Live-Blogging Nevada

9.10 pm: Did Robert L. Johnson actually say he was "out of bounds" in bringing up Obama’s past drug use? That’s what Clinton just said. Did she just make that up? (Update: if you read Johnson’s press release, you can see that Clinton was lying to maintain good relations with Johnson. She lied when she said that ayone who did such a thing would be disowned. She hasn’t disowned someone who both smeared Obama, then lied about it, then refused to back away from it. So that’s two lies. If it were her opponent, you can be sure she’d be taking notes. I’m holding her to the same standards she applies to others.) 9.20 pm: Clinton again said that she doesn’t want to inject the gender issue into this race. Again, this is easily disproved by any number of statements she has made over the last several months. She’s not as bad as her husband, but she reflexively makes stuff up.

9.30 pm: Just like Bush, she cannot talk about her own weaknesses. In her eyes, her weakness is being too aggressive for change! And then she pivots to exploit Obama’s own confession of his personal disorganization. The more you see her, the more calculating she is.

9.40 pm. Obama’s showing some sense of humor, which has been lacking in his campaign. Both Clinton and Obama look exhausted.

9.50 pm. Clinton manages to pivot the sub-prime mess to pander to blacks, Asians and Hispanics. But, hey, she doesn’t want to inject race into this race. Her tone is a little hectoring as well.

10.03 pm: Clinton uses an opportunity to ask a question to give a speech burnishing her anti-war credentials. Pure old politics. But it works! And she’s a pro.

10.24 pm: Panderthon on Yucca Mountain.

10.34 pm: Man, this is boring. The only moments of spontaneity are when Obama says something funny or sharp.

10.43 pm. Guns! Obama tried to bridge the red-blue divide. Good luck.

10.49 pm. Los Angeles, Las Vegas, whatever. Finally, a real moment.

10.54 pm. She’s so good at this. She’s playing the Rove card, implying that electing someone else would mean that we’d be vulnerable to al Qaeda if one of her opponents wins. Because she’s allegedly "ready on day one." In the end, you just drop your jaw at the shamelessness of the Clintons. But they get away with it and grind on. I think Clinton won this debate by utilizing classic old-political tactics. Every answer was filtered through an exacting political filter. No answer provided any potential vulnerability. She is ready on Day One to play the classic political game. That’s all. That’s her real experience: sliming opponents, rewarding allies, listening to pollsters, tending to her machine.

10.57 pm. Clinton says she decided to run for president a year ago on New Years. She says this with a perfectly straight face. You have to understand that she can tell lies almost as well as her husband. And if you don’t know or cannot know the actual truth, there’s no way to tell. She’s that good.

Are We Headed For Romney vs Clinton?

How Sidney Blumenthal and Hugh Hewitt will be pleased. A reader seems to channel my own thoughts on the prospect:

(1)  Romney’s supporters consist overwhelmingly of the Republicans who still like Bush (as, to a lesser extent, do Huckabee’s). McCain and (of course) Paul draw their vote from the Republicans and Independents who don’t like him.

(2)  The exit poll of that weird race on the Democratic side indicates that ultimately Hillary will beat Uncommitted by only about 13 points — her 2 to 1 current lead is simply because the returns from Detroit are always the last to come in, and blacks are overwhelmingly voting Uncommitted because they’re not allowed to vote for Obama.  (The exit poll also indicates that, if Obama had gotten on the ballot, Hillary would have beaten him about 45-37, with Edwards getting 12%.) But poor people in general definitely prefer Hillary, as they did in Iowa and New Hampshire — which means that poor Democratic whites must be going for her overwhelmingly.

So the odds are rapidly growing that the Democrats will end up getting entangled in a really vicious racial fight for the nomination — blacks and well-off reformers overwhelmingly for Obama, poor and lower-middle class whites overwhelmingly for Hillary —  with serious repercussions for November.

(3)  Indeed, the main message of this latest fight is that things may end up changing politically in this country a lot less than commentators have been saying.  We may very well end up seeing a Romney vs. Hillary race, despite the unpopularity of both among the American people as a whole, simply because the majority of Republicans still like Bush and therefore like Romney, while the majority of Democrats still like Bill Clinton and so like Hillary — with the majority of Americans in the middle of the spectrum getting shut out of the process completely, as they usually do.  And we may also end up seeing a revival of the brutal racial split between white and black Democrats that people were beginning to think was finally buried.  Plus ca change

The Appeal Of Biblical Inerrancy

One fundamentalist makes the case:

If we deny inerrancy, we make God a liar. If there are errors in the original manuscripts, manuscripts that testify they were breathed out by God, one of two things must be true: either God purposely lied or he mistakenly lied. Either way this would indicate that God is capable of making or of producing errors. Needless to say, this would destroy our ability to trust any of God’s revelation and cause us to doubt God Himself.

To my mind, this is Biblical fetishism. And absurd on its face, since there are far too many direct factual internal contradictions in the Bible to uphold this standard. I agree with Michael Spencer:

I do not doubt God or his ability to express revelation exactly as he wants it to be. The thought that God cannot reveal truth unless it is in a book that is supernaturally prevented from having normal, imperfect, human expressions of its time really never occurs to me. I assume that within the expressions, thought world, worldviews and literary genres of the time, God got exactly what he wanted and I can preach it without having to be concerned about "errancy."

MRSA: The Small Print

A reader writes:

Interesting that you mentioned the MRSA article from Annals of Internal Medicine, but I’m surprised that you didn’t note the limitations of this study. The Annals editors wrote in their summary

“The data were passively reported or retrospectively collected and are therefore subject to bias.”

They went on:

"Our study has limitations…

Our incidence estimates for San Francisco come from a passive surveillance system and may underestimate the incidence of true infection. We relied on retrospective chart review for identification of risk factors for multidrug-resistant USA300 infection in the 2 clinic populations; because data were not collected or documented systematically, our estimates of risk may be influenced by selection, referral, documentation, or other biases. Specific sexual behaviors were not assessed or documented in clinic charts; we therefore cannot comment on the association between multidrug-resistant USA300 infection and specific male–male sexual practices."

MRSA has been around a long time, and as a practicing Navy physician I have seen outbreaks in millitary populations for years.  A 2005 study by the Navy Environmental Health Center that did not make any headlines showed that community acquired MRSA was present in 3-5 % of Navy recruits.  There have been significant outbreaks in the SEAL training school in San Diego, as well as the Marine Recruit Training Depot, but this has not made the news.  MRSA has also been a problem for years in hospitals and nursing homes.  Now that someone has found a community outbreak in a gay population, it’s "big" news … bullshit.