Obama said today that what happened at the debate last night foreshadowed what the Republican campaign will run on last night. He's right and the challenge to Democrats and especially progressive bloggers is now clear.

Already the Republican spin machine has started generating its ersatz issues. The Democrats are now the party of flagless lapels, angry preachers, and Hyde Park liberals.

It is irrelevant that my side is right about the war, the economy, income inequality, the budget, climate change; it doesn't matter that McCain is wildly wrong in his pronouncements on every single issue important to Americans. Look at the lapels, not at the positions; accuse others of lacking the true religion (check that out with Romney by the way) because that's what leads to solutions for income inequality; and damn everyone by association not with their own ideas and positions but with people they found value in or merely met outside of politics.

While I'm for Obama, don't think for a second this attack machine isn't aiming at Clinton too. For these purposes, her clothes demonstrate that she isn't patriotic (she should have voted not for a flag law or amendment, but a lapel amendment!); she can't possibly meet the religions test Karl Rove will concoct according to his get out the vote strategy because sincere belief is irrelevant (ask Romney about that); and oh yes she too is from Chicago, that spawning ground of liberals. The latter alone should disqualify her but being from New York seals the deal, according to the right.

Read more »

Now we have facts:

"More than 10 million viewers tuned into Wednesday's Democratic debate on ABC, making it the most-watched debate of the primary election season.

The debate, the first to air on a weeknight on a broadcast network, attracted an average of 10.7 million viewers between 8 and 10 p.m., according to Nielsen Media Research.

The debate topped the "reality" fare of "Deal or No Deal" on NBC and "Big Brother" on CBS during the 8 p.m. hour."

So from ABC's perspective, and certainly for George S and Charles G, the raucous, murderous, sharp-edged, animalistic idea-free style worked perfectly -- unless Nielsen also reported that many people turned off during the debate. I bet that didn't happen. Like the crowds of the ancient Coliseum, millions watched to see if vulpine George or ursine Charles would slash or bash to political death either of the two gladiators, or whether the two would otherwise finally conclude their andabatarian struggle, live, on the studio stage, with one fallen and the other triumphant.

So, blame the audience, ABC is concluding. They watched it, so they must have wanted it the way we gave it to them.

Whew! What a miserable night for Citizen Charles and Citizen George. These are not dumb fellows, and they didn't fail to prepare for the debate. Obviously, they worked hard to develop such intensively emotional, biased, hostile questions, and they were very focussed on avoiding the important issues that will shape the future of the republic for the next generation.

So what gives? What were their motives? What did their bosses give them for a purpose?
This is the central question for the mainstream media: why do good people provide such bad journalism from the perspective of the ideal electoral system?

Is it really true that ABC got and held a bigger audience by adopting such a crazy perspective on the debate?

Read more »

I've been reading avidly through law professors' comments about Professor Yoo, and I will trouble you, dear readers, with only a few reactions.

All the professors are mighty quick to defend the sacrosanct nature of tenure, on the grounds that academic freedom permits them not only to say, but to think and right pretty much anything they want, no matter whether their comments make as much sense as a frog's croaks or whether they are acting in service of the most reprehensible acts. But I think they go too far. First, isn't there a standard of morality that must be met to retain tenure? And if there is, Dean Edley rather quickly prejudged the matter in announcing that there was no moral equivalence between Yoo and the President; he was rather harsh on the President, too, in his rush to judge Yoo exonerated. It seems to me that at the least Boalt ought to investigate the question of morality, by learning the facts and disclosing them. We shouldn't need a legal action to learn what actually happened in the case of the infamous memo.

Second,

Read more »

As an additional consideration in the case of People vs. Yoo, a government attorney must meet not only the standards of professional responsibility that come with being an attorney, but also must comply with his or her oath, taken upon assuming office, to support and defend the Constitution. That attorney's duty is to the principles of the Constitution, as amended (and in this particular case, as amended by the 8th Amendment), and not only or merely to the President or, more correctly, the Presidency.

In practical terms, the purport of the oath in a constitutionally sensitive case is that the advising attorney must reflect in his/her work a wholistic and long-term understanding of both the relevant precedent and the precedential effect of the proposed instant action by others relying upon that advice. In other words, it is imperative to examine how history will judge and also how history of our Constitution will be altered by proposed conduct.

This sort of review and this sort of thinking is what it means to have a written Constitution and to live under a rule of law where that Constitution is a living and meaningful document. Did Professor Yoo live up to his oath? It's not the same question as asking whether a lawyer in private practice exceeded the boundaries of zealous advocacy.