Hillary drop out of the race soon? At Pajamas Media, Rick Moran says that her retreat may be inevitable: "[W]atch over the next two weeks as Obama begins to catch and then surpass Hillary Clinton in Ohio and Texas. A double loss in those states would almost certainly bring loud and persistent calls from leading Democrats for her to exit the race."

Before yesterday's contests, Hillary was expected to do better in Ohio and Texas, but Paul Mirengoff at Power Line says that "it's not immediately apparent what differences between the charactistics of Wisconsin and, say, Ohio would enable Clinton to make up a double-digit gap." More on that from the Fix's Chris Cillizza, who says, "The shape of the electorate in Wisconsin should have played to Clinton's strengths. Nearly six-in-ten voters in the Wisconsin Democratic primary were women; nine in ten were white; forty percent earned $50,000 or less; and 58 percent had no college degree. And yet, in each of those categories, Obama ran ahead or close to even with Clinton."

And Glenn Reynolds says that Hillary might know it, noting that in last night's speeches, "Hillary did a fine job, but she looked -- and sounded -- tired. Obama looks energized and happy. She gave a laundry list of policies. He's telling people to go vote for him in early voting."

James Joyner at Outside the Beltway rounds up similar opinions, but concludes "because of the rules by which the Democratic Party choses its nominee, the race remains essentially tied." And still, as Matt Lewis at Townhall remarks, "it's hard to write off the Clintons, because it's hard to write-off anyone who will do anything to win. "

Is this the end of Hillary Clinton's campaign? She might have a fighting chance if she can pull a win in Texas and Ohio, but it looks like the House of Clinton may be crumbling.

Friends of a feather...
Hugo Chavez visits fellow dicator Fidel Castro in the hospital.
Notice their matching stylish commie-red shirts.

The big news of the day: Fidel Castro, Cuba's commie president since 1959, has resigned. Fidel, 81, has been sick with cancer and his brother Raul, 76, has been essentially running the government. Cuba's Council of State will meet on Sunday and is expected to keep Raul in power. Although it is unclear how much Cuba will change right now, bloggers agree that Fidel's resignation is good for Cuba.

Michelle Malkin was one of the first to round up the news from Cuba--and like most bloggers, she's not sad. Bryan Preston at Hot Air adds, "I say the Fidel Death Watch is on. I have a cigar waiting for that day." A Jawa Report blogger notes that "Castro rose to overlordship of Cuba largely through imprisoning and murdering any 'rising young leaders' who got in his way." And at the Corner, John J. Miller points us to information about Castro's "rotten legacy."

But what's next for Cuba?

Drew at Ace of Spades notes that while no one can be sure what is next for Cuba, "there are a lot of people in several US government agencies dusting off plans on what the US will do when Castro dies or the regime in Cuba falls. It will be a very happy but challenging time." And at Andrew Sullivan's blog, blogger hilzoy says that "change has begun."

But at the Corner, Otto Reich disagrees: "Fidel has not run the country since July of 2006 but as long as he is alive no Cuban will dare challenge his power. The average Cuban, as well as the leaders, are far too afraid of physical retaliation from Castro." Robert Farley at Tapped and Scott Hinderaker at Power Line agree. More on that from Captain Ed, who says, "If Fidel died, the machinery of the Cuban state might have decided to take another direction, but Fidel remains alive and a threat." Nonetheless, he says, the U.S. is in the prime position to steer Cuba toward democracy.

All Americans are hoping for a democratic Cuba. Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John McCain have issued statements in support of real democracy. Susan Davis at the WSJ Washington Wire reports on more Washington reaction.

Fausta rounds up blogger reactions and says, "The countdown to a transition officially begins today." And Glenn Reynolds adds, "Let's transition to a free, democratic Cuba soon -- I'd like to add it to my dive-destination list. . . ."

The emerging buzz today is that Hezbollah leader and co-founder Imad Mughniyeh was killed early this morning by a carbomb in Syria. CNN describes him as "suspected in some of the deadliest terrorist attacks of the last 25 years and a reputed role model for Osama bin Laden." Mughniyeh is said to be responsible for numerous terrorist attacks, including the bombing of the U.S. Embassy and marine barracks in Beiruit in 1983 and the hijacking of TWA Flight 847 in 1985. The story is still developing, but regardless, it is good news for the war on terror.

Allahpundit is blogging the latest news updates, and the Council on Foreign Relations posted a biography of the terrorist. At the Jawa Report, Rusty says Mughniyeh is responsible for the death of at least 260 Americans and lists the attacks attributed to him.

At the Corner, Michael Rubin provides more background on Mughniyeh and wonders "whether Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) or Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Ca.) still believe that their private consultations with Syrian President Bashar al-Asad were successful, especially given that the Syrian president had, apparently, continued to give one of the world's most notorious terrorists free passage and haven inside Syria."

WORLDWIDE STANDARD contributor Bill Roggio speculates on who could have been behind the attack. At Time's Middle East Blog, Scott MacLeod has more and explains just how dangerous this terrorist was: "Some consider Mughniyeh to have been the Bin Laden before there was a Bin Laden."

Bloggers like Purple Avenger at Ace of Spades and Greg Pollowitz at NRO's Media Blog aren't exactly shedding tears over Mughniyeh's death. As Captain Ed put it, "Good riddance to Mughniyeh, and may the rest of Hezbollah's terrorists go out the same way -- and soon."

You might have missed it, but bloggers didn't: Last week, the Archbishop of Canterbury Dr. Rowan Williams made a case for acceptance of sharia law, and is now facing fierce criticism and calls to resign.

The BBC reported:

Dr. Rowan Williams told Radio 4's World at One that the UK has to "face up to the fact" that some of its citizens do not relate to the British legal system.

Dr. Williams argues that adopting parts of Islamic Sharia law would help maintain social cohesion.

(H/T to Allahpundit, who asks, "Which type of shari’a, the good-crazy or the bad-crazy, does this little arrangement fall under?")

Pointing us to another report from the London Times, Vodkapundit tells the British to "please put down that tea cup and compose a note to kindly inform Her Majesty that her Church has gone bonkers."

Bryan Preston has a video clip of some of the Archbishop's remarks, and says that Williams is "said to be 'horrified' by the reaction to his saying that perhaps it’s time to let sharia become a parallel legal system in Britain. He’s evidently more horrified for being criticized than he is at the prospect of sharia becoming one of the laws of his land." Glenn Reynolds adds, "It's interesting, however, that Rowan Williams need have no fear for his personal safety after saying that Sharia is inevitable in England, while had he said bad things about Sharia the reverse would have been true."

Captain Ed remarks, "The Archbishop forgot that Britain operates under a representative government, not a theocracy. The adoption of shari'a would obliterate that system and place the UK under the thumb of imams -- a prospect that even British Muslims find distasteful." Roger Kimball agrees, reminding us: "The rule of law is is not a lifestyle choice: it is not something you can opt out of if you happen to have alternative inclinations."

But, as Mike Pechar at the Jawa Report points out, sharia courts are already operating in Britain, and he asks, "how does the Islamic Kingdom of Britain sound?" More on that from Stanley Kurtz at the Corner, discussing the British government's recent "secret decision to recognize foreign polygamous marriages."

As Drew at Ace of Spades says, "it’s almost impossible to believe that the United Kingdom is the ancestral home of the freedoms we and most free nations enjoy."

Better looking than Cheney.

Nearly 10 months until the general election, bloggers are already buzzing about nominee-to-be John McCain's potential running mate.

Our friends at the CAMPAIGN STANDARD have a lot to say. Fred Barnes notes some possibilities--including Mitt Romney--but tells Mike Huckabee supporters that they "shouldn't get their hopes up." Stephen Hayes suggests other running mates, and agrees with Fred that a McCain-Hucakbee ticket doesn't make sense. At Commentary, Abe Greenwald also dismisses the idea of a VP Huckabee. Ramesh Ponnuru and Lisa Schiffren have been debating the topic over at the Corner.

The general thought is that McCain needs to choose a solid economic and/or social conservative. Slublog at Ace of Spades recommends Alaska governor Sarah Palin.

Vodkapundit Stephen Green suggests "Fred Thompson, or any other principled federalist who understands there’s a war on. This is a short list. Tom Coburn would make the cut, too. So would Duncan Hunter. I’m at a loss to think of another." The Confederate Yankee agrees that Thompson "would make an excellent Vice Presidential running mate for McCain, balancing McCain's fiery temper and RINO leanings with sound conservatism based upon Federalist principles." And at Townhall, Scott Ott makes the case for Thompson and even suggests Cabinet choices.

Club For Growth president Pat Toomey opines in today's Wall Street Journal that McCain would be wise to choose a strong economic conservative like South Carolina governor Mark Sanford, Sen. Jim DeMint (SC), Rep. Mike Pence (IN), Phil Gramm, or Steve Forbes. At the Politico, however, Jonathan Martin says this is "wishful thinking."

At the Real Clear Politics blog, Tom Bevan adds two more interesting suggestions to the veepstakes: "former Oklahoma Congressman JC Watts and current GOPAC Chairman Michael Steele. Both are young, qualified stars of the Republican party, well liked by conservatives and would offer the GOP a 'first' of its own by putting an African-American on a national ticket." Along those lines, Susan Davis at the WSJ Washington Wire blog reports on the movement to "draft" Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, a movement that thinks "she can bring Bush supporters into the fold who may be wary of his one-time electoral foe. They also think she’s the perfect antidote to either a Sen. Hillary Clinton or Sen. Barack Obama candidacy." How about a draft Jay Lefkowitz movement?

Yesterday's post-Super-Tuesday blogging was a bit chaotic--and you really only need to read Richelieu anyways, right? With Mitt Romney now out of the race, McCain is the clear nominee. But what should his next move be?

Yesterday morning, McCain said said, "Is there a lot of work to unite the entire party? Sure. After the campaigns are over, you've always got the task of uniting the party behind the nominee." Bloggers discuss the ways he could do this.

At the Wall Street Journal blog, Alex Frangos reports, "His pitch will be as much about showing that McCain is actually conservative -- promoting his hawkish positions on the military and fiscal matters, for instance -- as convincing conservatives that by not supporting McCain, they open the door to something worse: the Democrats."

Some bloggers think McCain would be wise to try to appeal to the right-wing conservatives. The CNN Political Ticker says this is important because "[d]espite big wins in the Super Tuesday contests, McCain has yet to secure the support of his party's conservative side." At Hot Air, Allahpundit describes the McCain campaign's efforts to woo the talk radio/CPAC crowd, and Bryan Preston predicts what McCain will say: "He’ll make conciliatory sounds but underneath will be the same John McCain, secure in his own mind that he’s winning without conservatives so there’s no reason to change anything for them."

But a lot of bloggers have other ideas. WEEKLY STANDARD contributing editor John Podhoretz says, "[T]here is something a little lunatic in the demand that he essentially overhaul his campaign approach now, right this second. Because the thing is, he’s winning with his current strategy. It’s the other guys -- the moderate-turned-movement-conservative and the Southern-Christian -- who aren’t winning." And the Fix's Chris Cillizza says that if McCain was Tuesday's winner, then "conservative talk radio" was the loser: "Rush Limbaugh went all out to rally support for Romney -- or at the very least suppress votes for McCain. It didn't work. While McCain won among self-identified conservatives in only three of the nine states covered by exit polls bought by The Post, he won the raw vote in six of the nine."

And many right-wing bloggers are in fact coming around to McCain. Yesterday, Hugh Hewitt wrote, "Romney and Huckabee ought to begin to note Senator McCain's lead and urge their followers to recognize that if they cannot come back they and their followers will have to come in and join the party's eventual nominee…There are seven reasons for anyone to support the eventual nominee no matter who it is: The war and six Supreme Court justices over the age of 68." And John Hinderaker says that conservatives need to come to their senses: "Within the party, it's time to dial down the hyperbole, quit burning bridges and start building them."

At Pajamas Media Roger L. Simon has a suggestion for conservatives at CPAC: "You are expecting John McCain to meet you at least halfway (or maybe more) on Thursday. Why don’t you think about meeting him halfway as well? He has something to do that you don’t. He has to win a presidential election."

Today is Super Duper (Fat) Tuesday, and hundreds of delegates are at stake. While Barack Obama was advertising during the Super Bowl and Hillary Clinton was crying in Connecticut, the Republicans were largely focused on California. Although John McCain is generally considered the frontrunner and recent polls show what bloggers are calling "Mitt-mentum" for Romney, it seems that a California win--or at least gaining a large number of CA delegates--is vital to both candidates.

The Politico reported yesterday that McCain and Romney were "racing back to California for surprise Super Tuesday rallies as some polls show the race tightening in the Golden State":

The trips add drama to the race for the Republican presidential nomination at a time when McCain has picked up considerable momentum since winning the Florida primary last week. The new front-runner will meet supporters in San Diego on Tuesday before heading to his home state of Arizona for election-night festivities. Romney will get a slight jump on him by touching down in the Los Angeles County port city of Long Beach at 7:15 p.m. Pacific time on Monday, less than 12 hours before polls open.

MSNBC's First Read reports that Romney is confident -- and getting snarky: "'I understand that we’ve now brought Sen. McCain back to California, too,' Romney said. 'He’s like, 'Oh wow, Romney’s there -- I better go back there and see if I can’t shore up the race there.' But he’s sliding in California.'"

But Richelieu has another idea: "Jumpin' Johnny McCain is in very strong shape, very likely to be the nominee. Great advantage for the Mac in the winner-take-all primaries. Romney has some hope of an upset in California, but it is not winner-take-all, so the delegate payoff will be limited. Mitt may pull a few caucus wins, but the national numbers look tough."

John Hinderaker says that for Romney to remain "credible," "he needs to 'win' California, even though that is not a winner-take-all state. Second, he needs to pull an upset in at least one state that is now leaning toward McCain, maybe Missouri, and also win Georgia, which is now a toss-up."

Allahpundit asks, "If [Romney] gets wiped out elsewhere and pulls the upset on the coast, is that enough Mitt-mentum to make him go forward?", noting that Romney has to win in California "to have a reason to get out of bed tomorrow morning."

And Ross Douthat argues that even a California win might not be enough for Romney since he would "need the press...to cast him as the 'comeback kid' even though McCain will still have won more states and delegates, both today and overall. And the media, as you may have noticed from time to time in this election cycle, likes McCain an awful lot more than it likes Romney."

Pro-Romney bloggers are nonetheless excited about Romney's California poll numbers. Hugh Hewitt writes that "a win in California propels [Romney] to at least Ohio and Texas in early March and could indeed turn it decisively against McCain." And Jay Carney at Swampland argues that California is equally important for McCain.

So, since the polls are just now opening in California, everyone should probably just relax and enjoy a food-filled Fat Tuesday instead.

Yesterday, the nonpartisan National Journal released its 27th annual vote rankings and named Barack Obama as the #1 most liberal senator in 2007: "The insurgent presidential candidate shifted further to the left last year in the run-up to the primaries, after ranking as the 16th- and 10th-most-liberal during his first two years in the Senate." Hillary Clinton also shifted left, but ranked 16th in 2007. Obama's lifetime rating is 88 and Hillary's is 79.4.

Are you shocked? Good Lt. at the Jawa Report suggests a new Obama campaign slogan: "Vote for the most liberal member of the Senate 'Change.'"

At the Corner, Andrew Stuttaford posts a statement from an Obama spokeswoman: "Part of the reason he's appealing to some Republicans and independents is, he has that authenticity...He's very clear from the beginning that we can't do this alone and we need to work across party lines and focus more on uniting than on dividing." Stuttaford responds: "What he is is an authentic liberal with a nice line in flowery, if vapid, oratory. That's a reason for liberals to vote for him, and for everyone else to be alarmed." Allahpundit agrees: "So successful has the Messiah been in focusing attention on his own charisma, oratory, and 'narrative' and away from his actual record that even 20% of the readership of a site like this is willing (momentarily) to vote for him over McCain."

And how did the lefty blogs react? Denial, denial, denial.

Jason Linkins at Huffington Post argues that "the biggest flaw with these rankings is that they purport to render a quantitative measurement to a qualitative attribute."

Sam Boyd at the American Prospect's TAPPED says, "So the National Journal has ranked Barack Obama as the nation's most liberal senator which seems wrong to me, but is still kinda cool. It's also worth bearing in mind that the National Journal rankings are completely ridiculous."

Why ridiculous? MSNBC's Mark Murray notes, "National Journal used 99 Senate votes in 2007 as the basis for its rankings, and because he was on the presidential campaign trail, Obama missed a third of those votes. (According to the magazine, Obama voted the liberal way 65 out of 66 votes. Clinton, meanwhile, voted the liberal way in 77 out of her 82 votes)." Still, it's not difficult to guess how they would have voted on the missed votes, no?

I thought that "liberals" would be happy that one of their own has such widespread appeal. What's the problem? Steve Benen at the Washington Monthly blog explains: "If all of this sounds a little familiar, it's because in 2004, National Journal named John Kerry the most liberal senator of 2004 (John Edwards was fourth), which became one of the principal talking points of the Bush-Cheney campaign, repeated at literally every campaign rally for months.” Ah, yes, that worked out so well in 2004.

Today's buzz is the showdown between John McCain and Mitt Romney at last night's Republican debate in California, and bloggers are sharply divided on the winner.

The two sparred over each other's conservative credentials and stances on Iraq. Live-blogging at Pajamas Media, Bridget Johnson reports on the evening's many "full-body slams." Chris Cillizza has the video of the Iraq showdown and says, "McCain insisted that Romney had supported a timetable for withdrawal, while Romney bitterly disagreed and accused McCain of 'the sort of dirty tricks Ronald Reagan would have found reprehensible.'" The showdown resulted in McCain's major jab at Romney -- that McCain led "for patriotism, not for profit." More on the "Simi Valley Showdown" from Stephen F. Hayes at the DAILY STANDARD.

Many right-wing bloggers say that this debate made McCain look bad. Hugh Hewitt chides McCain for "his display of bad temper and his rambling filibuster of his wrongful 'timetables' attack on Romney." Paul Mirengoff at Power Line agrees: "McCain not only persisted in his dishonest claim that Mitt Romney supported a timetable for withdrawing from Iraq, he used one evasion after another to try to make it stick."

As for his patriotism/profit comment, Captain Ed says that this won't appeal to many conservatives: "The people McCain wants to lead as President often lead for profit, and won't appreciate the aspersion this phrase that McCain uses in every appearance casts on their own motives." Michelle Malkin agrees. At the Corner, Kathryn Jean Lopez questioned McCain's leadership abilities, and Mark Steyn remarked, "Just because McCain can poke Mitt in the eye is no indication he'll be as effective with Putin." Ross Douthat adds that McCain "kept on behaving as if Romney were the front-runner, and he was the scrappy underdog who needed to bring his rival down a notch."

Still, many bloggers disagree. At the CAMPAIGN STANDARD, Richard Starr says that "this line of McCain's is more than a cheap shot; it actually illuminates a deep and important difference between the two GOP contenders." Scott Johnson at Power Line expands on this line of thought, noting that in today's world of "Vladimir Putins, Osama bin Ladens and Harry Reids," an experienced politician is preferable to an experienced businessman: "This is not a game for amateurs. I think we should recognize that professional politicians bring important experience and skills to the table, and that one of those skills is the ability to knee an opponent in the groin and get away with it."

These bloggers say that McCain was the clear winner of the debate--and is the clear frontrunner. At the Politico, Roger Simon wrote, "McCain stuck to his guns, knowing that, as long as the conversation is on the Iraq war and McCain’s unswerving support for that war, he probably will continue to do well. (Just as long as the war continues to go well, of course.) And when it came to his vulnerabilities, McCain learned how a front-runner handles those: He blows by them." And the bloggers at MSNBC's First Read say that even if McCain did use "dirty tricks," "it should also serve as a comfort to nervous Republicans about McCain's ability to play hardball in the general. McCain may seem like a guy who likes to reach across the aisle, but he's not afraid to get dirty." Daniel Casse says Romney "blew it," and Goldfarb wrote last night that "Romney missed his chance, and it's not clear that he'll get another."

Regardless of your thoughts on the candidates, it looks like the Republican nominee is emerging, and he won't be afraid to get tough with the Democrat.

It's only been about 15 hours since President Bush delivered his final State of the Union address, and already it's old news. Still, bloggers had a lot to say about the speech and the president's audience.

As Fred Barnes noted on Fox News after the speech, Bush's line of the night was really funny and "something never heard before in a State of the Union":

Some in Washington argue that letting tax relief expire is not a tax increase. Try explaining that to 116 million American taxpayers who would see their taxes rise by an average of $1,800. Others have said they would personally be happy to pay higher taxes. I welcome their enthusiasm, and I am pleased to report that the IRS accepts both checks and money orders.

The economy and earmarks were the focus of the first half of the speech, and Republicans are clearly split over Bush's call for fiscal responsibility and his stimulus plan. John Bresnahan reported that "Republican appropriators didn't join into the overwhelming happiness over earmark reform." Andrew Roth at the Club For Growth's blog picked up on a might-have-missed-it joke: "Tonight after the State of the Union address, as President Bush was leaving the chamber, Republican Rep. Louis Gohmert (TX-01) told a joke to his fellow Texan. Gohmert said to Bush, 'How do you give a rebate to people who didn't put in bate in?'"

The second half of the speech focused on foreign affairs, particularly Iraq. Jimbo at Blackfive says that this was the line of the night: "Ladies and gentlemen, some may deny the surge is working, but among the terrorists there is no doubt. Al Qaida is on the run in Iraq, and this enemy will be defeated." In his analysis of the speech, Power Line's Scott Johnson says, "President Bush took justifiable pride in the surge/counterinsurgency strategy that has produced incredible progress on the battlefield in the course of a year. In an act of magnanimity that his opponents will never reciprocate, he confined his derogation of the defeatists in the chamber with him to a single sentence: 'When we met last year, many said containing the violence was impossible.'"

Is Hillary's campaign about to self-destruct? That's the buzz today. From calling for delegates to be reinstated in Michigan and Florida to the disguised smear of John McCain, the Clintons are playing dirty. And the cherry on top: Bill's racial remark in South Carolina.

Today in the New York Times, the boss discusses Bill Clinton's latest:

[O]n Saturday, in Columbia, pre-spinning his wife’s imminent defeat, Clinton reminded reporters out of the blue that "Jesse Jackson won South Carolina twice, in ’84 and ’88. And he ran a good campaign. And Senator Obama’s run a good campaign here. He’s run a good campaign everywhere."...

Clinton’s comment alludes to one thing, and to one thing only: Jackson and Obama are both black candidates. The silent premise of Clinton’s comment is that Obama’s victory in South Carolina doesn’t really count. Or, at least, Clinton is suggesting, it doesn’t mean any more than Jackson’s did…

So Bill Clinton has been playing the race card, and doing so clumsily. But why is he playing any cards? He wasn’t supposed to be in the game. But just as Hillary was supposed to be finding her own voice, Bill decided to barge in, and to do so with a vengeance. This has been no favor to Hillary.

Bloggers agree that Bill is hurting Hillary--and this statement doesn't help. At the Corner, Shannen Coffin notes, "But Bill didn't mention yesterday that he took nearly 70 percent of Democratic voters in the 1992 South Carolina primary (and ran unopposed in 1996). Did Bill feel it necessary to point out Jesse Jackson's success in the Palmetto State when he was cruising to victory in 1992?"

Captain Ed says, "As long as the Clintons remain on the national stage, this kind of politicking -- the smears, the lies, and the prevarications -- will also remain."

And Andrew Sullivan remarks, "Maybe the Clintons can bring the country together again - in revulsion at their expediency."

But what's more interesting is that left-wing pundits and bloggers are increasingly agreeing with their conservative colleagues. In Saturday's LA Times, Jonathan Chait displayed his growing distaste for Clinton politics, which he referred to as "lying and sleaze-mongering":

Something strange happened the other day. All these different people -- friends, co-workers, relatives, people on a liberal e-mail list I read -- kept saying the same thing: They've suddenly developed a disdain for Bill and Hillary Clinton. Maybe this is just a coincidence, but I think we've reached an irrevocable turning point in liberal opinion of the Clintons.

Matthew Yglesias explains why: "It looks like Bill Clinton's heavy-handed attacks on Barack Obama didn't serve his wife well in South Carolina, with about sixty percent of voters saying Clinton's actions were a factor in their decision in what looks to have been a landslide win for Barack Obama."

Hollywood's favorite dictator, Hugo Chávez, is a big deal in the blogosphere today.

First, the Miami Herald reported yesterday that "Chávez has revealed that he regularly consumes coca -- the source of cocaine." The article continues:

It was not clear what Chávez meant. Indigenous Bolivians and Peruvians can legally chew coca leaves as a mild stimulant and to kill hunger. But coca paste is a semi-refined product -- between leaves and cocaine -- considered highly addictive…

More seriously, Venezuelan and Bolivian analysts said Chávez's comments amount to a dangerous endorsement of a substance controlled around the world, and perhaps even an illegal act by a very public head of state.

Very interesting.

At Jawa Report, Mike Pechar remarks, "All this information possibly sheds a new perspective on why Hollywood-types and other celebrities flock to have meetings with Chavez."

More from Michelle Malkin, who asks, "Have you ever listened to Hugo Chavez and thought to yourself: 'That thug must be on something?'" Yes, actually.

In more serious news from Venezuela, Chávez recently threatened both farmers and banks. He threatened milk farmers who try to sell their product abroad for more profit, calling them "treasonous" and threatening to "bring in the Army" if necessary. A few days ago, he threatened to nationalize banks "that fail to meet state-imposed loaning requirements designed to benefit Venezuela's farmers."

Captain Ed notes, "Chavez needs this more than most because his status as president-for-life could not get secured in last year's flop of a referendum. Food and milk shortages that have predictably arisen from state control of the markets have created anger and opposition to his socialist plan for Venezuela."

And Purple Avenger at Ace of Spades sides with the banks because "the government mandated interest rate (15%) is lower than the rate of inflation in VE (22%)."

More blog buzz today on Chávez's anti-Semitic, anti-human-rights regime.

At least Mr. Chávez can take solace in the fact that he has yet another Hollywood friend, right?

Earlier this week, Steven C. Clemons posted a video at the Washington Note called "Reel Bad Arabs: How Hollywood Vilifies a People." TAPPED blogger Matthew Duss said the film showed "offensive images and representations" of Arabs from popular--and old--films, including True Lies, Back to the Future, and Disney's animated Aladdin. Admittedly, I've never seen True Lies, and I was too young to understand most of the cultural references in Back to the Future when I first grew to love the trilogy. But Aladdin? I'd hardly call beautiful Arabs, exotic Middle Eastern scenery, and the typical Disney villain "offensive." If anything, Aladdin made a wannabe-Princess Jasmine like me want to fly on a magic carpet with my own Aladdin. What about Beauty and the Beast? There's a film that didn't do much to make little girls like brawny hunters in rural France.

But seriously, "Reel Bad Arabs" makes some silly assertions--and reasonable bloggers agree.

Ross Douthat notes that the film "is forced to resort to clips from such blockbuster films as Cannonball Run II, Happy Hooker Goes to Washington, and Hell Squad. So far as I could tell, the most recent clips are from Aladdin and True Lies, both of which are fifteen years old."

Michael Weiss adds "that despite what the 200 pounds of bad veal calling itself a narrator in this documentary will tell you, Aladdin and True Lies are not quite as culturally paradigmatic as all that. If Jafar merits a Saidian dissertation, then perhaps I can enjoin a Caribbean scholar of stereotypes to explain the Rasta rock lobster who told Ariel how to land her man in The Little Mermaid?"

And I agree with Ace, who asks, "Incidentally, as regards Aladdin, who precisely could have served as the villain and his minions in an Arab land? Who else was there?" He has an answer that Hollywood might like.

So what are modern filmmakers to do? At Commentary, James Kirchik snarkily remarks that perhaps the villains should change since, after all, "Arab terrorists...are mere holograms created by the neocon war machine."

Now, back I go to You Tube-ing songs from Aladdin and reliving an important cultural aspect of my childhood...

On Sunday, the New York Times printed a massive front-page story about a supposedly alarming homicide rate among Iraq and Afghanistan vets. The Times reported 121 cases of homicide or homicide charges and attributed them to post-traumatic stress disorder--presumably an attempt at making another case for ending the war, if we know anything about the Times's editors.

Unfortunately, the paper misreported the facts they had and left out key statistics--most importantly, a comparison of the vets' homicide rate to that of the general population--and they were quickly caught.

Yesterday, WEEKLY STANDARD contributing editor John J. DiIulio Jr. proved the Times's "wacko-vet myth" to be just that--a myth. Read it at the DAILY STANDARD. With a little investigation and some high-school math, he found that the homicide rate among vets is exceedingly lower than the general population--a detail the Times reporters missed. Pro-troop group Move America Forward and Winds of Change blogger Mark Danziger also did some math and came to the same conclusion.

As Goldfarb said here yesterday, it "makes you wonder why they ran the piece at all. Well, actually, we know why--Bush lied and people died, or came home and murdered other people. At least that's the story the Times is peddling."

Blackfive rounds up bloggers' investigations and remarks, "Sloppy work or intentionally malicious, either way the NYTimes has made a mistake...again." And John Hinderaker has an amusing suggestion for the Times's editors.

Michelle Malkin, Allahpundit, and Drew at Ace of Spades are all pretty angry at what Malkin calls an attempt to "fit the standard NYT narrative."

Phillip Carter at Intel Dump explains how this might have been done: "So, basically, the reporters went trolling on Lexis-Nexis and other databases to find 'murder' within the same paragraph as 'veteran' or 'soldier,' and built a front-page story around that research...And then it looks like they cherry-picked the best anecdotes out of that research (including the ones where they could get interviews and photos) to craft a narrative which fit the data. "

Of course, some bloggers are still under the Times's antiwar spell, regardless of how egregious the paper's reporting may be.

Today, the blogosphere is in a tizzy about Hillary Clinton's appearance on Meet the Press. Most bloggers are buzzing about Hillary's insinuation that she is responsible for the surge's successes--and most are outraged that she would even suggest such a thing.

What did Hillary say on Meet the Press? Via Gateway Pundit:

SEN. CLINTON: ...The point of the surge was to quickly move the Iraqi government and Iraqi people. That is only now beginning to happen, and I believe in large measure because the Iraqi government, they watch us, they listen to us. I know very well that they follow everything that I say. And my commitment to begin withdrawing our troops in January of 2009 is a big factor, as it is with Senator Obama, Senator Edwards, those of us on the Democratic side. It is a big factor in pushing the Iraqi government to finally do what they should have been doing all along.

Richelieu posted spot-on analysis of Hillary's MTP appearance over at the CAMPAIGN STANDARD. And here, Dean Barnett noted "Hillary's ludicrous claim that her rhetoric on the campaign trail frightened the Iraqi government into passing de-Baathification legislation and thus all credit for the recent progress should go to the fearless senator rather than ineffectual bystanders like David Petraeus and 160,000 members of the American military."

Allahpundit adds, "Thus do the stars align for Hillary: the failure of her own party plus the success of an operation she dismissed produce a credit-taking opportunity only the dumbest Clinton supporter could fall for."

Some bloggers think she made herself look worse. Writing at the Corner, David Freddoso thinks she should just admit to her anti-war base that she made a mistake--since the same scenario obviously worked out so well for John Kerry in 2004. Andrew Sullivan agrees.

And Scott Johnson at Power Line posts a note from an American soldier just returned from Iraq who rightfully takes offense at Hillary's assertion.

Even the New York Times finds Hillary's claims to be ridiculous, noting that on the show and on the campaign trail she says she voted for the 2002 authorization because Iraq war critic Sen. Chuck Hagel helped draft a war resolution. But the Times explains,

It was the White House proposal, not Mr. Hagel’s, that Mrs. Clinton supported, explaining in an Oct. 10, 2002, speech on the Senate floor that it was time to tell Saddam Hussein that "this is your last chance -- disarm or be disarmed."

Captain Ed responds, "Hillary cannot argue that she voted for and endorsed an AUMF and at the same time say that it envisioned no combat -- not unless she wants to show a complete inability to comprehend military policy and strategy, hardly a commendable quality in a presidential candidate."

As usual, the Clintons' lies have quickly caught up to them.

With all the campaign hullabaloo this week, you might have missed even more important news about U.S. relations with Iran (unless, of course, you are a regular WORLDWIDE STANDARD reader and caught John Noonan's and Goldfarb's posts). On Monday, Reuters reported:

Iranian boats aggressively approached three U.S. Naval ships in the Strait of Hormuz, a main shipping route for Gulf oil, at the weekend and threatened that the ships would explode, U.S. officials said on Monday.

Iran dismissed U.S. concerns about the incident, saying it was a routine contact. But the Pentagon termed the Iranian actions "careless, reckless and potentially hostile..."

The incident occurred days before President Bush's trip to the Middle East, which according to Reuters is "partly aimed at countering Iranian influence."

Mike Nizza and Foreign Policy's Blake Hounshell had informative news roundups early Monday morning, shortly after the incident, but the news was largely lost amid tears and poll numbers in New Hampshire.

But today, more bloggers are taking note, as a video of the incident was relased by the Pentagon yesterday. The AP reported:

Small Iranian fast boats swarmed around massive U.S. warships in the Persian Gulf, and a man speaking heavily accented English threatened, "I am coming to you. ... You will explode..."

The Iranian boats appeared to ignore repeated warnings from the U.S. ships, including horn blasts and radio transmissions, as the ships moved through the Strait of Hormuz into the Gulf.

Both Power Line and Jawa Report have the video and news links. Scott Johnson at Power Line also posted an informative email from a retired Navy man with more details, and Noah Schatman at Danger Room explains Iran's naval attack methods. And Jules Crittenden ponders Iran's motives.

Counterterrorism Blog blogger Douglas Farah praises the U.S. Navy's discipline and explains why this incident should be taken seriously: "It is not possible to know if the speedboats charging the U.S. ships in international waters were acting under orders, going for a little fun, or seriously wishing to provoke an international incident...The risk is simply too high to assume that Islamists acting on behalf of Allah will behave in a way we find rational or non-lethal."

Pundits and bloggers think so.

In the wake of Hillary's devastating loss in Iowa and her dwindling support in New Hampshire, it seems the Clinton dynasty isn't drawing the crowds and enthusiasm it once did reports the New York Times. And Hillary? She's just downright dull.

In today's Politico, Roger Simon describes startlingly different Obama and Clinton campaign events in New Hampshire:

Obama delivered a compelling, almost mesmerizing, speech, did not talk about any issue in detail and took no questions. His event lasted just over half an hour.

Clinton talked about issue after issue in almost mind-numbing detail and answered question after question in an event that lasted more than an hour and a half….

Obama said things like: "We are one nation; we are one people; and our time for change has come."

Clinton said things like: "I founded in the Senate the Bipartisan Manufacturing Caucus."

Yikes. C'mon, Hillary--women are supposed to be the fairer, more engaging sex!

Clinton continues to run on her so-called experience, which isn't winning over voters like she had hoped. Not only do voters find her "experience" campaign dull, but they like her less for it (video at Hot Air).

Captain Ed agrees: "Obama sells hope better than Hillary sells competence, it's not because people value hope over competence but because they value Obama over Hillary. She simply doesn't inspire people, at least not in a positive sense."

And AOL blogger David Knowles describes Hillary's stump speeches as "soul-draining oratory."

Still, WEEKLY STANDARD contributing editor John Podhoretz says that she should continue to campaign on experience--because that's all she has against Obama. But he also describes his nightmare: "Hillary Clinton becomes president, and talks incessantly, as she just did, about 'emergency weatherization' tax credits."

And in today's New York Daily News, Robert Shrum makes the point that "Hillary seems to be making an argument about herself, not the future or the voters. No wonder she is losing to a young senator who comes across as the leader of a revolution in our politics." Hillary should know this number-one rule about social interaction: Talking about yourself is boring. You make more friends by talking about others.

Barack Obama seems to get it.

We all know the news by now: Huckabee and Obama won the Iowa caucuses last night. Bloggers can analyze the outcome endlessly, but that doesn’t mean you need to read all of it. In fact, Jack at Ace of Spades reminds us that horserace coverage can get a little silly. Here’s some entertaining--yet smart--caucus commentary to make you laugh instead.

The witty buzz about the caucus losers is abundant. Bryan Preston takes a few digs at Clinton, and I can’t decide which makes me laugh more: his calling her "The Glacier" or his photo of her Iowa headquarters. Captain Ed also has interesting thoughts on the subject: "Hillary Clinton has run into a serious buzz saw on her way to the coronation. Not only did she not win the state, but she lost to the wrong candidate." Whoops.

And Instapundit offers this analysis: "Meanwhile, on the Democratic side, John Edwards is the big loser. Not so much from the vote, but from the absolutely awful speech he's giving right now. I think he knows it's awful, too, as he's blinking about twice per second."

Romney didn’t do terribly, but he still lost, which is enough to get the witticisms rolling. Daniel Casse at Contentions wonders aloud: "Romney just told Chris Wallace of Fox News that 'this is the first inning of a 50-inning game?' Fifty innings? Is that some sort of cricket reference?" Is it? But it seems the Romney campaign doesn’t need the bloggers to create wit for him, as Hotline’s OnCall blog reports: "Romney spokesperson Kevin Madden: 'We're playing chess. Everybody else is playing checkers.'" Hmm…maybe that’s your problem.

On the winners, the liberal bloggers just can't hide their glee. Conservative bloggers are a little more wry. Over at the CAMPAIGN STANDARD, Continetti asks a very good question: "What do they put in the drinking water in Hope, Arkansas?" Again at Contentions, Casse also notes one thing Huckabee and Obama have in common. While Paul Mirengoff finds another common denominator (scroll to the bottom of his post).

I've found a third common characteristic between Huckabee and Obama, via Instapundit. They don't seem to need this, do they?

THE WORLDWIDE STANDARD tends to leave the campaign news to our colleagues at that other STANDARD, where you can read the best Iowa predictions on the web. But today is Caucus Day in Iowa, and we can't ignore the roaring blogosphere buzz on the campaigns.

Already it's a crazy day in Caucusville. The big Republican buzz is the Politico report that Fred Thompson may drop out of the race and throw his support to John McCain if he doesn't do well today. The Thompson campaign strongly denies this allegation, and Captain Ed thinks Thompson still has a shot. But is the damage already done? Mark Steyn wonders...

Meanwhile, Mike Huckabee's surge stalled slightly when he showed the press a negative ad against Romney that he decided to pull from the air last minute. Bloggers, especially Allahpundit, were all over this, and Abe Greenwald thought it would result in substantial damage to Huckabee's campaign. Now, Hugh Hewitt reports that the ad might have run anyways. Huckabee was considered the Iowa frontrunner, but today we'll see how far that populist appeal goes, especially after he crossed the picket lines to appear on Leno last night. Romney, however, brushed off the whole ordeal and continues to poll well in Iowa.

As for John McCain and Rudy Giuliani? Don't expect to see them shaking hands in Iowa today. Both are campaigning in New Hampshire, where they are expected to have better chances next week.

On to the Democrats. Once-frontrunner Hillary Clinton is no longer inevitable, says Robert Novak. And, Obama and Edwards--especially Obama--are soaring in the polls, says Bryan Preston.

Michelle Malkin notes that the Iowa caucuses are a strange process, but it certainly makes for an exciting campaign with a still-uncertain outcome. The Democrats' process is particularly interesting, since candidates who receive less than 15 percent of caucus-goers can urge their supporters to caucus for one of the frontrunners. And right now, two lower-tier candidates are sending their passionate forces to Barack Obama. Yesterday, Dennis "Kooky" Kucinich told his supporters to caucus for Obama should he lose. Right-wing bloggers found this a little funny, but it nonetheless provides crucial votes for Obama, Jay Carney thinks. Obama has Bill Richardson's support, too. And he might get Joe Biden's, as well. Hmm, this makes everything even more difficult for Clinton and Edwards, doesn't it?

It certainly will be a media circus in Iowa today, and one thing we know for sure is that anything can happen. Keep checking the CAMPAIGN STANDARD for the latest campaign news from Iowa and elsewhere.

With the Iowa caucuses hours away and Barack Obama in the lead in many polls, is John Edwards making a last-ditch effort to woo the left-wing, anti-war base?

Or does he really not think the surge is working?

Bloggers are discussing this New York Times report:

John Edwards says that if elected president he would withdraw the American troops who are training the Iraqi army and police as part of a broader plan to remove virtually all American forces within 10 months…

In one of his most detailed discussions to date about how he would handle Iraq as president, Mr. Edwards staked out a position that would lead to a more rapid and complete troop withdrawal than his principal rivals, Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama, who have indicated they are open to keeping American trainers and counterterrorism units in Iraq...

Mr. Edwards’s plan calls for immediately withdrawing 40,000 to 50,000 troops. Nearly all of the remaining American troops would be removed within 9 or 10 months. The only force that would remain would be a 3,500-to-5,000-strong contingent that would protect the American Embassy and possibly humanitarian workers.

Why would he advocate this plan now? Especially when the report continues,

American military commanders have publicly cautioned that a rapid withdrawal of troops risks a new escalation of sectarian violence, which has been substantially reduced in recent months. A National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq that was issued in January 2007 by the United States intelligence agencies also warned that the withdrawal of American troops over the ensuing 12 to 18 months would probably lead to “massive civilian casualties and forced population displacement.”

Don Surber says that this article "helped Edwards frame himself as the great pacifier" among the Democratic candidates. He also notes that Edwards actually wouldn't advocate complete withdrawal until November 2009, about ten months into his presidency, but still, Edwards seems like one of the more anti-war Democratic candidates at this point.

Jules Crittenden is a little more outraged by Edwards's plan, calling it "Edwards's Murrow plan, 'Good night and good luck!'"

Bryan at HotAir discusses the value of Edwards's "plan": "It makes no strategic sense but it does make some political sense. It’s an Iraq strategy that’s all about Iowa."

Of course, some of the lefty blogs seem to support Edwards's plan, although one Huffington Post commenter urged him to "take a solid 'get out of Iraq' position," as if this plan wasn't one.

Maybe John Edwards really does have a solid plan and a clear understanding of the situation in Iraq. Or perhaps he's just getting desperate and is hoping to stealthily gain the anti-war vote. His campaign does seem to have some problems...

The Democrats continue their march toward complete surrender...to President Bush.

Last night, the Senate passed a $70 billion Iraq and Afghanistan funding package--without any restrictions or timetables. The package is expected to pass in the House on Wednesday.

Fred Barnes analyzes the vote at the CAMPAIGN STANDARD, noting "the 70-vote approval of the war by the Senate represents the breathtaking dimension of [the Democratic party's] failure."

John Hinderaker at Power Line also explains: "The military portion of the bill passed easily, 70-25, perhaps reflecting growing popular awareness of progress in Iraq. Thus, some observers hailed the vote as a victory for President Bush."

Michelle Malkin has more on how the Democrats chose to "roll over," including the very interesting roll call vote. Presidential-hopeful Senator John McCain managed to make it to the Hill to vote for the package, yet Senators Biden, Dodd, Clinton, and Obama weren't present. They aren't on the record as supporting the war, yet no one can say they don't support the troops, right?

Ace agrees that the Democrats just love to surrender: "Funding approved by the Democrats, who at least prove they are consistent in waving the white flag. They don't discriminate as to their opponents."

Looking at the comments on lefty blogs, the liberal base isn't too happy.

And from the files of I-couldn't-have-said-it-better-myself, one Daily Kos blogger quotes the West Wing: "This administration doesn't even need an opposition party, we do fine ourselves."

We'll find out today how the House will vote. But since Bush OWNS the Democrats and they just love to surrender, expect the package to pass.

Are the Democrats seeking a scapegoat for the failures of this Congress? Bloggers are buzzing about a report in today's Politico:

A group of Senate Democrats has begun quietly exploring ways to replace the venerable Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) as chairman of the powerful Senate Appropriations Committee, believing he’s no longer physically up to the job, according to Democratic senators and leadership aides familiar with the discussions...

[T]here is broad discontent among committee members over the way Byrd has run the panel this year and the resulting problems in completing work on the fiscal 2008 spending bills, leading some members to privately push for Byrd’s replacement as chairman...

A Senate Democrat who serves on the Appropriations Committee complained that the panel “has had no chairman this year.” And another Democrat on the panel said Byrd “is no longer up to the job. It’s sad, but it’s true.”

A third appropriations member said that both Byrd and the larger Democratic leadership are at fault for an appropriations “endgame” that has resulted in a series of spending and policy victories for President Bush and the Republicans.

Captain Ed says, "In the wake of a humiliating 2007, Democrats will want answers for their failures. Byrd makes a good starting point. Even in the best condition, the Senate's close split would challenge an Appropriations chair."

Frank James at the Swamp adds, "This story is something like a cry for help from those Senate Democrats who would never come out publicly and say Byrd needs to be ousted from his chairmanship because he is harming Democratic efforts to present a strong front against the White House and congressional Republicans in present and future budget negotiations."

AJ Strata thinks this is a cruel move, since the Democrats relied on Byrd in the 2006 elections.

More from Don Surber and Michelle Malkin, who has written on Byrd quite a bit in the past.

This story is obviously still developing, but it seems the Democratic party will use 'em and lose 'em when it's convenient.

Unfortunately for them, the White House is still getting what it wants.

With all the buzz about yesterday's Republican debate, you might have missed the latest news from Capitol Hill: The Democrats are, yet again, failures.

A Washington Post headline today says it all: "Democrats Bow to Bush's Demands in House Spending Bill." The article begins:

House Democratic leaders yesterday agreed to meet President Bush's bottom-line spending limit on a sprawling, half-trillion-dollar domestic spending bill, dropping their demands for as much as $22 billion in additional spending but vowing to shift funds from the president's priorities to theirs.

The final legislation, still under negotiation, will be shorn of funding for the war in Iraq when it reaches the House floor, possibly on Friday. But Democratic leadership aides concede that the Senate will probably add those funds...

The agreement signaled that congressional Democrats are ready to give in to many of the White House's demands as they try to finish the session before they break for Christmas -- a political victory for the president, who has refused to compromise on the spending measures.

The article lists other expected failures for the Democrats, like Bush's threats to veto the spending bill and the energy bill.

The Hill has a similar headline: "Democrats cave on spending."

And to make matters worse, the Post also reports, "Democrats Blaming Each Other For Failures."

Read Captain Ed's analysis of the spending squabble. He says, "The new effort has succeeded in splitting the Democratic majority. More to the point, it has rescued George Bush from lame-duck status and given the Republicans some sorely needed credibility on fiscal responsibility."

In another post, he continues, "This hasn't just been a Do-Nothing Congress; it's been a Disaster On The Hill. Other than a minimum-wage hike that they had to attach to an otherwise strings-free Iraq war supplemental, the Democrats haven't done anything of note except to besmirch David Petraeus."

The Democrats are predictable. In fact, Brian Faughnan predicted these headlines here yesterday.

Michelle Malkin has more on the "Democrat party meltdown."

Even non-conservative bloggers are disappointed in the Dems, to say the least. Matthew Yglesias says, "But to make a long story short, a combination of Senate filibusters, White House veto threats, and Democratic unwillingness to push the envelop of confrontation, has the Republican minority getting its way on overall domestic spending levels, on war funding, on AMT offsets, and basically on everything else."

And Glenn Greenwald at Salon dissects these newspaper headlines and concludes, "Nothing exudes strength, courage, toughness and resolve like having your behavior continuously described--accurately--as 'bowing,' 'capitulating,' 'backing down,' 'caving' and 'surrendering.' Those are the verbs Americans love most when looking for the party to lead them."

Merry Christmas from the blogosphere, Nancy!

The blogosphere loves Jeanne Assam, a brave woman who gives new meaning to the phrase, "You shoot like a girl!"

Assam saved countless people at New Life Church in Colorado Springs on Sunday when she shot and killed gunman Matthew Murray--with her own concealed pistol. Murray had killed two people at a missionary center in Arvada, Colorado, hours before he arrived at New Life. He then killed two people and injured others at New Life before Assam killed him. ABC News reports:

"I saw him coming through the doors" and took cover, Assam said. "I came out of cover and identified myself and engaged him and took him down."

More from the Denver Post: "'She just started walking toward the gunman firing the whole way," said [Vietnam vet Larry] Bourbonnais, who was shot in the arm. "She was just yelling 'Surrender,' walking and shooting the whole time.'"

Of course conservative bloggers love her!

Jimbo at Blackfive calls Assam "magnificent" and says, "A tortured soul now knows whether Hell exists, or not, and he was stopped before he fired the 1,000 rounds he was carrying. You even have to wonder if he was trying to get killed, because he shot at her."

Instapundit rounds up the commentary and adds, "it's more evidence that people don't stop killers, people with guns do."

Captain Ed says this is evidence that concealed weapons aren't so bad:

Murray didn't show up to shoot a couple of people and call it a day. Two handguns, an assault rifle, and over a thousand rounds of ammunition would have equaled a church full of corpses had Assam and others not been able to defend themselves and their fellow parishioners…After the Virginia Tech shooting, people asked whether a CCL holder could have made a difference once the shooting started. Jeanne Assam answered that question on Sunday.

More from fellow tough-girl Michelle Malkin.

This story makes it clear that guns aren't bad (deranged killers are bad), and guns in the right hands can save innocent lives. It also makes me want to take a trip to a shooting range. Every girl (and guy) should know how to shoot like Jeanne Assam!

Speaker Pelosi, did you really think you'd get away with this one?

The Washington Post reported yesterday:

In September 2002, four members of Congress met in secret for a first look at a unique CIA program designed to wring vital information from reticent terrorism suspects in U.S. custody. For more than an hour, the bipartisan group, which included current House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), was given a virtual tour of the CIA's overseas detention sites and the harsh techniques interrogators had devised to try to make their prisoners talk.

Among the techniques described, said two officials present, was waterboarding, a practice that years later would be condemned as torture by Democrats and some Republicans on Capitol Hill. But on that day, no objections were raised. Instead, at least two lawmakers in the room asked the CIA to push harder, two U.S. officials said...

With one known exception, no formal objections were raised by the lawmakers briefed about the harsh methods during the two years in which waterboarding was employed, from 2002 to 2003, said Democrats and Republicans with direct knowledge of the matter.

The Democrats have made fools of themselves--once again. Bloggers are having a field day, and agree that this is yet more evidence that the Democrats are only concerned about their image with their left-wing base.

Bryan Preston expresses his rage at HotAir: "This story exposes the fact that the Democrats have been playing games on waterboarding for years now, publicly decrying it while privately raising no useful objection to it."

Captain Ed adds, "Only well after the practice had been abandoned did Congress raise objections to its use, and then never acknowledging their own acquiescence to it earlier. That lack of honesty allowed them to paint themselves as shocked, shocked! that waterboarding had been used as an interrogation technique."

And from Instapundit: "Lots of people who were talking tough back then subsequently changed their tunes -- out of either a sudden flowering of scruples or an unprincipled desire to go after the Bush Administration with any weapon that came to hand."

Democrats are claiming that the world was different immediately after 9/11, so techniques used then may not be necessary now--yet they continue to wonder why. The answer is obvious to the conservative bloggers.

More from Preston: "Has the actual threat of large-scale terrorism receded enough so that we can all go back to a 9-10 slumber and wash our collective hands of the tactics that we approved of in the clarifying months to years immediately after 9-11? I don’t think so, though the threat has been blunted by, you guessed it, tough action in Afghanistan and Iraq."

Paul Mirengoff concludes, "We haven't been attacked in more than six years, quite possibly because of the information we obtained through waterboarding and other aggressive techniques. Thus, the partisan instinct, coupled with the joy of posturing, prevails."

And California Conservative raises a question that must be asked before November 2008: "The first instincts after 9/11 was to do whatever it took to 'protect the American people.' It wasn’t until groups like CAIR and the ACLU took exception that Democrats objected. What does that tell you about Democrats’ ability to prevent terrorist attacks?"

We have to wonder.

Are congressional Democrats starting to wise up? After the Democrats' 41 useless Iraq bills, the Politico reports:

Each day lately, Democrats inch closer to giving President Bush more money for the war in Iraq without any serious mandates for withdrawing U.S. troops.

Democratic leaders are loath to acknowledge they’ve backed off, but lawmakers from both sides of the aisle, as well as congressional aides, say Democrats are trying to find a way to provide continued troop funding while searching for some compromises that show they’re still intent on challenging the president on the war.

The possible conditions for troop funding include anti-torture rules and benchmarks for Iraqi political reconciliation, language sure to upset an impatient Democratic anti-war base that wants immediate troop withdrawals.

According to one senior Democratic lawmaker, there’s a growing discomfort among pro-defense Democrats about linking a $50 billion Iraq measure to troop withdrawal.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Democrats are starting to realize that Iraq is a losing situation...for them. They can't ignore the undeniable progress, but they don't want to ignore their left-wing supporters who are calling for immediate withdrawal.

Captain Ed says, "Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi have made themselves absurd on this issue. Just from a purely political point of view, one can only promise something a small number of times without delivering on it without losing all credibility."

Abe Greenwald at Contentions adds, "In light of the successful U.S. troop surge in Iraq, the word withdrawal may be heading for the same trash bin that contains those other dead letters exit strategy and civil war. Democratic lawmakers, made hypocrites by their own rhetoric, now find themselves funding the war they’d declared lost, and doing so more-or-less unconditionally."

Jules Crittenden and Michelle Malkin have more good commentary.

So, the Democrats are in a truly losing situation. What does this mean for 2008? Instapundit points us to a post from Don Surber, who spells it out quite clearly: "The War is twice as popular as Congress."

Bloggers are buzzing about the release of the NIE report on Iran and the White House's reaction to it. There's a lot of buzz out there, but here is the smartest, can't-miss commentary.

Bloggers seem to agree with Thomas Joscelyn, who asked five questions about the NIE here yesterday. He wrote, "Given the poor performance of the U.S. Intelligence Community ("IC") in drafting previous NIE’s, we should review the IC’s work with a skeptical eye--no matter what conclusions are drawn. Interestingly, the IC now concedes that it is certain Iran had a nuclear weapons program. But that isn't getting the headlines." More from Joscelyn here about what changed since 2005.

Norman Podhoretz voices his suspicions at Commentary's Contentions blog:

I must confess to suspecting that the intelligence community, having been excoriated for supporting the then universal belief that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, is now bending over backward to counter what has up to now been a similarly universal view (including as is evident from the 2005 NIE, within the intelligence community itself) that Iran is hell-bent on developing nuclear weapons. I also suspect that, having been excoriated as well for minimizing the time it would take Saddam to add nuclear weapons to his arsenal, the intelligence community is now bending over backward to maximize the time it will take Iran to reach the same goal. But I entertain an even darker suspicion. It is that the intelligence community, which has for some years now been leaking material calculated to undermine George W. Bush, is doing it again.

You'll definitely want to read Podhoretz's conclusion to that one.

Also at Contentions, Max Boot asks "a few more questions about the NIE" and notes, "at the end of this NIE you come away knowing not much more than when you started. Basically you are left with the knowledge that the Iranians are pursuing nuclear work that probably won’t result in a bomb in the next couple of years but that could produce a weapon sometime thereafter."

Bryan Preston at Hot Air says,

My take is that we’re in a state of dangerous uncertainty all around: We can’t trust the IAEA, we don’t trust the Iranians (both with good reason), but there’s just enough doubt in the NIE to keep the B2s grounded and the Iranians on the loose because the Bush administration cannot base an attack or even another round of sanctions on this estimate, not after the intel failures in Iraq.

The folks at the Corner are on it too, and Victor Davis Hanson notes that the NIE is actually a problem for liberal Democrats.

More good commentary (and healthy skepticism) from Captain Ed, Instapundit, and Michael Ledeen.

And what does President Bush have to say? Michelle Malkin live-blogged his press conference:

10:10am Eastern. David Gregory accuses Bush of knowing about the NIE months ago. DG: “Can’t you be accused of hyping this threat?”

GWB: “I hate to contradict an august reporter such as yourself, but I was made aware of this NIE last week…