The Dish

Conan makes Sarah Killen a star.

At War was live-blogging all day yesterday. Musings On Iraq's advice:

[It’s] important to remember that this year’s voting is only the most public expression of Iraq’s attempt to build a democracy. More important is that institutions and the rule of law develop so that the general public can benefit from the freedoms a democracy is supposed to provide. That will take much longer, and Iraq is struggling on that front.

Iraq’s justice system for example, lacks due process, and its jails are famous for beatings, torture, overcrowding, and poor conditions. The deBaathification campaign launched by the Iraqi National Alliance and the Accountability and Justice Commission that it controlled just on the eve of balloting was another instance of the lack of rule of law as the Commission was not appointed by parliament, the charges against the banned candidates was never made public, and the court that dealt with the appeals changed its opinion due to political pressure. That doesn’t mean that Iraq cannot eventually establish a working democratic system, but that claims that it has already arrived are premature, and that it will be a long and arduous process that can see reversals, and even be cut short. Iraq’s people and government do have a chance to move in a positive direction however, which is in stark contrast to most of the countries that surround it that are governed by monarchies and autocracies

Jonathan Bernstein tries to recall big last minute failures. He "can't think of any historical precedent for a failure this large in a House vote — a major policy with the full support of the president and the majority party leadership that got this close without winning."

My feelings here.

This weekend on the Dish, Andrew returned from his blogatical to tackle Clive Crook's conventional wisdom on Obama, the latest tentative attempt at Iraqi elections, and Palin's political genius. He also took another long look at the state of conservatism and highlighted some wise words from David Foster Wallace.

Obama's latest victory in the war on terror here. John Sides asked the central question of Dems on HCR, Greg Scoblete trounced Jonah Goldberg over Iraq, Kevin Sullivan countered Wehner over the same, and Tom Ricks replied to Andrew. More Iran debate here. More awfulness from Cheney here – to the point where even Paul Mirengoff was aghast.

Lehrer and others talked depression while Andrew addressed drugs. A reader narrated a dramatic story from the Chilean tsunami. Assorted weekend fun here, here, here, here, here, and especially here. 

— C.B.

The mouthpiece for the pro-torture right and triangulating left, the Washington Post, has been puffing up the genius of Rahm Emanuel in recent weeks. Eric Holder himself has been publicly lamenting that he has not been "political" enough in his job, as attorney-general. In other words: Washington as usual. And look, there is a genuine debate about whether military commissions – now rid of the torture and more blatant framing of the Cheney years – or civil courts should be used to try terror suspects. I prefer the great example of demonstrating what makes the West superior to those regimes based on Islamist theology, i.e. civil courts. But decent military commissions are not some terrible fate, if handled properly and if the defense lawyers have real tools at their disposal. It was only the rigged, coerced kangaroo courts of the Cheney years I objected to.

But whatever your view, this must not, it seems to me, be a politicized decision. It should be a matter of justice. And to go from a Rove-driven Justice Department to an Emanuel-driven Justice Department is not the change most of us who supported Obama wanted to see. Or believe in.

Google by the numbers.

Jeez, this was extreme even by Hollywood standards:

And Chris Orr was totally wrong.

Lively and engrossing Dish coverage and debate among military readers about the merits and accuracy of The Hurt Locker can be found here, here, here, here, here, and here and Graeme Wood's interesting take is here. For all the back and forth about its accuracy, I would have voted for it myself and am very glad it won. Avatar was amazingly beautiful and imaginative but utterly failed as a drama whose characters you might actually care about or understand.

Ezra pwns his propaganda on tort reform.

Selena Chambers yawns at Monster Lit:

I am a girl who loves her monsters, and also loves her nineteenth-century lit. So when Quirk books announced their mashup of Pride and Prejudice and Zombies in early 2009, I, like the rest of the Internet, was ecstatic. Besides hilarity, the new Monster Lit seemed to promise two things: that it would get people to read classic literature who otherwise would not, and that the monsters would shed something new about the work, and vice versa. But after reading almost every title to come out of the new “genre,” it seems all Monster Lit really marks is the swan song of the literary tropes the aughties have been inundated with: zombies, vampires, and Austenmania. It also seems to celebrate the quick dollar. My first impression of PPZ — which was 80% Jane Austen, 20% zombies — was that publishers had found a fast and cheap way to make a profit by finding a gimmick viral enough to penetrate the Interwebs.