It's about electability, stupid

Although Rick Perry remains the overall poll leader in the GOP presidential contest, I still say Mitt Romney will likely end up as the nominee to face Obama in 2012. Whether Republicans like it or not, Perry is proving that he is not as electable as Romney is in a general election. Josh Marshall identifies one driving force: "Conservatives who don't really care for Romney appear happy to vote for him against Obama." I think my prediction is fairly ironclad -- unless of course the Republican electorate really does lose it mind, walks up to the ledge on the 99th floor, and jumps.

'Ground Zero mosque' opens to ... yawns

Remember the "Ground Zero Mosque?" (Insert scream of horror here.) You know, as Steve Benen notes, the mosque "which wasn't a mosque and wasn't at Ground Zero? Well, Park51 opened yesterday, and no one noticed or cared. Civilization appears to be intact; the memory of the 9/11 attacks is unaffected; and the zealots who tried to make this into a story continue to look like foolish."

Innocence

Lyman Abbott: "Every life is a march from innocence, through temptation, to virtue or vice." (Photo: © Steve McCurry / Magnum Photos)

Sometimes a simple 'yes' is enough

Noting that Rick Perry has oddly accused President Obama of "appeasement" in the conduct of American foreign policy in the Middle East, Salon's Joan Walsh asked, "Is the Texas governor too ignorant to know the term is associated with placating and not fighting Adolf Hitler?" Although she takes an entire blog post to explore the empty corridors of Perry's mind, the short answer is: Yes. The rest, as they say, is just noise.

Weirdness that works

Elton John's spectacles aside, these are about the weirdest glasses I've ever seen. Yet, weirdly, they somehow flatter U.S. Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT), seen here speaking during a news conference on Capitol Hill. To me at least, it's almost art. (Photo credit: Alex Wong / Getty Images)

Here Be Dragons

When Andrew Sullivan is "on," he's on with a vengeance. He delivers a devastating critique on the state of things: "I will never think of America the same way after the Bush-Cheney administration. They ripped the scales off my eyes; they proved that America isn't, in the end, different; that its core moral principles, such as the prohibition of torture, are nostrums to be tossed aside at the whim of a few very scared and incompetent men; that the rule of law ends when it comes to presidential power, when he can simply order dipshit lawyers to say black is white; when no regret is ever truly expressed about the tens of thousands of Iraqis who died under US occupation; when the architects of these strategic and moral disasters are given legal immunity and peddle books on talkshows defending and bragging of their own awful legacy. It has sickened me - the lack of morality, the lack of accountability, the constant recourse to mass amnesia. And in a man like Perry, you see all the characteristics of this belligerent, diplomatically autistic, aggressively stupid, and fundamentalist psyche. The dragon we thought we had slain is stalking the land again." And yet at least half the country seems willing to chain themselves (and the rest of us) to this dangerous political archetype at the ballot box. Have we lost our minds? "Here be dragons" indeed.

Stick that in your pipe

Harper's magazine, the second-oldest continuously published monthly magazine in the U.S (per Wikipedia), publishes something called the "Harper's Index," a compilation of "ironic statistics arranged for thoughtful effect." Statistics of course can be manipulated to mean almost anything, and I'm not 100 percent sure the numbers in Harper's Index (Oct. 2011) would stand up to close scrutiny. With those caveats in mind, the next time your Republican friends try to hang the bad economy on President Obama, fire back with these apparent facts: (a) Seventy-one percent of current U.S. debt was accumulated during Republican presidential terms. (b) Two-thirds of debt-ceiling elevations since 1960 have been signed into law by Republican presidents. (c) In 1961 the percentage of corporate profits paid in taxes was nearly forty-one; now it is less than eleven. (d) Seventy-five percent of the increase in corporate profit margins since 2001 has come from depressed wages. Interesting, isn't it? Whether after your counter-harangue you opt to throw in "so stick that in your pipe and smoke it" is up to you.

The details of playing God

Brian Palmer, Slate's Explainer columnist, asks: When a defendant is sentenced to death, what are his chances of actually being executed? Palmer writes: "The average killer is 28 years old at the time of his arrest, and it takes an average of 14 years between sentencing and execution. But these data include only those inmates whose executions were actually carried out; many are not. To put it into perspective, 323 people were condemned in 1996. Fourteen years later, in 2010, only 10 people were executed. It is not uncommon for inmates to spend more than 20 years on death row, and one man challenged his execution on the basis that a 32-year wait and repeated stays of execution constituted cruel and unusual punishment. So what happens to all these non-executed people? Most spend their lives in prison."

Make it all better, daddy

Michael Moore on Twitter today: "President Obama: Can't you do like President Kennedy did & send in federal troops to stop this injustice in Georgia? The buck stops with u."

Um, no, Mr. Moore, it doesn't. Sigh.

Bombast, ignorance and infantility is a potent cocktail. And Moore & Co. are clearly on their third round at the trendy Messiah Speakeasy, and signaling the barkeep for a fourth. I hate to be a killjoy, but the proverbial buck does not stop with the president in the Troy Davis matter. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution took this question to legal experts and asked: Can the president grant clemency or stop the execution in any way? Answer: "No. While President Obama has said he thinks the death penalty does little to deter crime, he has no legal authority to get involved, officially, with a state execution. When the death penalty is imposed for a state crime like murder, it is a state issue." Georgia's Constitution even bars the governor from stopping the execution, slated for tonight at 7pm EDT. Whether or not this state law is wise or even correct is a matter for the next Georgia constitutional convention.

Presidents can only intervene when federal laws are violated. That is why JFK and other presidents could step in with federal troops during the civil rights era. No federal laws are involved in the Davis case. I image a president might, on moral grounds, send in the Marines anyway if Georgia were about to hang a clearly innocent person (and the Feds could prove it). But that's not the case here. Davis' innocence is anything but clear. Even reasonable doubt about his guilt is debatable, though I would pass on playing God and err on the side of not executing him. The point is that President Obama is not daddy who, with the wave of a magic wan and a kiss to our little foreheads, can make it all better. Even the NAACP was foolishly threatening to drag Mr. Obama into this mess. In short, Mr. Moore and his sympaticos need to grow up and swear off the Messiah juice.

The power to arrest this Wonderland madness rests solely with the Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles. I wish that were not so. Sadly, it seems hell bent on playing the Red Queen. "Off with his head!" has been the answer to all requests for clemency from Davis. All legal options to stay his date with the hangman have been exhausted, say the experts. Like it or not, that means Troy Davis is a dead man walking. As a nation, we should be deeply troubled about not really knowing if justice is being properly served in this case. It is not a proud moment for humanity.

* * *

UPDATE: Troy Davis was executed tonight by lethal injection at 11:08 p.m. EDT.

The Gentleman Boss

"Holy shit. Is that guy dead?" said Jerry Parks, the shocked trucker driver in Die Hard with a Vengeance.

"Yes Jerry, I'm afraid he is," deadpanned Lt. John McClane (Bruce Willis) who had just shot the bad guy. "Yeah. I want you to get ahold of a guy named Cobb. Walter Cobb. He's the head of my police unit. Get him down here. Find him. Tell him you were with John McClane and tell him to find out who the 21st president was."

Jerry: "Chester A. Arthur."  
McClane: "What?"  
Jerry: "Chester A. Arthur. 1881 to 1885. Nominated vice-president in 1880. Did you know he was collector of customs right here in New York?"  
McClane (amazed): "No, I didn't know that Jerry."

Neither did I, Jerry. Neither do most Americans, I bet. On this day in 1881, Chester A. Arthur became our 21st president following the assassination of James Garfield. A one-term president, Arthur won plaudits for overseeing civil service reform and the rebirth of the U.S. Navy. But, as NYU historian Louis W. Koenig writes, "Arthur is in no danger of ranking among the the hardest working presidents ... [he] was a champion procrastinator. His staff had to nudge him to attend to matters requiring action." Historian Thomas Reeves (author of "Gentleman Boss: The Life of Chester A. Arthur") quoted the New York World to sum up his presidency: "No duty was neglected in his administration, and no adventurous project alarmed the nation." See? Between these obscure facts, Bruce Willis and Die Hard, who says history has to be boring?

The trouble with playing God

I AM OF TWO MINDS about the death penalty. It does not deter violent capital crimes let alone prevent them. It therefore serves only to sate the anger of aggrieved families. On the other hand, certain criminals deserve to hang in my view (think serial killers or bin Laden). For the worst, an eye for an eye seems only fair. Or so I tell myself. Yet, I cannot ignore this dubious need for vengeance or the human propensity for bloodlust. One cannot help but wonder if we ― in all of our fallible glory ― are encroaching in a moral province best left to God alone. This of course is the age-old question to which I'll leave to the poets.

Morality aside, meting out capital punishment is open and shut in some cases. But more often than not, juries are forced to wade into murkier waters when deciding the guilt or innocence of the accused. My reading of history leaves me with little faith in humanity's capacity to play God given our vulnerability to emotional compromise stemming from cultural biases. Yes, we do the best we can. But there's no getting around the fact that our legal system is imperfect and frequently subjective. And God help you if you are innocent but uneducated, poor and brown-skinned.

I don't know the details of the Troy Davis case. Convicted of killing a cop, he is scheduled to die at sunset tomorrow after 22 years on Death Row. Per the AP, Georgia's Board of Pardons and Paroles rejected a last-ditch clemency bid. Outraged protesters are out in force in Atlanta, and everyone from Pope Benedict XVI to Desmond Tutu to Al Sharpton and Jimmy Carter are shouting in unison that something is rotten in Denmark. The NAACP, wrong-headedly, is even threatening to drag President Obama into it (like he doesn't have enough problems).

What is troubling is that seven of the nine original eyewitnesses have (apparently) recanted their testimony against Davis. Moreover, no physical evidence (fingerprints, DNA, or the gun used) has ever linked Davis to the crime, according to Time magazine's Nathan Thornburgh.

Davis might be as innocent as those overly iconic T-shirts suggest he is. He could also be a stone-cold cop killer and guilty as hell. I simply don't know. But on the surface at least, there appears to be some room for doubt about his original conviction. And if such doubt exists, then how can Georgia morally justify killing him tomorrow? That said, Davis is probably a dead man. CNN reported that the Georgia parole board "has never changed its mind on any case in the past 33 years." This suggests they err on the side of having a head on the pike. That, perhaps, is the biggest problem with playing God. People too easily become inured to the twin pathologies of omnipotence and infallibility.

Credits: Illustration by LA Progressive.

Dude, foreign policy is like surfing

Princeton University's Anne-Marie Slaughter translates today's foreign policy into plain English: "[T]he Cold War world was like chess. The 21st century world is more like tennis, where the wind, heat, possible rain delay (climactic factors that are themselves the product of complex adaptive systems), and your opponent's relative health and form on any given day (health and form that are themselves a function of whom your opponent has played prior to your match) all affect the speed, trajectory, and spin on the ball coming at you. Sometimes you get to choose your actions independently, for example when you serve, but mostly you adapt and respond. Or take surfing, where you really can't predict when the wave is coming or what it will look like. But when the conditions are right you can be sure that a wave will come and you can do a great deal to position and prepare yourself to ride it all the way -- or at least not to get smashed under." This is the "Obama Doctrine" in a nutshell, methinks.

On liberty

"I have a conscience and a religious faith, and I know that our liberties were not won without suffering, and may be lost again through our cowardice." (Upton Sinclair, born this day, 1878–1968)

Ignorance in its natural habitat

During a recent Newsweek interview, Fox News' Bill O'Reilly revealed his dumbitude on two fronts. First, he boasted that he has "more power than anybody other than the president." Second, he said he would have to quit his day job if Obama "begins taxing me more than 50 percent, which is very possible. ... there comes a point when taxation becomes oppressive. Is the country really entitled to half a person's income?" I'll skip O'Reilly's legend-in-his-own-mind proclamation. His self-delusion is self-evident. Point two, however, offers a good talking point for debating your Republican friends. As the Washington Monthly noted, we don't know yet if Obama has a 50% tax rate in mind for gazillionaires like O'Reilly. But for the sake of argument, let's assume he does. First, a top 50% rate doesn't mean Uncle Sam walks away with half your income (it's complicated). Second, guess what the gazillionaire tax rate was under Reagan? That's right, 50%. And it was 91% under Eisenhower. And guess what? The economy grew robustly under both Republican presidents. O'Reilly's ignorance would qualify for slapstick if it weren't so pathetic.

DADT is history

At 21:01 a.m. this morning, the detail snapped to attention and marched "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" outside into the darkness. After 50 paces or so, they duly ushered the policy to the dustbin of history. There was no 21-gun salute, or even Taps. "Good riddance" summed up the mood. President Obama said: "Today, the discriminatory law known as 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' is finally and formally repealed. As of today, patriotic Americans in uniform will no longer have to lie about who they are in order to serve the country they love." Thanks to a courageous president, America moved an inch closer to a "more perfect union." Go USA.

Liar, liar pants on fire

In the 1990 movie The Hunt for Red October, National Security Advisor Jeffrey Pelt said: "Listen, I'm a politician which means I'm a cheat and a liar, and when I'm not kissing babies I'm stealing their lollipops." It's an adroit line that sadly but accurately describes too many real life politicians. Republicans are predictably having a conniption fit over President Obama's proposal to tax the rich. Here's what House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) said on Fox News Sunday yesterday: "Don't forget that most small businesses file taxes as individuals. So when you are raising top tax rates, you are raising taxes on these job creators." This, as Think Progress puts it, is a baldfaced "zombie lie" that refuses to die. Based on US tax returns, it turns out that less than 2 percent of the nation's small businesses fall into either of the top two tax brackets, according to Pat Garofalo. "Far more, in fact, are in the lowest tax bracket," he writes. Most appallingly, Congressman Ryan knows this. Perhaps the smartest thing Ronald Reagan ever said about the Perestroika era Russkies was "Trust, but verify." That goes quadruple for Republican pols. Oh and keep your hand on your lollipop.

Dr. Obama and Mr. Hyde?

I GUESS it's unavoidable, people being people. Still, it is amazing to watch the pundits reduce a political development of import to a simple, this-explains-everything, narrative. Even the best of pundits do it. Take the Washington Monthly's Steve Benen, for example. Benen is one sharp cookie. He's always worth reading ― even when he succumbs to the DC meme du jour. Thanks to a pair of feisty speeches, the chattering class says the president has morphed overnight from Spock to Worf, the Klingon warrior. Suddenly, Barack ("You talkin' to me?") Obama is bestriding Washington with a bat'leth longsword looking for GOP blood. It's "no more Mr. Nice President," as Benen puts it. Really, guys? Are we really going with this trope? Just to cite one example, does no one remember Obama's "feisty" speech on race back in the '08 campaign? It's the historic one in which he slapped the incendiary Rev. Jeremiah Wright upside the head and set America straight on the nature of "slavery, black anger, white resentment, and the imperative to move forward," as Liz Halloran wrote. There is no Mr. Hyde to Obama's Dr. Jekyll. And like the 7 Faces of Dr. Lao, to extend the B-movie metaphor a moment longer, Obama is simply showing a facet of his, one we've seen before.

Yet, as the new meme goes, Obama has now "thrown out the old playbook." He is showing a "willingness to fight" like a true FDR fire-breather. And he has at long last recognized the Republicans for what they really are: grunting Tolkienian Orcs, the crazed spawn of Mordor who live solely to slay Democratic presidents. And for the love of Mike, the pundits huff, what took the White House so long to realize the true nature of his nemeses anyway? We pundits, the cauldron of wisdom, knew it all along, Benen implies. Now that the scales have belatedly fallen from their eyes, "the White House appears more invested in presenting what should pass, and less concerned about what might pass. It's the difference between following and leading," Benen writes.

It's a nice, neat Narrative for Dummies. But it's wrong. Pundits speak as though Mr. Obama has been flapping helplessly in the wind since Inauguration Day. It's conveniently forgotten that Obama has been the most productive president in half a century as most historians have noted. (And you can be sure this would not be the case had he taken a more partisan, less responsible approach.) Pundits and left-wing detractors have never liked the Obama Style, a throwback to the Age of Enlightenment, a time when reason and compromise were the linchpins of politics. No, they prefer drunken, bare-knuckled brawls. In PunditWorld, partisan emoting is "leadership." This is not to say that Obama has operated error free. The summer debt-ceiling fight was an unmitigated political disaster, and there have other bone-headed mistakes. But given the sheer number of accomplishments, Obama's approach has largely worked. (Does anybody recall, for example, that the president makes history at 12:01 a.m. tonight when "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" ends?)

That said, the GOP has unquestionably taken intransigence to scary new heights in recent months. But rather than throwing out the playbook, Coach Obama has simply reassessed the GOP defensive line and adjusted his plays accordingly. His new offensive formations call for less razzle-dazzle or subtlety and more in-your-face play. In other words, Obama has rightly decided that it's time to play political hardball. As Benen observed, Obama's new strategy is designed to produce one of two winning outcomes: The Republicans either play ball like rational adults or Obama will blame them for Washington's failures (and make that fact the centerpiece of his 2012 campaign). With Congress' popularity cratering at 12% (a historic low) and Republicans not doing much better, it shouldn't be a hard sell. Yes, to paraphrase Plato, political necessity is the mother of invention. But real leaders know when and how to patent the idea into action.

Big Brother really is watching you

You may have missed it, but George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four is already here. And "Big Brother," it turns out, has an iPhone. Google’s Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt: "Today, you’re [sic] phone knows who you are, where you are, where — where you’re going, to some degree, because it can see your path. ... So ultimately what happens is the mobile phone does what it does best, which is remember everything and make suggestions. And then you can be just a better human and have a good time." Writer Tom Ohare: "On the one hand, I can see where Schmidt is coming from: Smartphones are fun and cool and futuristic ... On the other hand, yikes! I don’t want my phone to “know” enough about me that it’s predicting where I’m going to go, and I most certainly don’t want it to make suggestions for my social life. In a very real way, we’ve already begun the process of personalized search — the question [is] how far we want it to go." Orwell famously said, "Big Brother is watching you." But who knew he would ultimately do so with GPS?

Reality TV explained?

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Man of La Mancha, that's me

I lament, sputter, pout, throw pillows, and stomp my feet like a truculent kindergartener over people's reluctance to become better informed citizens before rendering political judgments or voting. On this score, I am like the Man of La Mancha because I'm clearly tilting at windmills. (Besides, someone has to keep Don Quixote company besides Sancho.) Behold this story from Joe McGinniss (author of the new Palin book, The Rogue), as related by Sam Tanenhaus, the editor of The New York Times Book Review. In 1968, McGinniss, then a Philadelphia Inquirer reporter, described an serendipitous encounter at a campaign stop for Robert F. Kennedy. Per Tanenhaus, McGinniss said: “I stood out there in the crowd, and he was in the open car waving to thousands and thousands of hysterical people. And he spotted me. I was tall, standing close. He said ‘Come on up here.’ ” Kennedy said, “I just want you to see what this is like from my side. ...They keep telling me talk about the issues. You think these people care about the issues?" RFK's wry point, McGinniss recalled, was that the crowds "were there because he had a star quality, and that was back in 1968.” Clearly, not much has changed in 43 years. We prefer to suckle at the breast of stardom rather than evaluate candidates or politicians on the merits. Tanenhaus quoted McGinniss as saying, “I don’t think you can be a national politician without having qualities of the entertainer about you because you’re not going to connect with the public. Their palates have gotten jaded.” Yes, a pity that. Does anyone else besides the crazy Don and I see the problem here?

Much dumber, please

The Gray Lady wants President Obama to dumb it down. Otherwise, we may succumb to our own denseness -- and hand victory to the GOP. In it's Sunday Review editorial, The New York Times said Obama is taking the right steps to help lower the country's jobless rate and spur the economy. And its latest poll shows that most voters agree with his prescriptions. Obama could and should do more, the Times opines. Nevertheless, they are gratified that as the last sane adult in Washington, the president is at least headed in the right direction. BUT (there's always a "but"), Obama has been making his case "with speeches that, while eloquent, are often too long and nuanced, and then lack the kind of relentless repetition that is needed to drown out catchy but false Republican talking points. ... There is so much noise out there that we are not sure most voters know how much they agree with the president. It is up Mr. Obama to show them." On the one hand, this is probably good advice for Mr. Obama. On the other hand, it's a sad commentary on America. What's it going to take to get through to our dense citizenry? Pictures in crayon?

Flying, testosterone, and risk

THE CRASH at yesterday's Reno Air Show was horrific. The death toll stands at 9. Determining the cause of the tragedy will take many months. But today, aviation writer Clive Irving ventured forth and asked what we're all quietly thinking: "What was a 74-year-old pilot doing in a souped-up World War II fighter flying in an air race?" By all accounts, the late Jimmy Leeward, the P-51's pilot, was in good physical shape. He reportedly passed his last medical flight exam, but we don't know when he did so. Was it last month or two years ago? (Leeward presumable held a Class 3 medical certificate required for recreational pilots. They're good for 24 months for pilots over 40, per the FAA.)

Competition flying at Reno, the only air race of its kind in the US (per the AP), is inherently dangerous. It's flying by the seat of one's pants on steroids. Hurtling through the air while pulling high-G turns at over 400 mph and 50 feet above the tarmac is not for the faint of heart ― or the butterfingered. It requires lightning-quick reflexes and perfect stick-and-rudder control. There is virtually no room for error. The reward for mechanical failure or pilot misjudgment is death in a nanosecond. Since 1972, 19 pilots ― reputedly among the best of the best ― have been killed at the Reno races, including four in 2007 and 2008. And as sure as tomorrow's sunrise, more pilots will die in the future. It is the nature of the beast, and no amount of the proverbial "right stuff" can ever tame it.

It's probable that Leeward ― an expert pilot of long experience and no fool ― was completely up to the task of racing at Reno, even at age 74. But as Irving said, "It beggars belief." Long life exacts its toll on all of us despite our human penchant to deny it. And the older we get, the more prone we are to sudden health problems. It's only a question of when, not if. Yes, there are sprite senior citizens who can crank out a Dostoyevsky-quality novel and maybe swim the English Channel, too. And many can and do competently take to the skies. But it's one thing to putter about in Cessna. It's an entirely different matter to go gunning for the "outside of the envelope" in a warplane. Is it reasonable, then, to allow a pilot of 74 to race a 67-year-old Mustang and push it (and himself) to the limit in a high-stress air race ― all for the sake of glory, prize money and spectator thrills? Indeed, is it even reasonable (or responsible) to race vintage aircraft that are nearly as old as their pilots? Is it worth the risk?

Tom Rose, a commercial pilot, told the AP that his dad died racing at the same Reno event in 2002 under eerily similar circumstances. "He ... just pushed his plane beyond its limits in an effort to win, and it broke apart," Rose said. No one else was hurt in the crash. But many pilots still think it's worth the risk: "They'd rather go this way than in a nursing home," Rose said. On some level I can appreciate the sentiment. Most of us would prefer what Native Americans call a "good dying." But in the case of racing pilots, the potential for collateral damage from augering in gloriously is, to me, too high. Only luck and perhaps quick thinking by Leeward prevented a larger catastrophe at Reno.

It is no secret that pilots, especially the fighter-jock/racer variety, are a breed apart. Many live in what author Tom Wolfe called the "righteous zone." Flying high and fast above it all, they look down and pity "those poor souls ... trudging out of their minute rectangles and inching along their little noodle highways toward whatever slots and grooves make up their everyday lives ... all those millions of sleepwalking souls who never even attempted the great gamble," Wolfe wrote in The Right Stuff. "Only at this point can one begin to understand just how big, how titanic, the ego of the [pilot] could be." That probably helps to explain why pilots like Leeward do what they do. Risk-taking is a rush.

There's an old adage among military pilots: "There are old pilots and bold pilots, but no old, bold pilots." I hope Mr. Leeward didn't just prove its validity. May he and the others rest in peace.

Obama is right, the pundits are clueless

Washington Post writer Chris Cillizza, a good guy with a great sense of humor, is among my least favorite pundits. The reason is simple: He is a perfect creature of the DC Echo Chamber, an inbred warrior of the Conventional Wisdom who loves living deep inside the hermetically-sealed media bubble he helps to keep intact. He relishes peddling the "process story," the meme-driven narrative that focuses entirely on palace intrigue, who's up, who's down and related minutiae -- exactly the stuff regular Americans could care less about. But Cillizza was still tasked with coming up with a new twist on the latest inside-the-beltway obsession: Obama's low poll numbers. "He's at the lowest point in his presidency," the meme goes. And unless Obama makes the "wholesale changes" that bomb-thrower James Carville is screaming about on CNN, he's doomed (again). So today Cillizza decided to weave a story about the echo chamber itself and why Obama should listen to its "wisdom." Yeah, that's the ticket! Obamaland, Cillizza writes, thinks "the D.C. chattering class doesn’t have any idea what regular people think. ... But what if Obama and his advisers are wrong?" Except they're not wrong. The media are predictably overreacting to late breaking polls (Obama is at 43% favorability) that are basically meaningless 14 months out from the election. That's why the White House is (rightly) yawning at the news. As I said at the top, Cillizza really is a good guy who doesn't take himself too seriously. He's also whip-smart. And in his heart of hearts, he's no vacant-eyed pundit. He just plays one on TV, as the cliche goes, and the pay is good. But this cheeky way of life is not cost free. Cillizza and his media compadres are a principal reason why our body politic is broken. Moreover, Mr. Obama is right to ignore them.

I voted for the black dude

Initially, I liked social critic Michael Moore. His 2002 documentary Bowling for Columbine is nothing short of brilliant. I presumed he was "made of sterner stuff" intellectually. But the deeper I examined his political views, the deeper my suspicions grew. By the time Fahrenheit 9/11 made its 2004 debut (it would become the highest-grossing documentary of all time), I was in full skeptic mode. For me at least, Moore's working-class hero shtick had worn thin. Subsequently, he has repeatedly validated my doubts about his intellectual honesty and depth. Moore is well-intentioned. But I take him with a large dose of salt. I attribute his recent cheat shots at Obama to misdirected liberal angst. Moore clearly gulped down the "Messiah" Kool-Aid in 2008. Upon awakening from his fever dream, Moore, like his compadres on the left, was shocked to find that the candidate he hoisted on the cross wasn't Obama. Still, I never imagined Moore would stoop to playing the race card. Except he just did, sort of.

"I voted for the black guy and what we got was the white guy," Moore recently said on The View. He was quoting funnyman Bill Maher, of course. To be fair, Moore cited Maher and said it was a joke. But it's not funny. In fact, it borders on the offensive. And that was the case even when Maher's first uttered it. The subliminal suggestion is Obama would be more effective if he were more "ghetto" and less, well, "white." You know: Gangsta. Sassy. Angry. Hip. Think Will Smith in The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air. Think Eddie Murphy in Beverly Hills Cop. Is that what "real" African Americans are, Messrs Moore and Maher? Oh please.

There are many ways to fairly criticize Mr. Obama. Moore himself said he simply meant that Obama should be more like FDR (whatever that means). Fine. Why didn't he just say that and leave well enough alone? Why bring skin color into it, a historically pregnant issue guaranteed to feed stereotyping? Answer: Too many folks of a certain age (Moore is 57) simply can't help themselves. During the '08 campaign, the late Geraldine Ferraro (born 1935), a staunch Democrat and Hillary supporter, said, "If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position." Last year, Maher (born 1956) joked that "Obama has been now finally getting on the campaign trail trying to help [Democrats]. ... Because nothing calms the fears of Middle Americans like having a black man suddenly appear in your backyard." See the pattern? Too many white Americans (even those who are well-intentioned), look at Obama and reflexively see Black Man first, human being second. This, alas, is also true in day to day life. Just ask any African American male. That is how deep a scar the legacy of racism has left on our societal psyche. Most young people seem to get it even if their elders do not (or perhaps never can). Miles to go before we sleep ...

Shots Heard 'Round the Web Today

Quick hits from The Portal:

* Mad About 'Mad Men' Knock-offs: Why are there so few original or innovative TV shows? Because producers in TV Land are too busy poorly aping the handful that do exist. Hank Stuever holds his nose and previews "The Playboy Club" and "Pan Am," both set in the "Mad Men" era.

* Palin Obsession: It never stops. Yet another "She's Not Running. She's Never Going To Run" debate on Andrew Sullivan's never dull Daily Dish blog.

* Like Moths to a Flame: POLITICO writes, "As President Obama struggles, Clinton nostalgia persists." They ask (pointlessly): Would the U.S. had been better off with Hillary Clinton? O-kay. And why, pray tell, are we even exploring this irrelevancy? Because POLITICO can't help itself.

* Foul Ball? Colbert King sez "I’m no Sarah Palin fan. Narcissistic, demagogic, opportunistic and with a dark side? No argument there. But this is no way to treat anyone. Sarah Palin deserves better." Hmm. Dunno. Gotta think about this one.

* You Are What You Eat: In China, a nation reeling from tainted-food scandals, organic products (a hush-hush affair) are mostly reserved for the rich and political elite.

* It's All About Me: Lakers star Ron Artest has legally changed his name to "Metta World Peace." Ahem. Mr. M.W. Peace skipped the actual hearing "because of a 'jam-packed schedule' for 'Dancing With the Stars.'" Right. Peace, out.