The Dish

I wondered a few days ago why we couldn’t simply run air-drops of food and water over Burma. Barbara Stocking explains why this isn’t practical.

Robert Gates vents:

"I have noticed too much of a tendency towards what might be called “next-war-itis” – the propensity of much of the defense establishment to be in favor of what might be needed in a future conflict. …it is hard to conceive of any country confronting the United States directly in conventional terms -– ship to ship, fighter to fighter, tank to tank -– for some time to come. The record of the past quarter century is clear: the Soviets in Afghanistan; the Israelis in Lebanon; the United States in Somalia, Afghanistan and Iraq. Smaller, irregular forces -– insurgents, guerrillas, terrorists -– will find ways, as they always have, to frustrate and neutralize the advantages of larger, regular militaries. And even nation-states will try to exploit our perceived vulnerabilities in an asymmetric way, rather than play to our inherent strengths."

I hope a president Obama keeps Gates at Defense. They’d get along.

Dick Morris spikes the unity ticket. That probably makes it inevitable. He’s almost always wrong.

Higher turnout helps Clinton?

I posted the classic video here. I didn’t realize it recently became a Number One hit in Poland: re-mixed as a disco song.

A Clinton tattoo:

Luis Salgado, 28, owner of the Ill Skillz (4948 N. 5th) tattoo parlor just got a portrait of Clinton inked on his leg at a tattoo convention in Baltimore.  Artist Buffalo Bill, of Sunbury, offered a free Hillary tattoo to any takers because his daughter Sarah Taby is a big Clinton supporter and thought the tattoo would give Clinton good exposure.

I will have nightmares tonight.

Drudge-bait:

Among college-educated poll respondents, 19 percent of Republicans believe that human activities are causing global warming, compared to 75 percent of Democrats. But take that college education away and Republican believers rise to 31 percent while Democrats drop to 52 percent.

Robert Kaplan has an op-ed in the New York Times today making the case for intervention; Matt, meanwhile, sorts through the political gesturing around using force in Burma: 

Realistically, you’re not going to see a forceful U.N. intervention in Burma because no country capable of mounting such an operation (basically the U.S. and maybe Britain and France) would want to mount one, while Russia and China (and probably even post-colonial democracies like India) would be opposed to anyone mounting one, and democratic countries would be secretly glad that Russia and China would block a move like this because they could blame inaction on Russia and China (or, like Fred Hiatt, toss blame vaguely in the direction of "the U.N.") for a domestic audience even though they wouldn’t want to step in themselves.

Ross counters that liberal hawks will eventually tire of inaction and return to a "UN-skeptical approach to the world’s troubles that at present is defended primarily by neoconservatives."

Gawker has some TV clips to crack a smile. O’Reilly is a very ill-tempered fellow. But I prefer that to cynicism myself. I’m not sure he or Hannity quite know what’s about to hit them this year.

A reader writes:

I live in SD and I am a candidate for the State House. I was out walking my district last month and spoke to a woman about the primary. She has a statue of the Virgin Mary in her front yard and was wearing several crosses around her neck. Here is our conversation:

Woman: "I don’t know about that Obama guy."

Me: "I’m an Obama supporter, do you mind if I ask what you’re unsure about."

Woman: "He’s a muslim and there is a biblical prophecy that a muslim will take over our country and destroy the world."

Me: "You’re aware he is not a Muslim."

Woman: "He can say anything he wants."