The Dish

He spoke with CNN, MSNBC, and Fox. Fox didn’t treat him with kid gloves: in fact, I’ve rarely heard a more inquisitory interview with respect to someone’s pastor. But Obama seemed as cool as ever:

It was a relatively big turn-out, and with a depressingly large – and pre-ordained – majority for the most extreme. Anecdotal evidence beforehand suggested little genuine enthusiasm:

"I have voted once in 30 years, and that was for the creation of an Islamic Republic" says an old gentleman who deals in real estate. "I’m not going to get [expletive] again."

Driving back to the hotel late at night, my taxi driver is clearly drunk. As we careen along the near-empty expressway, he belts out made-up lyrics to "Old McDonald", ending in a refrain that has something to do with getting a visa to France and drinking viski. Pointing at a billboard of a senior bearded cleric he shouts, "Shaitan!" (Satan) and draws a finger across his throat. Somewhat timidly, I ask in my limited Farsi about the elections. He cackles with laughter, then clutches his head in mock-dismay.

(Hat tip: FP)

David Samuels’ Atlantic cover article on Britney, or rather, her photographers is now online. A graf:

Some stars hate the paparazzi. Others use them to reinvent themselves or increase their fame. Working with the paparazzi to create memorable shots is called “giving it up,” a sexualized metaphor that neatly captures the masculine-feminine romantic dynamic of need and reluctance that characterizes the relationship between celebrity photographers and their subjects. Paris Hilton is the Queen of Giving It Up, Dano says. “She creates the beautiful shots that we need. She is the one who wants it.” Another favorite is Lindsay Lohan. “Lindsay’s OK, but she’s kind of strange, because she can be high, or in a weird mood,” he says. His least favorite subjects are surly male stars like Leonardo di Caprio, Ben Affleck, Justin Timberlake, and Tom Cruise. “Jessica Simpson, she’s really sweet, she’ll give it up. Gwen Stefani is nice. She’ll give it up.” But no one in the business compares to Britney.

Not necessarily the best short-term news:

What would happen if an agreement were announced today that there would be re-votes in Florida and Michigan? Immediately, the previous primaries in those states would become dead letters. Instead of being 200,000 votes down in the popular vote (by her campaign’s count), or 500,000 down (by my count, which gives Clinton her Florida votes), Clinton would be down in the popular vote by almost 1 million. And 193 delegates that they are currently counting would suddenly disappear.

It’s a smart thing for Jeremiah Wright to quit any official role in the Obama campaign; and, I’d say, following Larison, that it was right for Obama to make the following distinction:

“I strongly condemn” Wright’s statements, but “I would not repudiate the man,” Obama said. “He’s been preaching for 30 years. He’s a man who was a former Marine, a biblical scholar, someone who’s spoken at theological schools all over the country.

“That’s the man I know,” Obama said. “That’s the man who was the pastor of this church.”

But Obama acknowledged that “there’s no doubt this is going to be used as political fodder, as it has been in the past.”

“What I hope is [that] what the American people will trust is what I believe,” he said, that “my values, my ideas, what I’ve spoke about in terms of bringing the country together will override a guilt by association.”

This won’t end the debate, and shouldn’t. But it’s a classy move. You don’t disown a man this close to Obama’s spiritual development over the years for political reasons. Obama’s not a Clinton. But a more forceful explanation of why and how Obama rejects Wright’s most inflammatory sound-bites would be helpful at some point. A bigger speech reiterating his own rejection of racial resentment would be even better – soon. Why not in a black church?  Obama’s more developed explanation for his membership of Wright’s church and closeness to the man is in his first book. A critical passage can be read here.

A reader writes:

I don’t see what the difficulty is in trying to decide which to prioritize when making a voting decision, abortion or torture. Here’s the bottom line if you’re against both. If we vote an anti-torture candidate into office, the torture will stop. If we vote an anti-abortion candidate into office, abortion will most likely continue unabated. Moreover, the only way to stop torture is to put someone who is against it in charge of the military and intelligence services. You can work to stop abortion (and succeed) regardless of who is running the country.

It is perfectly reasonable to believe that stopping millions of abortions is more important than preventing the torture of a few hundred prisoners. But that’s really not the choice now, is it?