From what I've read quite a few people told Cohen he's an idiot after the column yesterday, myself included.  I do hope that Fitzgerald gets it.  Funny how the wacky right and "liberal left media" miss this point.

Posted at October 14, 2005 2:32 PM in response to Why Patrick Fitzgerald Gets It

Posted at October 14, 2005 10:21 AM in response to Unintelligent Design

Posted at October 2, 2005 11:44 AM in response to What Did the President Know and When Did He Know It?

I actually did hear Roberts say this at his hearing, which is why I mentioned it here.  I'd love to see Democrats and talk show hosts challenge Republicans when they use this distortion.

Posted at September 20, 2005 10:11 PM in response to The Porn Squad

Posted at September 20, 2005 1:40 PM in response to The Porn Squad

JM - you should have asked Carville if his wife Mary Matalin has done a book deal with Judy Miller.

Ariana said, on July 31st, that she'd heard Miller had a book deal (via "industry sources").

Matalin has been with Simon and Schuster since leaving the west wing, targeting right wingers for books, I wouldn't be at all surprised if she's Miller's dealmaker.

Interesting that two people asked to testify before Fitzgerald's grand jury might be conspiring over a big-money book deal, eh? 

Posted at August 5, 2005 3:42 PM in response to Carville Speaks

My reaction watching the whole show was that Novak and Carville were needling each other throughout.  I also have watched these shows for quite some time. 

Carville's reaction to this tension was to get down low in his chair, head in hand, looking to the floor off the desk (when he wasn't turning his back to the camera to stick Novak with some verbal jab.

Novak's reaction to this situation was to lean way back in his chair and stare off stage to his left, when he wasn't turning toward Carville to confront him.

It was also clear that this friction continued during commercials and while video clips were shown (K Harris for example).

Novak clearly was more uncomfortable with Carville's needling than visa versa, thus his final "bullshit" comment and then asking the moderator if he was going to just "let it go."  When this was ignored he walked off.

It was a very interesting pairing and I do wish he'd stayed for the Plame segment.  Looking forward to a rematch.

Posted at August 4, 2005 6:23 PM in response to Novak

I also just watched the clip, I think the "let it go" comment was directed to the moderator. 

Novak wanted Carville reigned in a bit/lot as he'd had been needling Novak throughout the show - mostly off mike and too quietly for the public to hear what he was saying.  They both were acting this way actually.

It was a very interesting show to watch as a result, I'm sorry that Novak left before the Plame discussion.  Hopefully there will be a rematch!

Posted at August 4, 2005 5:36 PM in response to Novak

I wastched most of the show and Novak and Carville's interactions were very interesting.  There was a lot of needling through glances and trash talking away from the mikes throughout the show. 

Earlier on they both got a bit agressive talking about perjury (in the steriod case), perhaps understandable as Novak and Mary Matalin have both appeared before the grand jury and the truth of all this is still unknown.  I' don't agree that either Matalin or Novak are innocent in this case.

The body language was also sort of odd, both Novak and Carville very much leaned and looked away from the action when not talking - probably because of the tension involved, and the two of them ratcheting up pressure prior to the Plame discussion segment.

I don't agree with speculations that Novak was drunk, depressed, that sort of thing.  I also don't think he was avoiding the Plame segment" he just got angry, said something he shouldn't, and realized that he shouldn't be there under those circumstances.

Posted at August 4, 2005 4:27 PM in response to Novak

I'm going to go back to the Plame name issue.  Pincus has Harlow twice telling Novak quite clearly not to use Plame's name (interestingly, Pincus uses "Wilson's wife's" once and "Plame's" once).

Today Novak's only response to this claim of strong caution is that it is "meaningless" as this was available in Who's Who.  He goes on to say that if he had been told that anyone would be endangered he would never have written about Plame.

I think that if it turns out someone has been harmed Novak fears that he will be held to blame.  Maybe he has already learned that someone has been seriously harmed and is trying to forstall this.

Now, there is again another disagreement between grand jury witnesses in this case.  But perhaps Novak's mysterious first source has also testified that he warned Novak in no uncertain terms about using Plame's name?

Posted at August 1, 2005 3:20 PM in response to LAME BOB NOVAK