The Line in the Sand (Dennis)

Arlen Specter, who almost conducted life saving oversight on the Iraq war, who very nearly stood up to Bush on right wing judges, and who wet himself during the FISA battle, has finally decided to stand up to a devious scheming administration:

(Duh duh duuuh)

The New England Patriots.

Though apparently too busy masturbating to the sight of Andy Reid's mustache to press for a thorough investigation into whether Sadaam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, Arlen Specter has now found the political courage to press on into how extensive the Patriots sign stealing was.

Now regardless of how you feel about the sports issue (go ahead you can say the Patriots don't deserve their championship if you like), exactly how does it warrant getting Congress involved? Sign stealing might be schemey and against the rules, but its not illegal (as with steroids), nor does it involve a billionaire extorting a community for money to subsidize his stadium (as with many teams, most recently, the Sonics). It's probably a little worse than Gaylord Perry throwing a "spitter," not as bad as Sammy Sosa corking his bat, and about the same as the NY Giants stealing signs during the '51 pennant race (take that NY Baseball Giants fans!).

But is there more to this story? Could Arlen Specter be needling the NFL on behalf of say...his largest donors?

From the Philadelphia Inquirer :

According to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan organization that details contributions to political campaigns, Specter has received more money from political action committees of Blank Rome and Comcast than from any other business.

Blank Rome has donated $358,483 to Specter, and Comcast $153,600, since 1989, according to the Center's Web site. (Comcast chairman Brian Roberts donated the maximum personal amount, $2,300, to Specter last year, according to newsmeat.com, a Web site that tracks individual donations to candidates for federal office.)

The league sued Comcast in October after Comcast decided to move the NFL Network, owned and operated by the league, from its digital tier of channels seen by approximately seven million viewers to a special sports tier seen by only 750,000. Comcast claims that there is little general interest in the NFL Network and that most subscribers don't want to pay extra for it.

The league stands to lose millions of dollars in potential revenue if the switch stands because it has an arrangement with Comcast in which it is paid per subscriber.

Perhaps it's nothing, but if this whole thing goes away after a deal is reached between the cable giant and the NFL, you'll know why Specter has been raising this.

Endorsements Galore (JM)

Senator Obama is being endorsed all over today: this morning by NARAL and now tonight, by John Edwards. If nothing else is the nail in the coffin, it is this tandem the day after Hillary pulled of a 45 percent victory. Unless Obama uses the word "honkys" or to a less extent "suckers" in the next two weeks it is just over.

Paddington the Economist (JM)

If you're richer, you're happier

People tell you that wealth does not lead to happiness. New research shows they're wrong

I thought, just from the title of this article, that it had so very much potential. But I was wrong, so very wrong. It was like looking at treasure chest only to realize that it is standing straight in front of Scrooge McDuck’s money bin. I will comment a lot less than usual because I think there’s going to be beauty in letting a lot of this speak for itself.

Daniel Finkelstein

To mark the first anniversary of Paddington Bear residing with the Browns, a small party is held at which Paddington performs conjuring tricks. Carefully reading from his conjuring book, the bear places Mr Curry's watch inside a handkerchief and smashes it with a hammer.

This is the most adorable opening to an opinion column ever. Who needs money to be happy, so long as we have Paddington Bear.

Unfortunately, Paddington has turned two pages at once. They were stuck together with marmalade. So he misses the words that follow the advice to bring down the hammer on the handkerchief - “having first removed the watch”.

Aww… I think I will rechristen you Finkelton Bear. I imagine you’ve had some marmalade problems of your own in your time.

I have been patient. For my entire adult life, I have been looking out to see Paddington's trick performed for real. But now I have. As my mother always told me: “Everything comes to he who waits.”

You were waiting to see a stuffed bear perform a magic trick? You actually saw a stuffed bear perform a magic trick?!

The production of literature about happiness has become an industry. Earlier this week a cross-party group of Christian MPs produced a report on the topic and were able to begin with a long list of books on the subject published in the last two years. Perhaps the most successful are Happiness: Lessons from a New Science by Richard Layard and Affluenza by Oliver James but there has been a host of others.

“Ahem… excuse me chaps, but perhaps you’ve heard of a little bear named Paddington? Also, do you have any marmalade?”

The starting point for this work is something called the Easterlin Paradox. In a 1974 paper, the economist Richard Easterlin presented empirical evidence on income and happiness that was pretty puzzling. Using surveys of how happy people say that they are, the paper seemed to show that within countries, the richer people are, the happier they are, but that between countries the same didn't hold.

This is not a paradox at all, instead it is something that makes total sense. After a certain point competition for goods and services is a matter of status as much as anything else. Moreover, you are competing in the same pricing market. Yes, perhaps it is better to be working class in America than upper middle class in, say, Ghana, however not that much better in terms of standard of living and way the heck worse in terms of social standing.

What this suggests is that being relatively rich compared to your fellow countrymen makes you happier, but that your absolute wealth doesn't matter. Once a minimum income level is reached, an amount necessary for a country's residents to subsist, all that extra economic growth doesn't appear to be improving life satisfaction.

I suspect this depends on how you define subsistence. If one were to do a really good, comparative study of this subject I imagine the line for subsistence would be socially relative. In America, subsisting probably requires far more than simply having food, clothing and shelter. But again, that would go back to the original argument the Easterlin paper would make.

The implications of Easterlin's discovery are pretty strong. It suggests that all this consumption is doing us no good. That is what the Christian MPs suggest, questioning whether we haven't sacrificed family life on the altar of capitalism. Indeed, some authors go farther and suggest that the very act of shopping is actually making us unhappy. The Easterlin Paradox certainly means that we shouldn't be organising our economies to maximise economic growth. Happiness, not income, should be our guide.

The problem is that I am not quite sure how one studies happiness in some sort of objective, quantifiable manner. This becomes particularly problematic when doing cross-cultural studies. Concepts of happiness probably range quite widely amongst different nations and backgrounds. I imagine it is nearly impossible to control these sorts of studies for income. I miss Paddington Bear, where did he go?

The leading happiness authors suggest that we should concentrate on reducing inequality. This might lead to lower national income, but who cares about that? It isn't making us happier. Increased equality would stop us all worrying about our relative positions and thus remove a source of unhappiness.

This is plausible, but I am not sure it’s unflawed. I think status differential is one of the very real sources of happiness, sadly, and removing wealth as a standard for status will just shift the battle in some other direction. This is not to say that redistributing wealth isn’t a good idea, it is as a way of helping to forge equal opportunity, however I am not sure it is the path to our universal happiness. Not to be too pessimistic, I suspect we live in a world where happiness is always going to be a function of a person’s place in society as well as their particular psyches. My point is that you can maximize happiness within an individual, but I think it’s a logical impossibility to universalize it.

And all this stuff has caught the mood. It's the intellectual vogue topic. David Cameron is talking about improving General Wellbeing not just Gross National Product. It's everywhere.

This is incredibly smart politics on Cameron’s part. This is leading to the rise of the new Right in Britain. It holds forth an ethos that the public can really buy in to, starkly different and more sympathetic than Thatcherism. It’s a model the American Right is going to be looking to after the bloodbath they’re going to face in the coming general election. (Seriously, it’s going be quite a disaster for them, their loss in the Mississippi-01 is, as Ambinder puts it, similar to a Democrat losing in Los Angeles County. Insane.)

There is just one teeny, tiny problem. It seems as if Easterlin wasn't correct.

It appears that before picking up their hammers to smash down on the handkerchief of economic growth, the happiness authors had an accident with the marmalade. They turned over two sticky pages at once and missed the reassessment of Easterlin's work that has been taking place.

Oh Finkelton Bear! How could you?! This was nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to make a bad analogy. Somewhere Paddington is crying, and you owe him an apology. This doesn’t even make any sense. It would, if say people had not read part of Easterlin’s work, but not reading responses? That’s no marmalade-encrusted page. I miss the happier time when I thought this column was going to be about how all we need is Paddington.

Easterlin's original paper was based on fairly limited data. Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers, of the Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, have been looking at the vast amount of data that has become available since then. And guess what? The two economists show that there is “a clear and positive link between average levels of subjective wellbeing across countries with no evidence of a satiation point beyond which wealthier countries have no further increases in subjective wellbeing”.

Whoa there, first of all I would need to know way way more about this before I would just conclude that Easterlin is wrong. But this misses the real question any way: Is the difference between the subjective happiness of people who live in the same country lesser or greater than the difference between people who occupy relatively similar positions in different countries, with different overall GDPs. In other words, all this shows is that countries with more money may have happier people. Duh. Moreover, countries with greater wealth (except for the United States) tend to have much fairer income distribution, there is no way to control for this.

In other words they show that it's not just relative wealth that matters, it is absolute wealth too - on average, the richer you are, the happier you are. And this isn't true just for the first slug of income, just until we can subsist, it is true all the way up and as economies keep growing.

Maybe, but it’s a question of prioritization. You cannot concentrate on growth and equality at the same time. The real issue is which is more critical to happiness.

The Nobel prize-winning economist Daniel Kahneman is sufficiently important in this area of economics that Richard Layard dedicated his happiness book to him. Kahneman now believes the new evidence from the Wharton academics is “quite compelling” and adds that “there is just a vast amount of accumulating evidence that the Easterlin Paradox may not exist”.

This is just hearsay. See I’m like totally a lawyer.

Now this doesn't, of course, prove by itself that higher income causes greater happiness. Let's not make that mistake. In the academic literature on psychology you will find plenty of reason to believe, for instance, that the relationship might be the other way round - that greater happiness might cause higher income.

This would make total sense on a relative income level. Individuals who are happier may be more productive. This is weird and crazy on a state-actor level. It’s not like the country filled with the happiest people are the most prosperous. If that were the case Canada would have the second highest GDP, right behind The Netherlands.

At the very least, however, it shows that higher income is consistent with greater happiness and isn't actually making us unhappy. It also means, again at the very least, that if the happiness authors want to advance the faintly counterintuitive idea that more income doesn't increase life satisfaction, they have a lot of work to do finding an entirely new way of making their point.

None of this evidence disproves that point as far as I can see. It just presents an already obvious counter-consideration.

The Easterlin Paradox seemed to offer a way out for those unhappy with capitalism. After spending decades advancing methods of increasing growth that didn't work, much of the Left has moved on. Now they are arguing that growth doesn't matter or might actually be harmful. And the happiness literature helped make this point.

It sure is still a persuasive argument. Ask all of those people in rural Pennsylvania who are bitter and clinging to their guns. I imagine if you did a cross-strata study there would still be distinct levels of unhappiness amongst the lower-class. This new study would only argue against this if “growth” were some amorphous concept that would could just enhance. Instead, it means tending towards a more unfettered free market. As we have seen, long-term growth also tends to mean long-term class division. Extra dollops of happiness from those on top, taken straight from the plates of the least fortunate.

So what will happen now with these critics? Will they ignore the data? Will they walk away from the happiness idea and forget they ever mentioned it? Or will they turn their work on its head and use the new evidence to start arguing that capitalism might be the route to happiness after all?

What data, what new evidence?

I don't somehow think they'll choose this last option. Do you?

It would seem pretty foolish based on the no argument that has been provided thus far. But I know the answer my friend, more Paddington Bear, because I, for one, was way way happier when this was a discussion of that adorably mischievous bear than when you were asserting nonsense about Wharton studies.

97 Senators on the Veepstakes (Dennis)

The Hill had the excellent idea of asking 97 Senators: “If you were asked, would you accept an offer to be the VP nominee?”

Here I commented on my favorites.

Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.)
“I know already who it will be: the man in charge of the search. There’s no need for me to respond. That’s how you get to be vice president.”

Fact: The man in charge of the VP search for Obama is Tom Daschle. Although, I'm pretty sure if he selected himself, David Axelrod would begin laughing and say "No, seriously...who is it? Sebelius?"

Sen. Wayne Allard (R-Colo.)
“You got your answer — a laugh. The president’s going to make that choice. You can see how much I’ve thought about it.”

Do you think Bush was reading this and thought: "Oh man, I get to pick the Vice President!"

Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.)
“We already have a vice president from Wyoming. So we’ll have to see if Sen. McCain asks me to chair his selection committee. That seems to work well. It certainly seemed to work well for the last guy from Wyoming.”

Quick joketelling tip John Barrasso (if that is your real name), after three sentences this was a witty, sarcastic, friendly dig at Cheney. The fourth sentence ruined it. It made the whole thing seem too needy, like when you repeat a joke a second time, thinking people didn't hear you.

Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.)
“No. I love my job. I’ve got the best job in the world, representing Montana in the U.S. Senate. It doesn’t get any better than that.”

As Victor Lazlo said, "You sound like a man trying to convince himself of something he doesn't really believe. "

Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.)
“It’s presumptuous to even speculate about that kind of thing. But I suspect that’s not the sort of thing you say no to.”

I suspect thats not the sort of thing you would say no to, Evan Bayh....

Sen. Bob Bennett (R-Utah)
“Of course. Big house, big car, not much to do. Why not?”

Sadly this was actually George Bush's rationale for running for President.

Sen. Joseph Biden (D-Del.)
“I’m happy being called ‘Mr. Chairman.’ ”

Well played, Biden....well played.

Sen. Kit Bond (R-Mo.)
“Obviously, anybody who’s asked would consider it very seriously, but I’m not worried about it. I had the pleasure of being on Gerald Ford’s short list in ’76, but a lot of things have changed since then.”

Yes, that's right, in 1976, when Barack Obama was 15 and attending the Punahou School in Hawaii, Missouri Governor Kit Bond was on Gerald Ford's shortlist for Vice President. Kit Bond is old.

But do you know who is almost 3 years older than Kit Bond? You guessed it....John McCain.


Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.)
“I would be honored to be asked. I’ve got to appraise the position in considering it. But I haven’t gone to the step of saying whether I would or wouldn’t at this point … I’d probably take away from the ticket, too. There’s always pros and cons. I’m strong pro-life, pro-marriage, and some people would say, ‘Well, I don’t like that.’ But really, people vote for president. Not vice president. I think vice president can hurt you more than it can help you. I can’t remember any time in my lifetime where I voted for a president because of the vice presidential nominee.”

If Joe Morgan ever became a Senator, this is what he would sound like.

Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.)
“No, I can already preside over the Senate, and I do not enjoy spending a lot of time at ‘undisclosed locations.’ ”

Uh oh, you know someone's getting senile when they start breaking out jokes from 2002.

Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.)
“Does that include any sports picks or anything like that? … I would certainly consider it.”

In Sen. Cantwell's defense, she made a bet that she could out-drink Ted Kennedy and had just polished off her 9th vodka tonic when she answered this question.


Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.)
“Yes. Sign me up. I’ve been kidding people for years: The hours are better, the wages are just as good — whoever heard of a vice president getting shot at? — and it’s a great opportunity to travel. And actually since time has gone by, the job is robust … So sure. Anybody here would, if they’re going to be honest. The chances are slim to none. But I promise you, I would deliver all three of Delaware’s electoral votes.”

I like Tom! Enthusiasm! A sense of humor! And why not Tom Carper? He is a 6 term Congressman, two term Governor, and in his second term as a Senator. He is a Vietnam veteran (rising to the rank of captain), an economist, a former Eugene McCarthy supporter, and a reformer by reputation. I want Tom!

Sen. Bob Casey Jr. (D-Pa.)
“I think the Democratic Party is full of strong candidates for vice president. But I don’t think I’ll be on that list.”

Uh oh, I really think we should keep sharp objects away from Sen. Casey. You're a good candidate too, Bob! Pennsylvania is a swing state! It could be you!

Sen. Thad Cochran (R-Miss.)
“When I was much younger I would have probably said, ‘Sure, I’ll be glad to accept it,’ but I’m 70 years [old] and they need a younger person for the job. I would probably tell them, ‘Look for somebody else.’ ”

People older than Thad Cochran: John McCain.


Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho)
“I would say ‘No, Hillary.’ ”

Oh Larry, you are quite the card. Now I know why you get all the guys.

Sen. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho)
“No. I like serving in the Senate and I have no aspirations to be vice president. Hasn’t crossed my mind. Never really thought about it.”

I mean seriously.....McCain/Crapo?

Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.)
“Never say no. You always have to give it some thought. It depends who asks you, too.”

When did Chris Dodd turn into a Hollywood agent from the the 40s?

Sen. Pete Domenici (R-N.M.)
“No. I’m too old.”

Come on! You're only 4 years older than....oh forget it...

Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.)
“Are you kidding? Every senator would accept that offer. My guess is that almost every senator looks at themselves in the mirror in the morning and sees either a future president or vice president.”

Cut to Byron Dorgan giving the State of the Union address in his bathrobe.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.)
“I have said that John needs to pick someone that he feels comfortable with and will help him win in the fall. I like him and I feel comfortable with him. But I think there are other portfolios that help more than I do. There are people that would bring a different portfolio to the table than I would and that would help us win in the fall.”

Lindsey sounds like he is trying to talk himself down.

"Don't get yourself too excited, Lindsey!" he says after McCain invites him out for dinner shortly after clinching the nomination.

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa)
“I’m too old to be vice president. But I am young enough to be reelected to the Senate.”

Charles Ernest "Chuck" Grassley, born September 17, 1933
John Sidney McCain III, born August 29, 1936

Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.)
“I’m not here to talk about that.”

Oh...chilly.

Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa)
“No, I’d have Jon Stewart stand in for me. Jon Stewart. That’s my guy.”

Someone please check if Tom Harkin is actually a 22 year old undergrad at the University of Iowa.

Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.)
“No. I enjoy life too much.”

Ohh come on....talk to Tom Carper! He thinks it'll be fun!

Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii)
“If I were asked, I would say, ‘You’re out of your mind.’ ”

The sad part is that Robert Byrd asks him to be his Vice President every week.

Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.)
“I would not be so presumptuous as to think I’d even thought about that. And I’d have to talk to my wife. Hey, that’s an honest answer.”

As in, "Hey, that's an honest answer..for once!"

Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.)
“I plan to stick with my current job until I get the hang of it.”

he said, with just a touch of bitterness. With that, those familiar regrets drifted into his mind: "If only I were younger. If only there hadn't been that terrible night so long ago." Then, in an exercise developed long ago to bear the pain of lost dreams, he caused the tormenting thoughts to dissolve, like a fog on a summer day, and he returned to work.

Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.)
“I don’t get into hypotheticals. No, I haven’t considered it. I don’t have a clue, honestly.”

Aww, John thinks he has a chance...isn't that cute?


Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.)
“I’ve been waiting for someone to come up and propose it. I already told my wife to get ready to move. It has a beautiful living facility. But I like what I do. Frankly, it’s a more important job. You’re asked to respond to things in a more basic way than defending bad policy. I don’t like defending bad policy.”

"I don't like defending bad policy"? Way to show some confidence in your nominee there, Senator.

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.)
“No. I’d like to see somebody from a large, diverse state.”

I think Vermont is going to make Leahy sleep on the couch tonight.

Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.)
“Once is enough. I already have the T-shirt and I’m proud of it. I yield to my colleagues.”

Oh God, what do you think that shirt says? "I Received 51 Million Votes and All I Got Was This Lousy T-Shirt"? "I'm With Sleepy"?

Sen. Mel Martinez (R-Fla.)
“I’d say, ‘Please read the Constitution.’ I wasn’t born in America; I can’t be VP.”

Ahem... most constitutional scholars don't think this is a problem, but you know who also wasn't born in America? I think you can guess...to quote Wikipedia:

"McCain was born at Coco Solo Naval Air Station^[2] in Panama to Navy officer John S. McCain, Jr. (1911–1981) and Roberta (Wright) McCain (b. 1912)."

Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.)
“If I were asked, I would ask some mental health professionals to visit Barack Obama. I just think Sen. Obama is way too smart to pick me. I’m not a good pick, and he’s smarter than that. That’s why he’s going to make such a good president.”

If Jonathan's PAC gives McCaskill a 1% rating this year, you'll know how she earned the 1%.

Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.)
“Absolutely. Absolutely. I think I would be great. First of all, I know how to behave at weddings and funerals. And I know how to be commander in chief. I’d bring a lot of fun to the job. We would rock the Naval Observatory.”

I am inviting Barbara Mikulski to my next party, along with Tom Carper.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska)
“My name has been discussed partly because I’m a female and it’s always nice to balance things in gender … I’ve discussed it with my kids. My 16-year-old thinks it’s a fabulous idea because he thinks we probably couldn’t find any better residence in Washington, D.C., than the Naval Observatory. That’s the fun part of the question, but I think anybody, if you were seriously asked, I think you have to give it very real and genuine consideration. I don’t expect to be asked, but if I were I would give it real and genuine consideration.”

Blah blah blah, ok yappy, we didn't really want a novel.

Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.)
“Any American citizen, large or small, would be honored to be asked. But I totally expect any of our candidates to have a tremendous list of people. I don’t expect to be asked.

Yes "large or small" from the tiniest Kucinich to the biggest Bill Bradley.

Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.)
“They can do a lot better than me. I just don’t see it happening. I don’t know what I’d bring to the ticket. I’d have to think about it. I don’t see how I would add much to the ticket. To give you an honest answer, I don’t know what I’d do.

Eeyore(D-Ark.)

Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.)
“No. I’m too deeply ingrained in the culture of the people of West Virginia. It wouldn’t even be a choice for me. I want to stay where I am and do what I do. That’s non-debatable.”

Too ingrained in the culture of West Virginia? I'm sure they'll allow you a banjo and the occasional hootenanny, Senator.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.)
“I have not yet been asked. Furthermore, I expect I will not be asked.”

Unfortunately for Bernie, I believe Obama has already wrapped up the hippie, socialist vote.

Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine)
“I like where I am in the United States Senate. Obviously, you would always consider something like that, but I’m happy where I am.”

Ooh Olympia would like to be VP...it wouldn't be the worst choice for McCain...

Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.)
“Absolutely not.”

"I have much more important matters to attend to, like finding out who is responsible for Spy Gate!"

Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska)
“No. I’ve got too many things that I still want to do as a senator. And I don’t like the idea of a job where you sit around and wait for someone to die.”

1.) What's the over/under on how many felonies those "too many things" involve?

2.) How creepy would Ted Stevens be as VP, when he thinks his job is to "wait for someone to die"?

Sen. John Sununu (R-N.H.)
“I am focused on my election. And frankly, I don’t think John McCain should pick any member of Congress or the United States Senate.”

Ahem...don't start spouting off this pearl of wisdom in front of Voinovich...

Sen. George Voinovich (R-Ohio)
“Honestly, if John McCain came to me and said, ‘George, I think that you would help me and should be part of my team,’ I’d have to say, ‘Yes, I’d be glad to help.’ The fact of the matter is, I’m worried about our country. I’m really worried. And I want to run again for only one reason, that things are so screwed up, I’m just worried about my kids. So if somebody came to me and said, ‘We really think you could help us do this,’ I couldn’t say no because maybe it’s another way of serving my country and it’s maybe even more important than being a senator. The first question I’d ask is, ‘What role would you want me to play? If you want me to give a bunch of speeches, I’m not the guy. Get somebody else. If you want me to roll up the shirtsleeves, get up early in the morning, dot the I’s and cross the T’s, do substantive stuff? OK.’ ”

Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.)
“I’m not really interested. That’s all I want to say.”

Not "really" interested eh?

Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.)
“The chances of that are so remote that I’m more likely to be hit by an asteroid.”

Great, Wicker, we don't have enough problems without you jinxing us into getting hit by an asteroid.

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.)
“I have a unique perspective on this. I am the only senator to have announced I am not running for president because there should be someone here to serve as the Senate’s designated driver. I intend to stay in that position. The Senate needs a designated driver to stay behind and work on healthcare.”

Do you think before that last sentence he thought "oh shit, I really should not be sharing that inside tidbit of information"?

We All Make Sacrifices (JM)

Hey everybody, we need to tighten our belts and realize there's a war going on. We need our metal for bullets, our corn meal for feeding the troops and our saltpeter for whatever one uses saltpeter for (creating Revolutionary War ammunition I think). Anyway even our Commander-in-Chief understands that we need to make sacrifices, just like the boys overseas:

For the first time, Bush revealed a personal way in which he has tried to acknowledge the sacrifice of soldiers and their families: He has given up golf.

“I don't want some mom whose son may have recently died to see the commander in chief playing golf,” he said. “I feel I owe it to the families to be in solidarity as best as I can with them. And I think playing golf during a war just sends the wrong signal.”

I am not going to go off on some sort of anti-war rant here, but this is just absolutely hilarious. I am not going to disagree that keeping pictures of the president playing golf out of the paper during a war he caused is a bad idea. No, it's a really good idea. However, bragging about this like it's some kind of noble sacrifice is like giving up brussel sprouts for Lent. What up, Catholic folk?! Look who can bring the papist humor. Also take that National Association for the Advancement of Brussel Sprouts (NAABS), I've had it with your BS for long enough. Anyway, the point is this is just another, in a litany, of silly things our president has said.

Maureen Dowd is Like Playing Mad Libs with Someone Who Has Tourette's (Actually Strike That, That Sounds Pretty Awesome) (JM)

Is She a Trojan Rabbit?

The thing about Maureen’s titles is that they rarely make any more sense after reading the column than they do at the beginning. Let’s go ahead and see if this holds true this week. (SPOILER ALERT: It does.)

By MAUREEN DOWD

WASHINGTON

Now Barack Obama faces a true dilemma: how best to punish Hillary Clinton.

Yes, this really should be his focus. I say a lifetime of labor in the gulag for trying to win an election.

After 15 months of fighting her off, as she veered wildly from bully to victim, as she brandished any ice pick at hand, whether racial, sexual, mathematical or marital (in the form of her Vesuvian husband), Obama must decide the most efficacious means of doing to Hillary what she has been trying to do to him: putting her in her place.

This is definitely the recipe for reunifying the party, concentrating on putting Hillary in her place. I think the mere fact that she lost has put her in her place. By the way, how misogynistic would this be if written by anyone other than a woman. Hell, screw it, still weird and misogynistic as Dowd usually is. Also “vesuvian”? There are like a billion better adjectives for Bill and if you’re trying to impress us with your vocabulary, well it’s a bit too late for that I am afraid.

Her last resort is to continue to press the “Psssst — he’s a black man” tactic. She insisted to USAToday, after the North Carolina and Indiana slide, that she has a broader base, citing an Associated Press article “that found how Senator Obama’s support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me.”

This is a totally legitimate criticism and a major concern for the general election. Race is a touchy issue, but demographic bases is a legitimate discussion and should not be construed as mere race baiting.

So how does Obama repay Hillary for running a campaign designed both to unman him and brand him as an unelectable black? Is the most ingenious way to turn the screw by not choosing her as his running mate, or by choosing her?

How about making a decision on what’s best for the party. The answer is probably she would not be an ideal running mate, but then again she does very much excite her base. Someone who appeals to that base is necessary.

It is, verily, a sticky wicket.

You are, verily, a Lemony Snicket.

One top Hillary supporter who is black warns that, despite the giddy dreams of some punch-drunk Democrats, a fusion ticket could backfire because “Americans can’t handle too much change at once.”

I actually think this analysis is profoundly stupid. I suspect that people who are deterred by either gender or race are likely to be deterred one way or another. I doubt there is someone out there who is thinking, “I am okay with either a black man or a woman as president, but both? That’s just too much change for me!” This is both inane and offensive. The fact is that it is time to just get over this shit and act like this is not a big deal, because when we can treat this like it’s no big deal, well that’s the real victory.

But should Obama ignore that caution and appease Hillary fans by putting her on the ticket?

As president, he could announce that, because Dick Cheney abused the powers of his office so grievously, taking the title “Vice” literally, he intends to shrink the vice presidency back to its “bucket of warm spit” Constitutional prerogatives — presiding over the Senate and taking over if the president goes under anesthesia.

See how that might not appease Hillary fans. Why do you assume punishment is the ultimate goal here. That seems like a pretty stupid goal. Also Obama knows Hillary is a pretty good resource, if he makes her VP it will be with a fairly significant portfolio, probably health care. Anything less would be a debacle.

He might also neglect to give Bill (whose acronym would be SLOTUS, Second Lad of the United States) full White House access.

Another awesome plan, a bitter, pissed off former POTUS running around the world. Maureen, I want you to be in charge of all my life’s decisions from now on.

Aside from the delight Bill would get from living at the Naval Observatory and having a huge telescope to window-peep with, there wouldn’t be much joy in Hillaryland.

Jokes, I like them.

The lady-in-waiting would be surrounded by Obama disciples who disdained her for fighting dirty. And she would be miserable holding up the train of the young prince who usurped her dream, derailing the post-nup she had with Bill to trade places.

The first part of this paragraph is true. I am not sure what a post-nup is, but yes I buy that it would be uncomfortable for her.

As de facto veep for Bill, she had enough leverage over him, due to his shenanigans, to co-opt huge chunks of policy and personnel decisions.

Does Maureen just hate being female. Does she really believe that the only reason Hillary had any policy influence was because she had dirt on Bill. This is just preposterous. Not only is it offensive to her, it is also offense to the millions of people who are certain Hillary would be an incredibly competent world leader.

But in a return engagement with Obama at the top, could she really wake up every day in the back seat and wish him well, or would she just be plotting? (Fourteen vice presidents have ascended, after all.) Wouldn’t she be, in Monty Python parlance, the Trojan Rabbit behind the gates?

See, look, her title came back. It still makes no sense, just another silly pop culture reference to cover up for a weak, weak argument. Plotting what?! If she’s VP her only goal would be a successful Obama administration. She cannot run until he leaves office, so either way, if he wins it’s another eight years, so they better be good ones. If she’s his VP candidate and they lose that damages her terminally. If she really wants to plot, it wouldn’t be from instead the White House.

On a positive note, maybe she could bring back all that stuff she pilfered on her way out.

Umm… did Dowd just accuse Hillary of being a klepto?

Obama’s other option, laid out by Teddy Kennedy on Friday, is to go with someone who wouldn’t be a big dark cloud over his sunshiny new politics.

Teddy told Bloomberg’s Al Hunt that Obama should choose a partner “in tune with his appeal for the nobler aspirations of the American people.”

Yeah, this was a obnoxious comment, especially given that Hillary is in tune with almost exactly fifty percent of Democratic voters.

That would be smart for another reason: Hillary has a strange, unnerving effect on Obama, and whenever he is around her, he’s unable to do his best. Probably, it’s because she’s furious, always shaking his hand off her arm, ignoring him, giving him the evil eye and emasculating him, and the Golden One is not used to such rough treatment.

Hillary as enemy and Hillary as teammate are two very different things. But essentially you’re correct, if Obama is uncomfortable with her, he shouldn’t choose her. However, it’s difficult to imaging that she is like some sort of competence sucking Dementor.

In the last few days, as Hillary has deflated and Obama and the Democrats have dashed for daylight, he has been more like his old self, flashing his all-is-right-with-the-world smile on the cover of Time, joshing and charming Democrats and Republicans as he wooed superdelegates on the House floor, taking on James Carville for insulting his manhood.

“James Carville is well known for spouting off his mouth without always knowing what he’s talking about,” he told Terry Moran on “Nightline.”

James Carville will survive, this is irrelevant to the question at hand.

Obama will never be at his best around Hillary; she drains him of his magical powers. She’s Jane Jinx to him. It’s a similar syndrome to the one Katharine Hepburn’s star athlete and her supercilious fiancé have in “Pat and Mike.”

What a stupid assertion structured merely to lead in to a pop culture reference. Most people use the pop culture references to emphasize their point. Not Maureen, she uses her point to emphasize her pop culture references. She’s kind of like Rose Nyland, with stories from St. Olaf, but way less charming and way more evil.

The fiancé is always belittling Hepburn, so whenever he’s in the stands, her tennis and golf go kerflooey. Finally, her manager, played by Spencer Tracy, asks the fiancé to stay away from big matches, explaining, “You are the wrong jockey for this chick.”

“You know, except when you’re around, we got a very valuable piece of property here,” he says, later adding, “When you’re around, she’s no good, she’s dead, see?”

Movie quotations are not persuasive evidence. Thus far you have made a blanket assertion about Obama being unable to perform when Hillary is around and supported it be quoting a Tracy and Hepburn movie.

“Oh, god, he’s Hepburn.” See I can randomly quote television shows too, and to one up Maureen I am not even giving you any context or relevance at all.

The best way Obama can punish Hillary is to reward himself. He’s no good around her, see?

The best way Obama can be president is not to think like a twelve year-old girl snipping at a lunch table. Just how bad was your childhood Maureen? Really miserable I bet, you are a pretty unlikable person.

The West Wing Gets Involved (JM)

I love it, I love it, I love it! So all y'all who've been paying attention know that Arianna Huffington has accused McCain of claiming that he did not vote for Bush in 2000. Apparently this took place at a Hollywood party. The New York Times interviewed some witnesses to this event. Guess who they were:

“McCain was just sort of going off on how much he disliked Bush and the horrible things that the Bush campaign had done to his family in South Carolina, and his exasperation with Bush about his ridiculous tax cuts and he really wanted to talk to him about it, but he said the guy doesn’t have the concentration, and you talk for 10 minutes and then the guy wants to talk about baseball,” Mr. Whitford said.

Another guest then asked Mr. McCain, Mr. Whitford recalled, whether he had voted for Mr. Bush. “And he put his finger in front of his mouth and mouthed, ‘No way,’ ” Mr. Whitford said.

Mr. Schiff, who played Toby Ziegler, the White House communications director on “The West Wing,” said he was listening to Mr. McCain from the other of the two tables in the room.

“Someone asked, ‘What do you think of Bush?’ ” Mr. Schiff recalled. “My recollection, and I have to qualify this, because I’m not 100 percent sure he used this word, but my recollection is that McCain said that Bush was dangerous and he didn’t trust him. Then this person said, ‘Why did you support him?’ And McCain said, ‘It was my obligation as a Republican to support the Republican candidate.’ And the person said, ‘Did you vote for him?’ And McCain said, ‘No.’ ”

Man, it would be funnier if Bradley Whitford were more sarcastic and Richard Schiff were more bitter and throwing a ball against a window, but what are you going to do. In real life there are no President Bartlet's and despite the fact that my high school science teacher used to refer to me as Josh Lyman, people that cool just don't really exist. Either way, a fun tidbit for fans of political scandal and The West Wing.

Actually, while we're on this subject, I am not so clear how this even remotely hurts McCain. He's being attacked by the media and Hollywood liberals, which will help him secure his base, while being accused of repudiating a man not supported by almost eighty percent of the country. So on second thought... way to screw up guys, you better avoid Leo for the rest of the day.