Category: The Dish

One thing that strikes me about these debates: the Democrats are much more boring than the Republicans. I’m not entirely sure why. My hunch is that the Democrats actually think they may need to govern the country, and the Republicans are still just having some fun in the post-Bush wreckage. But the responsible rhetoric, stilted language, and long, literate paragraphs that came out of the Democrats tonight were a reminder that this has been the party of Adlai Stevenson, Walter Mondale, and Michael Dukakis.

The obvious loser was Senator Clinton. Her constant calculation, careful parsing, avoidance of direct answers to direct questions: all these were reminders of a pure politician. She’s obviously capable, extremely intelligent, and so hollow you could almost hear the focus-grouped platitudes echo within her. She also lost that new-Clinton benign smile, that newly poll-tested glow. Instead we got an occasionally droning, lecturing, and unrelenting stream of tight-faced opportunism.

As someone who thinks Obama is still the best bet for real change in this election, I kept feeling underwhelmed by his performance. You wait for him to go in for the kill … and … he … never … quite gets there. He seems to be possessed of an almost pathological high-mindedness, and an inability to encapsulate his arguments in ways that get traction against his opponents. There were times when his oratorical high-point was the word "actuarial." If this is how he performs after we’re told he’s taking the gloves off, Rudy Giuliani must be licking his chops. Goddamn it: stop being so fricking reasonable and above it all. His response to the Romney Osama-Obama smear was – sorry to say – pathetic. He can’t get mad at these racist attacks? He had a great answer to the final UFO segment, and he got a few final cracks in against She Who Is Inevitable. But he needs to grow some balls fast.

The winner was clearly Edwards. He was concise, aggressive, completely right about Clinton and always on point. He seemed unafraid to take her on, while Obama was still playing a too-careful defense. If I were to give an instant sum-up of the debate – and I’m a blogger so it’s my job – it would be that Clinton’s profound weakness as a general election candidate was pretty badly exposed. And the main alternative just about survived as a credible presidential candidate.

In other words: a great night for the GOP.

(Photo: William Thomas Cain/Getty.)

Check it out. He’s there in Philly. Money quote:

Obama confronted Clinton in his way, Edwards confronted Clinton in his way, and none of us writing about the debate can say with accuracy which approach voters prefer…

Strategic ambiguity in this case may have provided the media with the anti-Clinton sound-bite it has long been craving. In real time, the way Clinton answered this question provided her opponents with a point of evidence to attack her credibility and character.

In the long run — or in aggregate — is this enough? As in — enough to generate an anti-Clinton movement among Democrats? Probably not.

Almost 14 percent of Americans fell for some sort of scam last year, most of them dieting schemes, according to the FTC.

Daniel Larison counters Bob Kagan:

The authoritarianism in Russia and the populist demagoguery in Venezuela are both products of the very elections Kagan boosts.  The fact is that liberalism has a small constituency in both countries (outside of a very few western European, Anglophone and North American countries, this has often been the case), and when put before the electorates of Russia and Venezuela liberalism fares very poorly.  Some of this has to do with the fact that relatively liberal politics was associated with the wealthy elite and tycoons, and the effects of policies carried out in the name of liberalism were generally poor or even disastrous for the people who now back authoritarian populist leaders.  There will be objections that Russian elections in particular are not fully “free and fair,” but against this I would note that even with fully free and fair elections the overwhelming majority would still want nothing to do with the Russian liberals.  This is hardly surprising: in mass democracy, the politics of liberty tends to lose and lose badly, while one form of demagoguery or another (be it nationalist or revolutionary socialist) usually prevails.

"I am very concerned about the undermining of the absolute prohibition of torture by interrogation methods themselves in Abu Grahib, in Guantanamo Bay and others, but also by rendition and the whole CIA secret places of detention. All that is really undermining the international rule of law in general and human rights but also the prohibition of torture. [Other countries] say why are you criticising us if the US, the most democratic country with the oldest history of human rights, if they are torturing you should first go there. It has a negative effect because the US is a very powerful and important country and many other countries take the US as a model," – Manfred Nowak, UN Special Rapporteur on torture, who has been trying to pressure the Sri Lankan government to stop torture and abusive interrogation.

In seven years, the US has gone from being a beacon of human rights to an enabler and legitimizer of torture in regimes not even Cheney would find savory.

A lot of people are asking if he will and whether he should directly attack Clinton. Of course he should attack Clinton, and, if he’s smart, he’ll focus on her endorsement of the Kyl-Lieberman amendment and her shilly-shallying over torture. But what he should really be doing is attacking Giuliani. The major worry many Democrats have is that Obama cannot stand up to Rudy-style "all-my-opponents-are-terrorists" politics. Give Rudy hell, tonight, Obama. That’s what you really have to prove.

I tried to link to it earlier today. TNR has now disinterred it from its webby if shallow grave.

As sexy as Hollywood wants her to be. Yes: it’s Angeline Jolie. Beo-woof!

"In response [to Islamofascism Awareness Week], anti-American leftists and organizations supporting the Islamic jihad organized a national campaign of vitriol and hate that was almost unprecedented," – David Horowitz, taking a perfectly admirable stance – exposing the evils of Islamist terrorism – and turning it into polarizing McCarthyism.

They know it’s that old because they killed it to find out. Meanwhile, a 116-year old orange is put on display in Britain. It

belonged to Joseph Roberts who was injured in an explosion at a Stoke-on-Trent colliery in 1891.

But his lunchbox survived.