It's never been all that clear to me that Barack Obama's "I Opposed The War Back Then" line really meant anything. He wasn't in the Senate, he had different pressures and influences, and, let's face it, it wasn't all that politically risky to be against the war in, say, Chicago. It's kind of like Jerrold Nadler opposing the war. Well, not quite. But similar.

Anyway, the counter-argument, for me, has been that since most of his votes have been the same as Hillary Clinton's, my guess is he would have voted for the war at the time. But Garance Franke-Ruta, I think, has come to the definitive conclusion, noting the almost startling number of very key votes he has missed:

All told, these episodes have started to make me wonder if maybe Obama would have somehow managed to be absent from the Senate the day of the 2002 vote on authorizing the use of force in Iraq, as well. It is a harsh thing to suggest, but his own campaign is now arguing that "we're seeing history repeat itself" when it comes to the power of a vote he decided to skip, and his track record on missing controversial votes is increasingly disturbing.

I think that's it -- he would have skipped the vote.

Look who's coming to dinner:

U.S. President George W. Bush, risking Chinese anger, will host exiled Tibetan spiritual leader the Dalai Lama at the White House next week.

So, let me understand. Calling something a genocide, and angering Turkey? Bad.

Angering China? OK.

I guess given the choice, it's much better to anger your banker.

If anyone wants to claim that the liberal blogosphere is angry, or militant, or fascist, or derisive, or any of the other things that the liberal blogosphere is supposed to be, well, I just don't want to hear it.

Oh good. It looks like the Bush administration leaked an Al Qaeda video, which, in turn, tipped AQ off to the fact that someone was on to them. The surveillance has now gone dark.

Can we impeach someone now? Please?

If you missed Jon Meacham's op-ed yesterday, titled "A Nation of Christians Is Not a Christian Nation," it's worth the read. His argument aside, I liked this:

A pseudonymous opponent of the Connecticut proposal had some fun with the notion of a deity who would, in a sense, be checking the index for his name: “A low mind may imagine that God, like a foolish old man, will think himself slighted and dishonored if he is not complimented with a seat or a prologue of recognition in the Constitution.” Instead, the framers, the opponent wrote in The American Mercury...

A reminder that while blogs are new, the spirit in which bloggers voice their opinions, is not.

Witness, the invisible hand at work:

Tens of thousands of Medicare recipients have been victims of deceptive sales tactics and had claims improperly denied by private insurers that run the system’s huge new drug benefit program and offer other private insurance options encouraged by the Bush administration, a review of scores of federal audits has found.

The problems included "the improper termination of coverage for people with H.I.V. and AIDS, huge backlogs of claims and complaints, and a failure to answer telephone calls from consumers, doctors and drugstores."

Why would anyone want the government running your health care system, when we can have all this?