Ohio Primary

I look forward to tomorrow’s Democratic primary in Ohio with renewed hope and anticipation of a new future.

With much enthusiasm I will gladly cast my vote for the junior Senator from Illinois, Barack Obama.

So Much Additional Power To Grab, So Little Time To Grab It

Wow. It looks like Pres. Bush is trying to spray-paint the walls, stuff wads of paper towels down the toilets, and generally take down as much of the country’s remaining democratic infrastructure as he can in the 10 months that remain to him:

The other day I reported on a troubling new Executive Order from George Bush. It effectively neuters the Intelligence Oversight Board, which was created after the fall of Nixon to serve as a watchdog against illegal intelligence activities and, by extension, an out-of-control executive branch. On Friday, without explanation, Bush stripped the IOB of many of its core powers and duties. For example, until Bush’s “reform” the IOB had the duty to report any suspected unlawful activities directly to the Attorney General. Now however IOB cannot get word of illegalities to the DoJ unless the President and Director of National Intelligence choose to convey that information on behalf of the Board. In general, the IOB has been transformed from investigator to a passive observer, a mere recipient of administration reports about its own wrongdoing.

It’s obvious that Bush does not want to permit the IOB to function as an independent check upon the executive branch. But why did he act now to neuter the IOB?

Via Think Progress.

It Was A Joke!

The editor of the Washington Post‘s Outlook section has an explanation for why he published Charlotte Allen’s paean to self-loathing, “We Scream, We Swoon, How Dumb Can We Get?” in yesterday’s Sunday edition: It was a joke.

“If it insulted people, that was not the intent,” Outlook editor John Pomfret told me this morning, calling the piece “tongue-in-cheek.”

Pomfret said that Allen pitched the idea to him as a riff on women fainting at Obama rallies, and similarities with the Beatles.

Allen wrote:

“I can’t help it, but reading about such episodes of screaming, gushing and swooning makes me wonder whether women—I should say ‘we women,”‘of course—aren’t the weaker sex after all. Or even the stupid sex, our brains permanently occluded by random emotions, psychosomatic flailings and distraction by the superficial.”

“She wanted to make fun of this issue,” Pomfret said. “A lot of people have taken it very seriously.”
[…]
Pomfret said that being an opinion article, he’s not surprised readers reacted to it strongly. But added: “Perhaps it wasn’t packaged well enough to make it clear that it was tongue-in-cheek.”

Even if intended as a joke, the Allen piece clearly isn’t the best way for the Post to achieve its goal of bringing in more women readers, and it remains to be seen if the fallout continues today.

“It’s not the first time in opinion journalism that something has fallen flat,” Pomfret said.

Steve Benen is incredulous:

I found it hard to believe Pomfret would publish such tripe. I find it even harder to believe this is his explanation for such poor judgment.

Obviously, humor can be hard to define. “Funny” is in the eye of the beholder. But calling Allen’s bizarre opinion piece “tongue-in-cheek” is just insulting. “Tongue-in-cheek” is defined as, “Meant or expressed ironically or facetiously.” Allen wasn’t kidding. There was nothing in the piece intended as humor, and at no point was the reader led to believe the entire 1,700-word piece should be taken as satire. And since when is the front page of the Washington Post’s Outlook section the proper place for “edgy” humor that attacks women as dumb?

It’s just such a weak response. “Just kidding!” is something children say when they’re caught saying something they know was wrong. But for editors at major newspapers, it’s hardly an excuse for publishing a piece that should have offended everyone who read it.

Amanda Marcotte:

If it was a joke, she wouldn’t have used “evidence” that she and other anti-feminists use everywhere else in dead fucking earnest to argue against women’s equality—women aren’t geniuses, women can’t rotate 3D objects, women are more nurturing. If you are satirizing a position, you say things you don’t believe. Allen was saying things she does believe, and using refreshingly straightforward misogynist language to do so. …

Matthew Yglesias:

I love that The Washington Post‘s editorial response to people being pissed that they ran an article about how women are stupid was to slightly tweak the online teaser to make it a piece about why women “act so dumb.” Also, it’s now a tongue in cheek piece of woman-bashing by a professional anti-feminist. “Tongue in cheek,” it seems, is newspeak for “poorly reasoned.”

Obama and Clinton on “60 Minutes”

I am so glad that Andrew Sullivan noticed this, because I did, too: “Clinton is pressed to say that Obama is not a Muslim. She does – but then she pulls it back.” I don’t even think it was all that subtle. It appeared calculating and deliberate to me. Here is the video; judge for yourself:

Ann Althouse, who sees, in a blurry haze of letters on a sleeping child’s pajamas, a subtle appeal to people who might be disinclined to vote for Obama because he is African American, does not see a clear if subtle attempt to encourage, via words, facial expression, and tone of voice, the incorrect belief that Obama is, or might be, a Muslim, or that he might have an affinity for Islamists.

… Watching the short excerpt, I was inclined to minimize Clinton’s “as far as I know,” because it seemed as though Steve Kroft was using a technique of continuing to ask the same question until he extracted the quote that would make news. Clinton’s initial response is completely appropriate, and, to my ear, it seemed as if the backing off in the end was a lawyerly precision about her lack of personal knowledge of the subject rather than a sly attempt to stimulate doubts.

Here is Clinton’s initial response:

Steve Kroft: You don’t believe that Sen. Obama is a Muslim?

Clinton: No, of course not. I mean, there’s no basis for that. I take him on the basis of what he says, and there isn’t any reason to doubt that (said in a stammering, hesitant voice, with a smile on her face).

That’s not an appropriate response at all. That’s the kind of response you make when there is room for doubt. There is no room for doubt here. Ann must have a tin ear if it tells her that the hesitation and the qualifying “was a lawyerly precision about her lack of personal knowledge of the subject rather than a sly attempt to stimulate doubts.” That’s just silly. Do I really believe that Ann Althouse is impersonating a lawyer? Of course not. I mean, there’s no basis for that. I take her on the basis of what she says, and there isn’t any reason to doubt that.

I lack personal knowledge of most of the world’s goings-on, and I venture to say that Ann Althouse does, as well. The point is, there is no need to be Obama’s best friend or closest business associate or to have prayed with him to know that he’s not a Muslim and never has been. It’s a fact that can be verified, and has been, many times — beginning with the fact that he and his family have been active members of the same church for 12 years.

Thought of the Day

How do you recognize a Republican with a flat tire?

He’s changing each one to see which one is flat.

How do you recognize a Republican who is out of gas?

He’s changing each tire to see which one is flat.