NOT.

Excuse me, I need to LMAO at Jonathan Martin and Chris Cillizza (O/T: can we see Jonthan team up with Chris and Dana to create a trio of buffoonish "political analysts" on video? Can we?  CAN WE?)

Evidently Martin and Cilizza independently came to the conclusion that, based on a MTP appearance this weekend, Lindsay Graham was signalling a new silliness, er, willingness to take on a more public leadership role in the Republican Party.

Go for it, Huckleberry!  Because I know that many people, when seeing that the face of the Republican Party is yet another older, white, southern male, will most definitely feel the rush of the thrill of new leadership!

Out of sheer petty annoyance with the decision to fire Froomkin, I won't link directly to WaPo, but instead to Politicalwire, where you can hop on over to the Post and Politico. . .

Obama's dominating?  I thought he was The Most Polarizing President in The History Of The Human Race.  How can you dominate if you're so polarizing?  (Stupid question: George W. Bush).

I check in with Halperin, because I like to be aware of what the so-called "conventional wisdom" is these days among the Villagers, if for no other reason than to laugh at how out of touch many in the media seem to be.  But I have to admit.  This edition worries me.  It's not this perplexing reason:

12. He talks to his constituents as if they are adults who are willing and able to deal with complexity-- which is intellectually and practically satisfying to him, pleasing to elites, and gratifying to many citizens.

(Why wouldn't this be pleasing to everyone?  Elites or otherwise?  Hello?)

What worries me is Halperin's track record: In December, Mitch McConnell was one of the 5 (sic) most important people in Washington not named Barack Obama?

So does this mean Obama isn't dominating?  That the Republicans really are?  Texas isn't going to secede?  Michele Bachmann makes sense?

I'm all confused at this point.

There's a short piece in today's Times essentially providing a paraphrased transcription of Cheney's interview yesterday on CNN.  Besides the fact that the piece provides no new information, there's also no context provided for some of the more breathtaking statements Cheney made.

"I think those programs were absolutely essential to the success we enjoyed of being able to collect the intelligence that let us defeat all further attempts to launch attacks against the United States since 9/11," Mr. Cheney said of Bush administration policies, echoing statements he made in an interview last month with the Web site Politico.com.

"I think that's a great success story," he said. "It was done legally. It was done in accordance with our constitutional practices and principles."

 

Did the reporter then include information about the fact that there is in fact, a heated debate about whether the actions taken by the Bush Administration were, in fact, in accordance with our constitutional practices and principles?

Take a guess.

Then there's this:

"Up until 9/11, it was treated as a law enforcement problem," he said. "You go find the bad guy, put him on trial, put him in jail.

"Once you go into a wartime situation and it's a strategic threat, then you use all of your assets to go after the enemy. You go after the state sponsors of terror, places where they've got sanctuary. You use your intelligence resources, your military resources, your financial resources -- everything you can -- in order to shut down that terrorist threat against you

So after 9/11, our actions were taken to "go after the enemy".  OK.  So then WTF is this, at the end?

"We've accomplished nearly everything we set out to do," he said about Iraq. "Now, I don't hear much talk about that, but the fact is, the violence level is down 90 percent. The number of casualties and Iraqis and Americans is significantly diminished. There's been elections, a constitution. They're about to have another presidential election here in the near future."

"We have succeeded in creating in the heart of the Middle East a democratically governed Iraq, and that is a big deal," Mr. Cheney said. "And it is, in fact, what we set out to do."

Get it?  Our actions in Iraq were to install a democracy.  But actually, he says earliers that our actions were taken to defend ourselves against the terrorist threat against us.  Which is it?  At this point, the Times could have practiced journalism by pointing out that in the lead up to the war, the argument for the war, in the first place, was to prevent Iraq from using those mythical WMDs.  Instead, the article ends there, with no context.

Stenography.

And just imagine if Cheney were a Democrat and Obama a Republican.  Oh, the keening and wailing and outrage over a former VP criticizing a sitting President.

Instead?

Stenography.  And crickets.

"So, do you think Obama has learned anything from his attempts to reach out to Republicans?"

"Well, he went up to the Hill, invited them to the White House, and all he got for it was 3 votes.  I think he's learning that that really doesn't work".

The entire discussion was framed to highlight Obama's supposed failure.  The part that Republicans played in all of this, outside of the 3 votes?  Not discussed at all.

So I got to thinking: if Obama were a Republican, how would the blabberheads on cable and places like The Page, Drudge, and Politico describe what's taken place over the last 50 days?

Instead of "Obama obviously needs to learn a little bit about how Washington works", we'd have:

Obama makes an unprecedented effort to end gridlock and partisanship in DC.  Democrats spurn his outreach; seem willing to continue the failed tactics of the past.

Dems, at their peril, shun the President

Instead of "Obama is obviously distracted", we'd have:

"Obama, demonstrating the intellect and vision that was obvious during the campaign, juggles multiple catastrophes and leads the country in the right direction."

 

Instead of "Is Obama dragging the stock market down?",

Stock market is gradually shaking off the hangover from the previous administration

How would the polls be described?  Instead of "Obama has same approval rating as Bush at this point in his Presidency" (thanks to Karl Rove for that insight), we might have:

Country strongly supports the President.  Democrats apparently headed towards minority status.

Oh well.

Please feel free to leave your own additions. . .

However, a quick google reveals that in the last 10 days, Republicans have been publicly cuddling up to Rush.  Somehow, this strikes me as different from Obama's response to Wright.

Gingrey: Sorry. I didn't really mean all that, Rush. No hard feelings, right?

Rush provides safe haven for Eric Cantor

Eric Cantor in 2007: I heart Rush!!!

John McCain: I was against Rush Limbaugh before I was for him....

So, to recap: the party whip and the party's nominee in the last election are defending Rush.  Another apologizes for making a reasonable remark about Rush, and another "cherishes" Rush.  Tell me again why Republicans don't deserve to be linked with this doofus?

Titled in the usual manner, of course: the five most important people who can....

There are only four items on the list today.

Halperin's take: the five most important people. Oops. Left one out.

Now we need to direct our attention where it belongs. As President, McCain would do away with what's left of affirmative action, Roe and habeas corpus. He has been schooled for war and more war. He is committed to and implicated in almost all the domestic and economic lunacies of the Bush Administration. It would be tragic if he strolled in for a touchdown while the rest of us were playing card games in the end zone.</blockquote>

Patricia Williams, in the most recent <i>Nation</i>

If you have the time to chime in on every post about Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama (and face it, a lot of us apparently do), then you owe it to yourself, the Democratic Party, and to both candidates to take the time to read the entire piece:

<A HREF="http://http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080324/williams">Some extremely wise advice from Patricia Williams</a>

Thanks.  And pass this along, will you?