The Dish

In the hearings tomorrow on Pat Tillman’s death.

A classic: "I do not recall." Larry King isn’t buying it. Why would anyone?

Cheney backs his flunky, Edelman, in accusing the senator from New York of aiding the enemy. In so doing, he expressly undercuts defense secretary Bob Gates. The president has open warfare – again! – within his administration. And Cheney is the outlier. Here’s the Clinton camp’s response:

Let’s recap: Senator Clinton asked a simple yet serious question regarding the contingency planning for the redeployment of U.S. troops from Iraq. In response, she was politically attacked by Under Secretary of Defense Eric Edelman who impugned her patriotism and suggested that congressional oversight emboldens our enemies. To clarify the Under Secretary’s remarks, Defense Secretary Robert Gates took a conciliatory tone and told Senator Clinton that he regretted that “this important discussion went astray” and reaffirmed Congress’s role in overseeing the administration. Earlier today, however, Vice President Dick Cheney said he agreed with Under Secretary Edelman, not Secretary Gates, and called the Under Secretary’s political attack a “good letter.” It seems the right hand doesn’t know what the far-right hand is doing. Senator Clinton calls on President Bush to set the record straight.

It’s time for Clinton to ask the president whose side of this debate he’s on.

There is some comfort in the disciplining of minor military figures in the Pentagon’s lies and distortions and spin about the death of Pat Tillman. But, as with Abu Ghraib, there is no real civilian accountability, and no thorough investigation of the exact nature of Tillman’s death, and who higher up knew the truth. The Congress needs to step in and pursue this further. Censuring the already-retired is not good enough.

The publishing industry is one of the shallowest, dumbest and most archaic in the U.S. No one edits anything. The publishers do not care what is in their books and neither, by and large, do editors. If you want further evidence of this, listen to Nan Talese excoriate Oprah Winfrey for daring to expose a fraudulent book "edited" by Talese. Is Talese ashamed? No. Does she still have her job? Of course. It made money, and the people running the publishing industry have no other values but mercenary ones. Oh, and "buzz". And still they whine:

Dennis Prager explains.

Siesta Key, Florida, 8 pm.

A reader writes:

I believe you overdid it with the pop-psychoanalyses between HRC and Obama.  What you believe can be classified as fear in HRC, I’d argue it’s a strong dose of prudent experience on her part.  Presidential politics is all about calculations and compromise, between the presidency and 535 legislative representatives each with unique agenda, multitudes of special interests and 170+ sovereign nations.  I don’t see fear when an individual wants to take on all that responsibility and try to be successful at it. HRC is no dummy; this isn’t her first time in the national presidential rodeo.  She clearly knows what it takes to have a successful presidency, and what it takes to achieve one’s strategic policy goals. She clearly knows all the political calculations necessary to sometimes achieve those goals. Likewise, she also knows, all too well, how potential blunders and questionable policy choices can undermine a presidency as well.  In short, she has seen it from the West Wing looking at the Hill and from the Hill looking at the White House.

Obama, on the other hand, with his short career, has only seen it from the Hill looking at the White House.

He’s been a legislator all his political career. You’re correct; he is different because he hasn’t been “mugged”.  It may make him seem more refreshing but that doesn’t make him better presidential timber; all it does is make him admittedly inexperienced.  JFK was different, confident, and engaging.  Such confident engagement brought the hubris of the Bay of Pigs.  JFK wasn’t anywhere the same after the Bay of Pigs.   Similarly, we had a brash, confident, engaging guy go into the presidency in 2000; in hindsight, we all would have hoped he had the capacity to have a bit more of the fear you characterize.

HRC has more backbone than you give her credit for; she’s shrewd and calculating.  After years of swaggering testosterone-laden alpha-male wannabees, I would find her refreshing.

A sharp cartoon about Republican hopes and delusions.

Another reason why we shouldn’t.