Goldberg and Guthrie

For too long, those who sexually enslave children have been able to spin their views in the mainstream media. No longer - Bill O'Reilly has finally taken a bold stance against child sex slavery in his latest column.

Now, sex slavery actually is a very serious problem - don't get me wrong. But who according to Bill are some of the main culprits in allowing this to happen? First, per usual, he blames the ACLU - which he frequently refers to as a fascist organization on the same show in which he complains about the demonizing rhetoric of the far left. But then he blames...

"Federal judge Dennis Chin denied the FBI a warrant in the notorious "Candyman" Internet sting case. The feds busted a child porn website and secured the names of Americans who did business with it. They then asked various judges for warrants to search the homes and computers of said individuals. Chin said no, because he believed one could do business with child pornographers and not commit a criminal act."

Why would O'Reilly single out one federal judge for such ridicule? It couldn't have anything at all to do with the fact that this was the very same judge who dismissed (or, as many have said, literally laughed out of court) Foxnews's absurd defamation lawsuit against Al Franken, could it?

I know it's easy to go after Bill O'Reilly - but night after night he complains about those who engage in character assassination against their political opponents. Now, he's associating a judge who ruled against his employer in a case with child sex slavery. Nice.

(I will update this post later to describe an episode of The Factor where this very decision was discussed. Just to let you know - Chuck Norris is involved.)

We have made several veiled references on this blog to the following quote:

"If you have a problem with Keyshawn Johnson, you have a problem with yourself." Keyshawn Johnson

See one article with this quote here.

This is probably the funniest thing ever said. That is why, without Goldberg's permission, I am officially changing the slogan of our blog to this. And if Goldberg has a problem with this, he has a problem with Keyshawn Johnson, and therefore a problem with himself.

This is a link to the Shakespeare program the NEA is funding. I must admit, I had no idea this was going on - and it is a great, great idea. This is what the NEA should be doing - getting kids interested in the arts. Good for the Bush administration.

Bush is requesting a budget increase for the National Endowment for the Arts. That is very good - and looking at this speech, I don't see a catch. I actually would like it if the NEA spent less time funding "Piss Christ" and all of its efforts on exposing children to great art - the Shakespeare tour Laura Bush is talking about here is in my opinion a great idea.

Over at Pandagon, there's some talk of rumors about a Bush/Giuliani ticket. This will never happen. There is just no way that the Republicans will ever run a pro-choice candidate - this would create a third party candidate with far more influence than Nader and would almost certainly hand the White House to the Dems.

I think that a lot of liberals don't understand the pro-life movement: it is large, it is real, and the people behind it are passionate and for the most part sincere. They will demand a voice in American politics - the Republicans know this and would never let those votes go.

Apparently, visits to aquariums are up in the wake of Finding Nemo.

So, I guess a lot of families are having this conversation. "Dad, I really liked that movie!" "Husband, I liked it as well - what a heart warming story about a dad whose wife dies and whose son is kidnapped and forced to live in an aquarium where he spends all of his time trying to escape." " Yeah, thank God the son was barely able to escape the captivity of the aquarium and was reunited with his dad. If he hadn't escaped the aquarium, he would be separated from the only family he had ever loved, and he would never know the taste of freedom. I'm sure glad those fish were able to escape from the aquarium." "Honey, kids... we're going to an aquarium!"

Did visits to slaughterhouses go up after Babe came out?

In fairness, my mom informs me that after my first viewing of Bambi I wanted to "play hunter." But I'm a freak.

So I ask, what's wrong with people?

This may be one of the best Onion headlines since their 2000 headline: "Bush: Our Long National Nightmare of Peace and Prosperity is Over."

Bush 2004 Campaign Pledges to Restore Honor and Dignity to White House

Dean and Edwards do better than expected. Kerry does a little worse than expected - at least, finishes closer to Dean than expected. Clark and Lieberman are basically done. I don't know, maybe...


Kerry 30%
Dean 30%
Edwards 25%
Clark 10%
Lieberman 5%

But remember, the voters of New Hampshire have a wonderful habit of turning the predictions of the blogosphere on their head. Back to you, Judy...

My prediction is coming in hours after the polls have opened. My prediction is this...

At some point during the reporting of the New Hamsphire results on CNN, Jeff Greenfield (or possibly Bill Schneider) will turn to Judy Woodruff and say something along the lines of, "You know, Judy, the voters of New Hampshire have a wonderful habit of ignoring the polls and us pundits and reminding us that they, the voters, are the ones who ultimately pick the President."

Furthermore, at no point will Judy or any other CNN anchor say: "Well, remember Jeff - they didn't select the President last time."

Nor will anyone say, "God damn you are a pompous piece of shit." It's unclear how many CNN anchors will be thinking this.


(In all seriousness, I have long held that all Democrats should only watch Foxnews - for the simple reason that you should keep your enemies closer than your friends. I have to admit, though, that I now just prefer Fox because CNN is just so boring. Some fox anchors have personalities, and they have a point of view. I actually like Brit Hume - or, I would rather get my news from him than, say, Judy Woodruff or Aaron Brown. However, I admit that when I want to see the news from a 360 degree angle, I do turn to the hip and fashionable former host of The Mole, Anderson Cooper.)

Could someone explain to me why the Democratic party allows Foxnews to get this publicity? Why are they legitimizing Foxnews? I'm very, very serious when I say that Foxnews is an arm of the Republican party. This is about as close to an objectively true observation as one can make. No wonder Howard Dean says that Democrats don't stand up for Democratic values.

In fact, I had about 50 other thoughts, but this is what I'm going to stick with. I have to talk to my girlfriend (she lives in Cincinnati). So I ask again:

Why, oh why, did the Democratic party agree to have this debate (and others) on GOP TV? Why?

Dean for America.

This is getting so ridiculous... watch Foxnews pick this up tonight, and soon it will seep into mainstream discourse.

But let me say, if this is the best thing that anyone can drag up on Edwards, then hello President John Edwards.

Actually, I doubt anyone will even pick this up... it's just not really a story. Note that Edwards seems to have proposed, on an experimental basis, investing a small amount of social security in the stock market. Woop de fricking doo. It probably seemed like a good idea before Bush was elected and stock prices started tumbling.

On Andrew Sullivan, ole Sully claims that Bush has not publicly used the word "gay" or "homosexual" in three years. Is this true? And if it is, how in God's name can Andrew Sullivan support this man?

The whole "sanctity of marriage" thing is such bullshit - but I also think it's politically stupid. I may be wrong, but it strikes me that homosexuality is becoming more accepted in society, not less. Does he need to do this to shore up his base? I can't imagine so - why would the Christian right ever abandon Bush and risk putting a pro-choicer in the White House? Or does their hatred of gays trump their concern for unborn children?

It strikes me that this could be one area where Bush takes something of a principled stand and reaches outside of his base. But something really scares me - maybe in Bush's mind, he is taking the politically risky but morally correct stand.

Well, let's be honest. America has been waiting for my comments on the Iowa caucuses. I was pretty upset last night, because I truly believed Dean was going to finish a comfortable first. Obviously, his organization was not what it was cracked up to be, Kerry's was more than it was cracked up to be and Edward's was just effective enough to capitalize on his late surge.

Goldberg has posted about Dean's campaign and how his message is almost more about the campaign than himself. I don't think this is bad. Issue by issue, Dean's stances are not too different than the other candidates - and he certainly needs to focus more on the fact that he was a pragmatic, centrist governor who brought real and positive change to Vermont. But I think his campaign is what is exciting, and why he has a chance to win.

Dean's campaign is also about something more than his record in Vermont - and that is taking Washington back from the special interests. That is a cliche, of course, but the Dean campaign is the first I know of that is funded in a truly grassroots manner. Sure, Dean has his share of fundraisers, but he doesn't owe anything to any special interest groups. His campaign has been run by people, and that is who he will be accountable to in the White House.

This isn't just talk - the most successful insurgent candidates have been tapping into the anger and frustration so many Americans feel when the realize that the rich don't just have more money than us, they also have more of a vote and more of a say in what gets done in Washington. This has always been true, for sure, but what does the average person have to turn to now? Unions are dead politically - see, e.g., last night. The AARP is a joke. Environmental groups can't really influence an administration that chooses to ignore science. All we have is our vote, and during the last election the guy we voted for didn't even win. And if this has always been true Dean has found a way for it to not be true anymore - by using the internet as a way to bring people together, to get his message out and to make every single one of his supporters feel like an important, integral part of "our campaign."

So I don't feel bad about supporting Dean in large part due to his campaign - especially when he has a record of executive success. I'm not sure what happened last night, but I do know the establishment will continue fighting harder as long as Dean tries to change things. That is why we will continue fighting back. The type of fundamental change in politics that Dean wants to achieve will not come without a long, hard struggle.

Mom, I want to thank you for being the only one to read all this.

A little too stunned about yesterday's developments to post. I mean, Bruce Coslet back with the Bengals?!?!?

Does anyone know if there were any political occurrences yesterday?

Given my record of predictions, I'd like to predict the following:

1.) George Bush will win the reelection in 2004.

2.) The Cincinnati Reds will not win the World Series this year.

3.) The Cincinnati Bengals will not win the Super Bowl next year.

4.) One of the liberal justices on the court will retire during a Bush Presidency.

5.) George Lucas will never release the original Star Wars trilogy on DVD.

You get the point...

I posted a comment/question on the John Kerry blog, and the responses have been quite good. Kerry's position on the war does seem much closer to my own than Dean's.

My resolution this election... don't believe anything the media tells you about the candidates. I still think Dean is the guy... but the story line of Dean was against the war when everyone else was for it may be somewhat false.

even if, in a shocking twist, Iowan Democrats nominate Saddam Hussein, this will still be the worst news of the day....

Former Coach Coslet Rejoins Bengals as Scout

tonight. The caucuses start at 6:30 CT - by 7:00 or before, the networks will probably be able to call the winner, or at least make a very good guess, from entrance polls. I'm not sure if they'll report it - probably not. But Drudge will - he has sources in newsrooms. (He called the California election while voting was still taking place.)

This is one reason I am not all anti-Drudge. How weird is that the networks have knowledge of news, and yet report news on the same subject to you as if they don't have this knowledge? I watched coverage of the California election in disbelief as the anchors pretended not to know what they clearly did know, and which they announced as soon as the polls closed.

Caucuses are a wild card, obviously, but for the most part - with one tiny exception I can think of a few years ago - network entrance/exit polling is pretty reliable.

This is such a good idea - from a comment on Daily Kos:

"Kerry's vice presidential pick: I have a hunch, and I want to go on record as the first to predict it: His good friend and fellow Nam Vet from the South... Former U.S. Senator Max Cleland of Georgia. Max may not win him Georgia, but he will turn other Southern states, possibly including North Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and Florida, into the blue zone."

Max Cleland as a VP candidate - he would be perfect for any Democrat. Dean/Cleland? Edwards/Cleland? All possible... I wonder if he's at all interested. (He has been campaigning for Kerry and they are apparently friends.)

Also - would Kerry be VP timber at all? Dean/Kerry? Gephardt/Kerry? I just think after this campaign that only legitimate VP candidate now running is Edwards - but Kerry might not be bad, especially if he picks up significant support in the primaries. I would hope that John Edwards would be the Attorney General in a Democratic administration.

A good friend of ours recently referred to this blog as "the saddest thing he's ever seen." I admit, it is pathetic and sad. However, Goldberg, I ask you - is it as sad as this friend's continued insistence that the impeachment of Bill Clinton wasn't about sex? What could be sadder than an otherwise brilliant person clinging to the fantasy that his party didn't go on a sexual witch hunt a few years ago when this sexual witch hunt occurred every day in front of the entire country?

BTW, even though it dominated the national discourse for two years, I still feel that the President being impeached and put on trial in the Senate because he got a blow job and came on a blue dress is still underrated. I think that a few years from now, the entire country is going to collectively think - "Holy shit - that happened" and break into collective hysterics. I mean, holy shit - that happened.

This is old news. This is apparently a quote from a Gephardt ad:

"And, did you know Howard Dean supported cutting Social Security retirement benefits to balance the budget?"

What surprises me about this is the reference to balancing the budget. Why not just say, "Dean supported cutting Social Security retirement benefits" and end it there? Apparently, operating on a balanced budget is now so low a priority that a candidate can be attacked for attempting to do it.

Also, and this is something fun to recall, remember when Republicans tried to get a balanced budget amendment passed in 1994? What happened in the past 10 years (and wow it makes me feel old to realize the '94 elections and the Contract With America were 10 years ago) that caused the Republicans to simply stop caring about spending within the country's means?

A bold prediction.... I predict Dean will win Iowa by 4-6%. I just don't believe these polls. This is a real bias the media demonstrates - a bias towards a good race. (We saw it during the recall with the LA Times - running absurd polls that showed the race tightening when most observers realized it had been a done deal for weeks.)

Anyway, put me down for this bold prediction, all three readers.

See Drudge... Apparently, in 1996, Kerry proposed getting rid of the Department of Agriculture. We'll see how this story makes the rounds... Foxnews should be next, but who knows? There might not be a story, there might be a story. It doesn't matter, because Drudge has posted his headline and millions of people - especially Iowans - will see it.

Looks like every time a Democrat steps to the top of the pack, the media comes after them with another bullshit non-scandal. Damn liberal media.

My favorite part is "DRUDGE REPORT can now reveal." What oh what has recently happened that allowed Matt Drudge to reveal this.

This is a President with very little regard for Democracy. There, I said it.

While were at it, my take on the filibusters. Republicans are sort of going crazy over this, and I admit the filibuster isn't the greatest gift ever granted to Democracy. (Though it makes some sense - it takes away some of the power inequitably given to smaller states.) But it's not like Democrats are filibustering everything - and it's not like George Bush hasn't been able to get his agenda passed. On one issue the Democrats have taken a stand - because it is very important to them and their constituents. (Especially women, many of whom like the idea that the government can't tell them what to do with their own bodies.) Has George Bush compromised? Has he sought out advice from the Democrats in the Senate about which judges would be acceptable candidates? No, he hasn't and he won't - because he is a radical conservative.

Certain readers of this blog who clerk for certain federal judges may take offense to this, but when Bush stated during campaign 2000 that Justices Thomas and Scalia were ideal Justices he revealed himself to be far out of line with mainstream America. This could be one reason why more Americans voted for Al Gore. And so, on this one issue, the Democrats took a stand. I say, good for them.

Weird shit going on at Andrew Sullivan's web site. Very strange.

...and is apparently supporting Howard Dean. See here. I always thought she ran a classy campaign, and I also thought she was one of the stronger candidates at the debates I watched. I'm glad she's dropping out now - for the good of the party - for the good of the country.

...and before you say, hey, it's just Drudge - remember he's got one of the most popular web sites around. Actually, I like Drudge to a degree - when he's actually dishing news or gossip. But this? Do I actually have to refute this? Does science mean anything to these people? Many if not most global warming models point to temperature extremes developing - because as the ice caps melt, the ocean gets colder. So, in fact, the fact that it's the coldest day in NY history could actually help the case for global warming.

There are indeed scientific arguments against the existence of human-caused global warming. But "it's cold outside today" is not one of them.

Please read this. Read what is a major "scandal" these days. Once, six years ago, Howard Dean signed an affidavit for his friend, a state trooper in his security detail, who was involved in a custody dispute. In it, he said that he was a good parent and that he trusted him. Few years later, it turns out the man was charged with domestic abuse. He was removed from Dean's security detail. Three months later he was fired.

In other words, once Dean found out the man was abusive, he fired him. (Or, rather, the state fired him.) The man states clearly he was probably treated worse because of his association with Dean. All of the lawyers involved are identified as "Dean supporters."

What the fuck is this? What in the hell does this mean? Why is this now the main story on ABC "News"'s web site? I know nothing at all about this case except what I just read in this article, and it appears to totally exonerate Dean. Not exonerate him - it's true, Dean made a mistake when he believed his friend, who said he did not abuse his wife. The man himself states: if Dean had known, he'd have fired him. Perhaps it was questionable to insert himself into this case as governor, but front page news? And why is ABC mysteriously releasing this story now? Howard Dean has been running for President for over a year.

Atrios has posted about this - sensationalistic headlines, with no real story. But most people probably only read the headlines - and the first few paragraph. This will surely cost Dean votes. (Though voters did respond favorably to sexual assault charges launched against Governor Arnold in Cal.)

I have to get back to work. This just makes me sick.

CBS may not air the Moveon.org ad during the Super Bowl.

Is this American that we live in? I mean, it's one thing to pull a probably terrible miniseries about The Reagans, but good god. I can't even think about this.

(I linked to this through Drudge.)

actually has a very good, very critical piece about Dean in Slate today. Is it so hard to treat the man with respect - even if you don't think he'd be a good nominee, you have to be in awe of what he's managed to accomplish thus far. This piece, I'd say, accurately sums up any misgivings I have about Dean.

Goldberg-

You ask why Powell's speech isn't cited more by administration critics. Simple - because Democrats live in a fantasy world where Colin Powell is on their side. They want to believe, for some reason, that he has been fighting the administration for years, that he agrees with Democrats on most issues, etc. But he hasn't - he obviously agrees with Bush on many things, as evidenced by this speech. Nobody wants to go after Powell - he is probably the most popular figure in Washington, even now. I wish Democrats would just accept that he isn't on our side, and probably never will be.

This would be more appropriate in the comments section, but I can't seem to post comments now.

I'm not sure why Ann Coulter gets to say these type of things and still be invited on all of the major news shows. Some people can say incredibly offensive things and retain their semi-respected status, others (e.g., Rush) can't. Episcopalians are her latest target:

"The Episcopals don't demand much in the way of actual religious belief. They have girl priests, gay priests, gay bishops, gay marriages -- it's much like The New York Times editorial board. They acknowledge the Ten Commandments -- or 'Moses' talking points' -- but hasten to add that they're not exactly 'carved in stone.'"

Hmm... dismissing a major religion as not demanding religious belief. Nice.

This is Bill O'Reilly at his funniest, and at the height of his delusions of grandeur. I think the greatest aspect of this piece is that O'Reilly simply assumes that the reason Clark won't come on his show is that Wesley Clark is AFRAID of Bill O'Reilly. But why is he afraid?

"So why is General Clark afraid? I don't know for sure. I can only put forth an educated guess. Number one, he's not running his own campaign. Unlike Dean, Gephardt, Edwards, and Lieberman, who are definitely calling their own shots, Clark is not. He's been handled by advisers of President Clinton. And those folks don't like me very much.

General Clark is new at the political game and is deferring to the spinners and consultants. This does not bode well for Clark. Americans don't want a potential president who's not in charge. Also, while the general does media interviews all the time, he usually chooses soft venues, even though the no-spin zone of course is anything but soft."

I mean, I'm sure war-torn Bosnia is NOTHING compared to the no-spin zone.

Just go read the whole thing to get the full effect.

Mr. O'Neil's criticisms of the President are the greatest thing he has done since he started for the 1990 Cincinnati Reds Wire to Wire World Series Champions.

Of course, the smear campaign is now in full effect and the charges won't stick with those who weren't prone to believing them anyway. But one thing good will come out of this - Republicans are being forced to admit that plans have been in place for a long time to invade Iraq - since Clinton, as a matter of fact. Anyone with any sort of intelligence already knew this, but now everyone is being forced to admit this, over and over again, on the record, less than a year before Bush's reelection. This is good, because it could end the myth that attacking Iraq had anything at all to do with the World Trade Centers. In fact, it didn't. It was something that people in the US have wanted to do since before September 11 - and now they are forced to admit that.

There seems little point in discussing the insane inanity of many of the attacks on Howard Dean. Hannah Rosin of The Washington Post has written something so stupid, it must be commented on. Apparently, the staffers for the Dean campaign do not attend parties held by the staffers of other campaigns. (This according to the first few paragraphs - I refuse to read the rest of it.)

While I was going to Iowa this week to volunteer for Dr. Dean, I am now immediately withdrawing my support. Until Dr. Dean hires a more socially adept staff, I will be supporting John Edwards.

I have seen these words posted on the Foxnews web site:

Pete Rose is on tonight’s edition of "The O'Reilly Factor"

YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

... from another website. I linked to this through Brad Delong's blog.

In essence, it argues that Dean should simply take Clark's plan, and openly admit that he is taking Clark's plan. I agree with it about 100%.

Goldberg - you are probably right that we can't have a revenue neutral tax plan. But Dean will have exactly 0% chance of winning the election if Bush can even remotely credibly accuse him of proposing tax increases on the middle class.

On yesterday's The Note, they indicated Dean probably won't announce his own tax plan until the general election. That would be too bad - Dean is going to be flip flopping on the issue of taxes and he needs to do so as quickly as possible. Clark's plan gives him an opportunity.

...who will be returning from his business trip, er, ski trip shortly.

"On inside politics, judy is talking to the CNN reporter who follows the dean campaign. The reporter was talking about how Dean is moving to the center, finally, by talking about balanced budgets and gun rights.

Well, f$#@ me, but hasn't dean been talking about these "centrist" issues for months?"

Indeed, Goldberg is correct. In fact, Dean also governed for years as a centrist. He hasn't staked out any position that will prevent him from running as a centrist - except possibly taxes, but he has remained fairly non-committal about any specific plans. Dean's genius has been an ability to appeal to the Democratic base with sensible, centrist, practical solutions. That is why he will win the nomination, and that is why he will beat George Bush.

I find it somewhat disturbing that the NASA web site devoted to the Mars mission has had some trouble the past two days - very slow, can't get the much discussed color images, etc. Shouldn't "a large number of people attempting to download new images from mars" have been a contingency that these folks should have planned for? Aren't these the same people who just sent a rocket to Mars?

UPDATE: The site does seem to be working now. How cool are images from Mars? MARS!

After a well-earned holiday break, Bill O'Reilly is back, and we couldn't be happier here at Goldberg and Guthrie. See his latest talkingpointsmemo here.

Mr. O'Reilly is too often marginalized by the left - a point I sort of agree with here. He is not insignificant, millions and millions of Americans watch his show every night - and they believe him. He is a bestselling author (although he may not have had the #1 non-fiction book last year).

Another thing the casual follower of American politics and debate may not realize - a constant theme of O'Reilly's commentary is that he wants to elevate the debate. He believes (and I have no reason to doubt his sincerity) that the methods he employs on his show are conducive to healthy discussion of the issues, and that the defamers and smear merchants (Al Franken, for example) are poisoning the discourse in this country to the point where democracy itself is threatened.

Which brings me to his current commentary...

Comparing liberal columnists - or any columnist - to jihadists at this point in our history - when the wounds of what real jihadists have done to our country are still so fresh - is despicable rhetoric. Thousands of our citizens were brutally murdered in the name of jihad, to compare this to the actions of a newspaper columnist, even an irresponsible one, is absurd.. Mr. O'Reilly should apologize as soon as possible for this comparison.

I can't even bring myself to read his whole article in Slate today. I looked at his first two points. On one hand, Dean is saying all the things he needs to say in order to bring the party together for the upcoming battle with Bush. On the other hand, Dean's body language is very divisive. I wish I was making this up.

The Daily Howler - which is thankfully back after an incomparably long absence - has selected the notion that there is widespread hatred of Bush among liberals as the "spin of the year." I couldn't agree more. But look who peddled this spin at the Democratic debate yesterday -

"LIEBERMAN: ... We're not going to defeat the extremism of the Bush administration with extreme anger of our own... Anger and negativism and division don't win elections in America. It's unity, constructive new ideas and hope that win them."

Thank you, Joe, for feeding the Republican spin machine.

Some observations from watching the first half-hour of Hannity and Colmes.

Colmes was on vacation. (I think it might say something about this show that Hannity was able to take his vacation during the holidays while Colmes had to wait until now.) His replacement was one Michael Wolfe. Not sure who this guy is - but let me say he made me miss Alan Colmes. I assume, since he is subbing for Colmes, that he is supposed to represent the left - but I could not have determined this from the substantive comments he made on the show.

First segment: Topic: Democrats Attack Howard Dean (I'm paraphrasing throughout). Guests: Democratic strategist Peter Fenn and conservative Kellyanne Conway of the Polling Company. Peter Fenn seems gravely concerned with the gaffes Howard Dean has made, but it wasn't too bad. Then, Hannity asks Conway a tough question - "Do you think Dean can move to the right given all the liberal positions he's staked out?" Yet Conway can't even answer this question - she immediately moves into the Republican Story of the Day - the Moveon.Org ad that compared Bush to Hitler. (See this fair and balanced report if you haven't heard this story yet.) "If Dean really wants to do something good for the Democrats, he'd ask moveon.org to apologize for the ad comparing Bush to Hitler they had on their web site."

Cut to Michael Wolfe, who said, "Now wait a minute, Kellyanne - that's not really a story. It says in the article right here on fair and balanced Foxnews that this ad was simply submitted to Moveon.org as part of a contest, not sponsored by them, so it's really not representative of the views of the left or any major leftist organization." Oh, wait, that was the Michael Wolfe in my head. Instead, the real Michael Wolfe just let that accusation sit out there, asked his unrelated prepared question, and the rest of this segment proceeded predictably.

Next segment: the aforementioned ad. (See, btw, MoveOn's entirely reasonable explanation of the whole affair here). A clip from the ad (which is of course idiotic) was shown. According to Michael Wolfe, who is about as exciting as scotch tape, Moveon refused the invitation to appear on their show. So, Hannity and Colmes went out and found the most reasonable replacement available- A LIBERAL WHO AGREES THAT BUSH AND HITLER ARE COMPARABLE! That's right - Wayne Madsen of geopolitique.com (I refuse to link to it) spent the next several minutes agreeing that Bush and Hitler's initial years in power were the same. Not a word about moveon's contention that this is part of a smear campaign by Republicans. He had no real comment on Wolfe's one salient point of the evening (comparing this ad to the infamous Max Clealand ads). He was there to play the role demanded of him by the typical Foxnews viewer - a rabid, irrational liberal who feels that George Bush and Hitler are the same. Nice work, Wayne Madsen.

Third segment - Dick Morris. Topic: Can Dean win a general election? Hannity noted that with his recent comments Dean has gone over the edge. Dick Morris says he didn't have far to go. Michael Wolfe seems capable only of reading a script - and he's not very good at that.

Finally, in a preview for the obligatory segment for Pete Rose, the video showed Pete in an Expos uniform. I could take no more.

This is what we are up against. This is what passes for "debate" on Foxnews. This is the type of propaganda that millions of Americans are fed every night.

I'm not sure this really needs comment: apparently, God has told Pat Robertson that Bush will win in 2004. I know both sides of the political spectrum have crazies that make up part of their devoted base - but please remember who supports them.

Along these same lines, Josh Marshall continues to intimate that everyone whose anyone in Washington knows who the leaker is. (See Atrios's post and comments on this if, like me, you aren't "in" enough to know what he's talking about.) Oddly, Marshall has in one day demonstrated the best and worst aspects of talkingpointsmemo.com - on one hand, he is just plain smarter than almost everyone else who writes about these issues. On the other hand, there is an annoying "insiderness" to his blog - constant reminders that he knows a whole bunch of self you don't know and that he won't let you in on it until he's sure you can handle it. If Marshall knows who the leaker is, why doesn't he sack up and tell us?

(And, not for nothing, there has always been an anti-Dean undercurrent in Marshall's posts - what a shock that he would be against the only viable candidate in the primary who has genuine anti-Washington establishment credentials.)

(Again, though, let me reemphasize to all three of our readers that Josh Marshall has probably the best blog on the web right now. Almost all of the time it's just really, really, really good.)

Kinsley on Plame. I can't say I agree. Kinsley points out the absurdity of the whole exercise of an investigation focused on a question to which Bob Novak knows the answer. The money quote (as Andrew Sullivan would say):

"The purpose of protecting the identity of leakers is to encourage future leaks. Leaks to journalists, and the fear of leaks, can be an important restraint on misbehavior by powerful institutions and people. This serves the public interest. But there is no public interest in leaks that harm national security, or leaks that violate the law, or leaks intended to harm blameless individuals. There is no reason to want more of these kinds of leaks. So, there is no reason to protect the identity of such bad-faith leakers."

This is the same tired argument anyone makes when they want to abridge speech they find distasteful - much like a mayor banning a Klan rally and saying the Constitution doesn't protect hate. The point is not only that we are not in a position to determine which speech is worthy of protection - the point is that restraints even on harmful speech will discourage future speakers who have something valuable to contribute to the discourse. So it goes with Novak's source - if he doesn't protect him or her, a good source down the road with a good leak may be afraid to go public. Is this really that hard to understand?

(I am not suggesting, btw, that a journalist has Constitutional duty to protect his or her sources - but they do have an important moral obligation to do so, an obligation not only to their source, but to their fellow journalists and to the American public.)

Per usual, Josh Marhsall has by far the best commentary on the Plame case. Note the possibly Clintonian denials coming from the White House (or, rather, that came from the White House 3 months ago.)

Basically, if you want to know what the mainstream media will be reporting on the Plame case a few months from now, read Josh Marshall today.

(BTW, the word "Clintonian" does not show up in the spell checker either. I wonder if it's in the Oxford English dictionary? Goldberg - when you get back, get out your magnifying glass and get on this.)