The Dish

Why can the press simply refer to waterboarding and the mere threat of violence as torture when criminals do it, but when the government does it, it becomes "harsh techniques that critics call torture"?

"I can think of no reason why it would not go to the convention now. Why should she get out?" – a "top Hillary Democrat" to Thomas DeFrank.

Ambers:

At the highest levels of the Obama campaign, there is no appetite for any talk of a unity ticket so far. Still, big victories in West Virginia and Kentucky will help Clinton make the argument that she is indispensable.

What Obama needs to do is fight hard in those states to keep her victories muted.

A college senior reader has seen it all too often:

Hillz is now that person at the party who’s had 6 too many jello shots, is talking abnormally loudly and is incapable of understanding the fact that she has overstayed her welcome. And she’s starting to hiccup.

 

C’mon Hillz, let’s get your coat and we’ll walk with you to the door…"

A new study says so:

The study "confirms that our brains are exquisitely sensitive to position in the hierarchy," says epidemiologist Michael Marmot of University College London. "If the hierarchy is stable, we seem to ignore those below us but focus on those higher up. If unstable, and we are in danger of losing status, areas of the brain linked to emotions are aroused."

There are few, alas, who haven’t succumbed to the lure of spinning and power. But here’s one:

"I don’t want to sound pompous, but I think it is important that when one makes arguments of consequences that he go and see what those consequences are. Having championed the war, I wanted to see the products of my own argument. I felt an obligation to stay with the story. After the invasion the story changed of course: from whether or not to invade to the war itself. So I decided to cover the war and had some very vivid experiences in the process that really altered my thinking. Before the war Iraq was an abstraction, an idea. Once you have seen the place you can’t help but be much more cautious with the ideas that you put on the table."

That’s my friend, Lawrence Kaplan, in Der Spiegel. It’s a brutally honest interview from a brutally honest person, and a friend. Lawrence sees Petraeus as a great general, and I cannot and would not dispute that.

He also thinks that, with an open time-line, the possibility of an Iraq better than we found it is possible. But with an open time-line, that could be said of almost any benighted place. With limited resources and without an explicit commitment to a new empire, Lawrence’s bottom line is:

I don’t see anything good that’s come from this war, I’m afraid.

This too:

Everybody wants to be free. But obviously, in Iraq this assumption ran into a wall. Now why is that? One camp in the US argues it’s the implementation and the American incompetence that doomed the enterprise. Others, and mostly Iraqi liberals, say: No, you could have done everything in the world and Iraq would still be a mess because the Iraqis, as a result of their specific history, are not ready for democracy. So whose fault is it — the Americans’ or the Iraqis’? I think both. I also think that the Iraq experience has set back the cause of idealism in American foreign policy and the willingness of Western countries to intervene for humanitarian reasons. Take Darfur: I think it’s because of Iraq that nobody wants to intervene there. So on the whole the effects have been huge and overwhelmingly negative. I don’t see anything good that’s come from this war, I’m afraid.

Jennifer Rubin can see what’s coming:

First, eventually there will be a nominee (whether May or June or August) and a final night of the convention where everyone will raise hands together and declare undying loyalty. Most of those Clinton supporters, especially ones committed enough to vote in a primary, will vote Democratic in November. And there are a lot more registered Democrats than there used to be.

Second, Obama is a fast learner. His speech last night included a heavy dose of heartfelt appreciation for America, reverence for the land of opportunity and lots of empathy for working class voters. Like a vacuum cleaner, he is sucking up the Clintonian message to blue collar voters and absorbing the rhetoric which has successfully lured a coalition of working class whites, seniors and women. Don’t expect any more Snobgate slip-ups.

In short, the fun for conservatives is at an end.

She means "Republicans." For some conservatives, the fun ended a long, long time ago.

Kansas City, Missouri, 8.40 am.

Richelieu thinks "she’s out in a week or less." Oh don’t do that to me.

"It has become popular in conservative circles these days to suggest that "you just gotta admire her tenacity," a sentiment that is advanced at her campaign rallies…

But what is there to admire about this so-called "tenacity"? Clinton began this campaign with a financial edge, the support of a popular former Democratic president, a built-in political apparatus, a consistent lead of more than 20 points in national polls, and more than a hundred superdelegates.

If a candidate starts off with all of those advantages and is too stubborn to drop out of the race, it’s no surprise that she is still hanging on.

There is absolutely nothing admirable about a politician so narcissistic and hungry for power that she is willing to say or do whatever suits her political interests at any given moment. If the Republican Party has declined to the point where conservatives are so worried about defeating a freshman Senator that they are rooting for Clinton to do their dirty work for them, it is simply pathetic," – Philip Klein, American Spectator.