The Dish

You may want to sit down, but I read the following Bill Clinton remarks yesterday and didn’t see anything untoward about them:

"I think it would be a great thing if we had an election year where you had two people who loved this country and were devoted to the interest of this country," said Clinton, who was speaking to a group of veterans Friday in Charlotte, N.C. "And people could actually ask themselves who is right on these issues, instead of all this other stuff that always seems to intrude itself on our politics."

I don’t think he’s implying that Obama doesn’t love his country or is not devoted to the interest of this country (although you could, with some strain, parse it that way). He’s actually hoping for a substantive, non-swift-boating, non-Coulter, non-Hannity campaign. It’s pretty close to my own hope for an Obama-McCain race. Now why Clinton didn’t include Obama, who is the current front-runner, and who has shown an ability to speak and talk constructively and civilly for the entire campaign, is an interesting question, isn’t it? He’s certainly less divisive than he or his wife. And he has just shown an ability to respond to swift-boating not by the usual Clinton defensive crouch but by tackling it head-on and winning the argument.

I think the statement just speaks to Clinton’s staggering sense of ownership of the Democratic party and the unconcious assumption that his wife deserves to be the nominee. I still think the Clintons cannot believe the gall of anyone daring to challenge their power or their specious self-regard. I’ve said it before, but imagine if Clinton had won over a dozen primaries in a row, was ahead in the delegate count, ahead in the popular vote, and way ahead in the number of states won. Don’t you think the pressure on Obama to pull out would be enormous? And wouldn’t Clinton regard his persistence as treachery? And yet Clinton in the exact same situation carries on, with a minimal chance of victory,and actually had the gall to offer Obama a veep slot. Who on earth does she think she is? At best it’s pure Clinton entitlement. At worst it’s white entitlement.

Oh, well, I tried to defend the Clintons and look where I ended up. Better luck next time.

(Photo: Win McNamee/Getty.)

Sam Harris pens an inimitable essay. Money quote:

The problem of religious fatalism, ignorance, and false hope, while plain to see in most religious contexts, is now especially obvious in the black community. The popularity of "prosperity gospel" is perhaps the most galling example: where unctuous crooks like T.D. Jakes and Creflo Dollar persuade undereducated and underprivileged men and women to pray for wealth, while tithing what little wealth they have to their corrupt and swollen ministries. Men like Jakes and Dollar, whatever occasional good they may do, are unconscionable predators and curators of human ignorance. Is it too soon to say this in American politics? Yes it is.

Despite all that he does not and cannot say, Obama’s candidacy is genuinely thrilling: his heart is clearly in the right place; he is an order of magnitude more intelligent than the current occupant of the Oval Office; and he s till stands a decent chance of becoming the next President of the United States. His election in November really would be a triumph of hope.

But Obama’s candidacy is also depressing, for it demonstrates that even a person of the greatest candor and eloquence must still claim to believe the unbelievable in order to have a political career in this country. We may be ready for the audacity of hope. Will we ever be ready for the audacity of reason?

I don’t disagree with many of my friend Sam’s smaller points; but I do disagree with his largest argument. If you want to know why or how, our long dialogue about faith and reason is here.

The latest CBS News poll on the Wright speech suggests that Obama scored well. 71 percent thought he did a good job explaining his relationship with Wright, with 24 percent saying a poor job. 63 percent mostly agreed with his views on race. The poll shows no real shift from the speech in voters’ intent to vote for him or not vote for him.

Novak:

…the Democratic "nightmare scenario" has gotten even more nightmarish. If Clinton wins on the strength of the super-delegates despite trailing in pledged delegates and the popular vote, then party insiders will have blocked the historic first nomination of a black candidate — and now they will have done so because of racial fears regarding a black preacher.

"I understand how naive it is to read a presidential candidate’€™s speech as if it were anything except political positioning, but that leads me to my final point: It’s about time that people who disagree with Obama’s politics recognize that he is genuinely different. When he talks, he sounds like a real human being, not a politician. I’m not referring to the speechifying, but to the way he comes across all the time. We’ve had lots of charming politicians. I cannot think of another politician in my lifetime who conveys so much sense of talking to individuals, and talking to them in ways that he sees as one side of a dialogue. Conservatives who insist that he’s nothing but an even slicker Bill Clinton are missing a reality about him, and at their peril," – Charles Murray.

Charles cannot vote for Obama on substantive policy grounds. I completely respect that. I have always noted that Obama is much more liberal than I am. But, frankly, after what Bush has done to limited government conservatism and fiscal responsibility, I find it hard to give much lee-way to Republicans (I do not include Murray) who are now suddenly shocked – shocked – that a Democrat supports government as a solution to certain problems. Where have they been these last eight years as Republicans legitimized such liberal nostrums, and even declared that they were the only moral positions to take on many issues? At least Obama proposes taxing rather than borrowing to fund big government. And, McCain, as I need not remind many conservatives, also has a great fondness for government action. As for Ramesh Ponnuru’s absurd notion that Charles has not exhibited charity to his critics, I see no evidence for it whatever.

Dave Barry finds a solution for Florida:

Every day somebody comes up with a new proposed solution. The most recent one is a ”50-50” plan, in which the Jan. 29 primary results would be used as a basis for seating half of the Florida delegates, with the other half being selected by Minnesota. Or something like that. I can’t keep track any more.

I personally think my wife came up with the best solution: Why not hold a texting primary? We already have the technology. At least our children do. We could ask them how to use it.

Now I know what you’re thinking. You’re thinking, “Wait a minute, Dave: Florida voters and technology do NOT mix. Many Florida residents can’t operate their turn signals. They would totally screw up a texting primary. Many would injure themselves trying to retrieve their phones from their oatmeal.”

True, but it doesn’t matter. We’re just seeking closure here, to get Florida out of the national-ridicule spotlight. Whatever happens with the Florida Democratic delegation, neither Obama nor Clinton will have enough delegates to win the nomination. They’re locked in a bitter struggle that I predict will continue right through the Democratic convention, and then through the November presidential election. Next January President McCain will be giving his inaugural address, while somewhere else in America, Clinton and Obama will be holding their 1,387th debate, with the hostility level between them having reached the point where the debate consists entirely of spitting.

The Clinton campaign is almost out of cash. Josh:

Once you subtract the other debts her cash on hand number would be in the neighborhood of $3 million. By contrast, Obama has over $30 million on hand for the primary.

Science’s rocky relationship with beards:

Darwin had a big one. As did Plato and Aristotle. Pythagoras most certainly had one, a long one judging from his statue. Leonardo da Vinci’s grew to illustrious lengths later in life.

So why, if all these famous scientists had beards to stroke when being clever and contemplative, is sporting facial hair in the lab a big no-no? Well, it appears that facial hair provides a massive substrate on which bacteria can frolic and play. So much so that a bearded man wearing a face mask sheds significantly much more bacteria than a non-bearded man or woman. In fact the risk posed by the facial hair bacterial fallout is such that the authors of the February 2000 paper in Anaesthesia end their abstract with this line: Bearded males may also consider removing their beards. So it appears that a responsible doctor in this day and age should be sure to shave.

Count me unconvinced. One of my doctors – I am extremely lucky to say – is Jerry Groopman. He’s a research scientist and, as book readers know everywhere, an amazing primary physician. His beard is one of the most magnificent I know.

(Hat tip: Bookforum)

Vientian, Laos, 10 am.