The Dish

"When I said [I was] ‘disgusted,’ that came with the ABC debate. When she threw out [Nation of Islam leader Louis] Farrakhan, when she said the word Farrakhan and Hamas — to somehow attach that to Sen. Obama — I just thought that was beneath everything that she used to stand for. And I think at some point, she’s going to be disappointed in herself for having done that," – Michael Moore, on Larry King.

He makes the elemental error of thinking either Clinton ever asks him or herself the question: was it wrong for me to do or say that? They only ever ask: did I get away with it?

Bloomberg on the McClinton gas tax summer holiday. But Clinton gets even more shameless – admonishing the Congress to act. Jeez. Listen to her:

"I believe it would be important to get every member of Congress on record," she said, per NBC/NJ’s MIke Memoli. "Do they stand with the hard-pressed Americans who are trying to pay their gas bills at the gas station or do they once again stand with the oil companies? That’s a vote I’m going to try to get, because I want to know where people stand, and I want them to tell us – are they with us or against us when it comes to taking on the oil companies?"

Blech. Once the primaries are over, she’ll be dropping the subject.

An historic landslide in local elections pushes the Labour party into third place. It now looks extremely likely that my old college friend, Boris Johnson, will be the next mayor of London, which, to those of us who knew him, is simultaneously exhilarating and terrifying. But this is great news for the new green, moderate Tory leader, David Cameron. By taking the Tories back to the center (in stark contrast to the direction Rove and Bush have taken the Republicans), the prime minister’s job is now his to lose in the next general election.

At some point, I presume, enough people will get sick of this:

A musician who was denied a liver transplant because he used marijuana with medical approval under Washington state law to ease the symptoms of advanced hepatitis C died Thursday.

Commentary’s Abe Greenwald takes Obama to task for refusing coffee and asking for orange juice instead:

The switch from juice to coffee is a rite of adulthood. It’s not that Obama seemed to hold himself above the coffee drinkers. It’s that he seemed to lag behind them. He’s still on fruit juice while the adults are sipping bitter and bracing coffee.

Even his commenters say this is stretching it:

You guys are just running out of things to say.

And heaven help us, there are still 6 months to go before the election. And by the way, I’m older than Barack Obama, and I prefer juice to coffee. You know, some people just don’t like coffee.

Another of Abe’s readers:

This is ridiculous. Choosing not to drink coffee doesn’t mean you’re childish. Here’s an alternative explanation: Obama takes care of his health. Coffee is not good for you. Orange juice is. Ergo, no coffee. One could blame Obama’s arugula-chomping and good physical condition on the same tendency. I don’t think Obama’s abstaning from coffee says anything about the man’s childishness–or lack thereof.

Look: if you’re a neocon, it beats discussing the war.

A reader writes:

In this ongoing debate between your Boomer and Gen-Y readers, neither side can see the forest for the trees.  The most sensible way of viewing this, appropriately, is through the middle-ground lens of Obamaian politics:

Yes, Obama has moved a generation of people who came of age knowing two political monarchs: the Clintons, and the Bushes.  I’m 20 — I’m one of those people.  And yes, the reason Obama has so inspired us is that he makes us believe politics can work for us. 

But to call it an intelligent move to opt out should he somehow fail requires a philosophy bordering on nihilism.  Obama is not our savior, and you were right when you wrote that his campaign represents exactly the opposite of messianism.  His greatest accomplishment is that he has reminded my generation of the power we have to hold our leaders accountable.  And sure, it will be a lot easier to believe that if he wins.  But if he doesn’t, we cannot abandon that fundamental truth of his candidacy.  To do so would not be intelligent — it would be stupidly hopeless.

I couldn’t agree more.

It’s George W. Bush:

Richelieu accesses the damage:

Obama was sloppy about it and late, but he now has the right political answer to Wright: I’m finished with him. And while GOP hearts were undoubtedly warmed by the whole fiasco, the odds are that Rev. Wright is now an issue in decline; some damage done but little chance he’ll be the big factor in October among swing voters who will decide the election.

Obamalibs and Obamacons need to take a deep breath and realize that the most collateral damage is now. And the good news is: unless Wright decides to become an even bigger asshole, the worst is over. And Clinton still can’t win.

Many readers like the idea. A typical email:

Makes a ton of sense, subject to the caveat (is he a loose cannon?) that you noted.  He reinforces Obama’s "Iraq" and "change" messages; has national security cred (was Reagan’s Navy Secretary) without being an old insider; clearly has the testicular fortitude to be an attack-dog when necessary, yet (as a former Republican) can claim to be post-partisan; has (had?) a son in Iraq just like McCain; was a Vietnam hero like McCain; and may even be able to reach the Appalachian Scots-Irish demographic that Obama has had so much trouble winning.  And, of course, he could help in Virginia, a state that already looks promising for Obama.

A reader writes:

As the father of two very young boys, there is a deep empathetic sorrow when looking at those photos.  We forget, in an era of camera phones, that those images were meant to be the last and perhaps only reminder of deepest love, affection and tenderness. It is not about death.  It is about memory.  Our terribly human and ultimately feeble attempt to hold onto that which is gone from us.