THE AFTERNOON AFTER

Two more questions:

· One -- Whatever happened to the idea of having Kerry walk from his townhouse down to the arena before the big speech? I'd guess the Secret Service put the ixnay on that. But I tried to think of another explanation:

1. It wouldn't fit in with the multimedia presentation inside the Fleet Center? Doubtful. His walk could easily be shown on the big screen inside.


2. It would take too long to get him inside once there? Well, I know nothing about the Fleet Center, but after Clinton's majestic stroll through the Staples Center four years ago, it could be done. Though that might be a bit much. And it's a safe bet that he wasn't going to smuggle in anthrax.


3. The DNC didn't think it could line the street with enough people? Possibly, but with all the people who got locked out of the main hall last night, there would be plenty of overflow to make up for it. Not to mention the Kerry-friendly gawkers (i.e. reporters) already on scene.


4. Protesters? Nah, they're all in a cage.

I'm sticking with security on this, but I'm open to suggestions. Having never been to Boston I can't say anything knowledgeable about the neighborhood between Beacon Hill and the Fleet Center every once in awhile, but my guess is the effort necessary to secure all rooftops and windows in the vicinity would be prohibitive. They do this in Washington for the inauguration every once in awhile, but that's through federal, lobbyist and media DC, which I would imagine are much easier to control.

But I'm surprised no one has mentioned this, that I've seen.

· Two -- So where was Drudge's 25 million viewers? According to the unlinkable Variety, 20.3 million people watched last night, including the major networks, the news cablers and PBS. That's a lot, and maybe more than I first thought. But it's still a damn sight short of his unsourced claim. Even when Drudge is wrong -- which The Note underestimates at 37.8% and Kaus overestimates at 80% (scroll to the bottom of the page) -- he at least has sources. Usually. (And I refer to the news he breaks, not the stories he links to.) In his favor, he was the first to jump on the hilarious CNN/DNC "balloon snafu." Minutes later, Wolf Blitzer: "We want to apologize to our viewers who may have been offended by that bad word." After a meticulously (some would say oppressively) scripted convention, some non-Sharpton chaos at the end, finally, was very welcome.

· And a third point, not a question -- It seems that Triumph the Insult Comic Dog was everywhere this past week. Conan has been in reruns since Monday, so you can presumably start catching it this next week. In the "After Hours" block on MSNBC last night, Triumph did his neo-Rickles routine on Scarborough, Reagan "Jr." and Dee Dee Myers, the last of whom clearly did not get the joke and seemed altogether uncomfortable sitting next to Robert Smigel's rubber-clad hand. I can't find a transcript, but it was great. Triumph also showed up at the Fleet Center, about which Kaus -- himself only dimly aware of this foul-mouthed phenomenon -- related this:

Alan Colmes arrived, with his producer. He was trapped outside too, and had a show to do! The cops recognized him and let him in, leading to booing and grumbling in the crowd about favoritism toward Fox. A locked-out dog puppet -- I assume it was Triumph the Insult Comic Dog -- yelled "Go do your duty, Colmes, and get the crap kicked out of you by Hannity!"

On that note, my on-the-scene-via-blog-and-cable-television coverage of the 2004 Democratic convention comes to a close.

THE MORNING AFTER

Well, I pretty much still think the same of Kerry's speech as I did last night. He certainly didn't blow it, even if it was about twenty minutes too long. The "reporting for duty" line was a good one, all right. As I wrote last night, it's the kind of line that really only works for a Democrat; because the common assumption is that liberals are weaker on national security issues, anything a Democratic politician can do to associate themselves with valor is a good thing -- so long as they don't turn off the part of their base that undoubtedly is weak on national security. That line not only worked, but it was memorable.

But I spoke too soon by asserting that he covered all the necessary ground. He really only touched on Iraq before sharply veering away. I agree with Andrew Sullivan, whose ongoing process of rationalizing of a Kerry vote was knocked off track last night, on this:

No mention of democracy in Iraq or Afghanistan. No mention of the terrorist forces that are amassed there. No reference to the elections scheduled for January. No mention of Iran. And the whole point is about process -- about how to wage a war, not whether it should be waged.

All true, and all are important. Kerry seems not the least bit interested in getting it right, only minimizing the chaos as we tiptoe out. He's never come right out and said he'd be fine with a strongman taking over ("Saddamism without Saddam," as some have called it) but I suspect he'd capitulate long before George W. Bush would. In this race, Bush is the real John F. Kennedy. That would make Kerry Nixon.

On a lighter note, leave it to my hometown newspaper to run the worst headline in the nation:

Kerry blasts Bush on Iraq

You've got to be kidding. They could have attached this headline to virtually any story about John Kerry in the past calendar year. Whether speaking to workers at an auto parts factory in Wisconsin or to the entire nation at the Fleet Center in Boston, it's all the same because he's blasting Bush on Iraq? Hmmm... should we call this conservative media bias? Well, the paper did endorse Bush in 2000...

But at least the wire story below that header doesn't have the worst lead. That honor belongs to Peter Jackson (not the Peter Jackson, I'm sure) at the Center for Politics, who wrote:

Just five days ago, John Kerry's pitch at Fenway Park didn't make it past home plate, but his pitch last night to the Democratic National Convention was a home run.

Um, if Kerry's pitch became a home run ... doesn't that mean he failed? Better luck next time, metaphorically speaking.

P.S. Buried below all my convention coverage was a post you shouldn't overlook, about the contents of an al-Qaeda computer in the next issue of the Atlantic.

THE SPEECH

It's late, I'm drunk, but I did watch the whole thing:

It certainly wasn't terrible ... for the first twenty-five minutes or so. The opening line, "I'm John Kerry, and I'm reporting for duty," was sufficiently cheesy-patriotic, in a good way. I admit, I winced. Had a Republican delivered the same line he or she would have been pilloried as a shameless flag-waver.

The speech? Decent. Covered all the ground he needed to, but at no point did he really get anyone going.

"The future doesn't belong to fear, it belongs to freedom." Warmed over FDR with a dash of JFK (the original). "We won't raise taxes on the middle class." Duh. "We don't go to war because we want to, but only because we have to." Groan. This line dates to his Dean-era defensive position on Iraq. It's not his most flattering, and it makes no sense compared to his '98 statements on Saddam, which the Republicans are starting to raise again.

Faith, family, duty, etc. Can't lose on that.

A major line here: "I defended this country as [a] young man, and I will defend it as president." Not sure if I'm right about those brackets, but if I am, it's a big flub. Not like Neil Armstrong -- at least his flub still sounded cool. And like Kerry's failed Fenway pitch, he can't use it in campaign ads.

He did pronounce "Oregon" correctly -- a necessity because it's a crucial swing state. If he'd flubbed that, it could have been the election right there. Also, his early line about trees being the "cathedrals of nature" certainly didn't hurt.

Did his hair look brown to you? It sure did to me, and to a few people I've talked to in the last few minutes. It's possible, as it's been suggested to me, that this was merely an effect of the light. Yes, possibly -- but that light was carefully positioned with a purpose. And I'm guessing I've figured out that purpose.

As one voice in my ear -- that being Tim -- points out, Kerry's claim that he would cut taxes on small business while rolling back tax cuts for those earning $200K or more is contradictary and worse. It's precisely those small business owners earning just above that level who would get hit the hardest. These people are not "rich" in the Monopoly/Hollywood sense; they're mostly working their way into the upper middle-class.

My sister is now eighteen and will vote in her first presidential election this year, assuming she actually does vote. She says she will, but that subtracts from her time going to Starbucks with friends. And she leans Kerry, though she's expressed fairly moderate views (on the war, the only issue college students are aware of) in the recent past. But after watching about fifteen minutes, she signed off, to do what I don't know -- but certainly not to talk about Kerry.

The last twenty minutes just degenerated into the laundry list you always hear about. And tonight, we heard about it. I thought this was the convention where everybody was already ralling around John Kerry. (Don't forget -- that's the fellow being "rallied" around.) Then again, this speech is for the masses who are probably not watching but will read the recap in the paper tomorrow.

But what the hell? Even if a quarter of the 25 million Drudge promised actually tuned in, then they were looking to see if John Kerry was an acceptable alternative to George W. Bush. As incredibly biased as I am, I suppose I would still say the answer is probably yes.

KERRY SPEAKS

Blogging ends until he's finished. 55 minutes? Well, here goes nothing.

P.S. A high-fiving, Boss-narrated intro. You could do worse.

CLELAND

Luckiest one-term senator ever. (No, I'm not questioning his patriotism.)

UPDATE: But not a bad speech.

BAND OF BROTHERS

Shouldn't HBO sue? Anyway, it's hard to be cynical about the guys who served on Kerry's swift boat -- they all seem to be the kind of blue collar, middle-class type of guy Bill Clinton was talking about when he invoked the "forgotten middle class" -- but with the added fact of real battle in a tough war.

We'll hear the other side when John O'Neill's book comes out next month. Not everybody thinks as much of Kerry as the brothers do. Right now I'm not sure what to make of it all.

P.S.The lead brother -- other than Kerry, I mean -- is Jim Rassman. He's an Oregonian, you know. Just a shout-out to all my fellow onetime-Blazer fans out there.

BEST PICTURE

Who wouldn't want Morgan Freeman to narrate a highly selective video presentation of their life?

P.S. Bet he's glad he brought that 8mm camera with him to Vietnam.

"25 MILLION WILL WATCH"?

Remove the question mark and you have the headline Matt Drudge has had on his site for hours now. Yet the story he links to, by the Associated Press' David Espo, makes no mention of the predicted viewership. And based on the previous nights' ratings -- well below that of 2000 -- this makes no sense. We'll find out soon enough.

What's especially weird, and an indication of the mirage of modern political coverage, is that Espo's article is written as if the speech has already been given. He writes:

Sen. John Kerry challenged President Bush over the war in Iraq Thursday in the climactic speech of the Democratic National Convention and pledged an administration where "America never goes to war because we want to, we only go to war because we have to." ...

He vowed to build a more robust military at home and strong alliances overseas. "And then, with confidence and determination, we will be able to tell the terrorists: You will lose and we will win." ...

Kerry's speech capped a four-day convention designed to persuade millions of undecided voters in the battleground states that he is a man tested by war and ready to take command in an era of terrorism.

And so on. I'm watching Chris Matthews moderate on MSNBC and Howard Fineman has said several times that he's already read the speech. (He seems to like it.) The last time I can recall a media embargo being so blatantly flaunted was the night Arnold Schwarzenegger won the California primary. Everybody knew Arnold would win big by mid-afternoon. In that case, they had a real reason to shut up -- voting was still going on. But they didn't -- Matthews and his panelists dropped more hints that Arnold was taking it in a landslide than Boy George did before announcing he was gay.

And back to the first point -- if embargoed, why did the AP release its post-game before the two-minute warning? (Actually, 55 minutes, as it's been reported.) This is just annoying. Simply more evidence that the conventions are a charade. As Brit Hume said last Sunday, it's not clear whether the media is in Boston because the Democrats are there or whether the Democrats are there because the media is.

But where Matt Drudge gets that 25 million number is beyond me.

MODO

I could be watching former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright speaking to the floor, but instead I'm watching Tom Brokaw interview, of all people, Maureen Dowd. She says that back at Yale, Bush was the guy with all the friends yet now he is alone in the world in the war against terrorism, whereas Kerry was always pegged a loner at Yale but now he's the guy looking to reconnect with our allies. (She may have said this in a recent column, but I don't know; I really have stopped reading her.) And therein lies the problem with Maureen Dowd: she confuses the personal with the political. All the world's a caricature. Any personal traits a politician is said to have in private is made an all-telling insight into how they conduct public policy. It's cute, which is why she's widely read; it's symmetrical, which is probably why some smart people agree with her. But it's shallow, inexact and incomplete -- which is why I think she's a total airhead when discussing matters of international importance.

TONIGHT, I'M WATCHING

I get to sleep in tomorrow -- and I don't mean past 3 or 4 in the a.m. No, I get to sleep in. Until at least 6:45. No promises that I'll have momentary commentary about the last night of the Democratic convention. Joe Biden, a Democrat I usually like, just spoke. I think I have a few disagreements with what he said, but I'll double-check before blogging it. On an unrelated note, he left the podium to the Pierre Henri ditty once appropriated for the theme song to "Futurama."

Now Wesley Clark is speaking. I really don't like Wesley Clark. A total opportunist. Not even a real Democrat -- and I quote some of my Democratic friends on this. If Al Gore was in office right now, he'd have just ended his unconvincing run for the Republican nomination. And I'd like to think the GOP wouldn't have given him this prominent a slot on the convention schedule.

INSIDE AL-QAEDA'S HARD DRIVE

By all means go out and buy a copy of the next Atlantic Monthly when it hits the stands in a week or two. The cover story: "Inside Al-Qaeda's Hard Drive." The author is Alan Cullison, a Moscow-based reporter for the Wall Street Journal, who managed to get ahold of Ayman al-Zawahiri's desktop computer. That these computers had been obtained by the Journal is not new, but the detail contained in this piece certainly is.

In late 2001, Cullison was riding with the Northern Alliance when their pickup truck slammed into a fuel truck and went sideways. Though nobody was badly hurt, his laptop computer was destroyed, and when he got to Kabul, he was in the market for a new one. He tracked down one of the few computer dealers in Kabul, a man who

worked alone and didn't have a computer in his office, because, he said, he couldn't afford one. He bragged that he was the sole computer consultant for the Afghan national airline, Ariana. This impressed me deeply -- until I learned that Ariana had only one computer and only one working plane. ...

[The] dealer told me that he had serviced computers belonging to the Taliban and to Arabs in al-Qaeda. ... Eventually he led me to a semiliterate jewelry salesman with wide-set eyes and a penchant for gold chains. This was the man who that December would take $1,100 from me in exchange for two of al-Qaeda's most valuable computers -- a 40-gigabyte IBM desktop and a Compaq laptop. He had stolen them from al-Qaeda's central office in Kabul on November 12, the night before the city fell to the Northern Alliance. He wanted the money, he said, so that he could travel to the United States and meet some American girls.

The laptop belonged to Muhammad Atef, who was killed in Afghanistan during the invasion. The CIA took that machine before Cullison could copy its contents, only to return it later saying it was mostly empty. (Riiiight.) But he did get the contents of Zawahiri's desktop, and the resulting article is fascinating. The text alone is arresting: more than a dozen e-mails, instructions and even poems from al-Qaeda's leadership to Mullah Omar, to foreign cells and to Muslim leaders in the region. But the pictures themselves -- actual screen captures of JPGs, PDFs and DOC files created, shared and guarded by al-Qaeda leadership -- are more gripping than anything I've seen in any periodical, well, period.

New Yorker, Harper's Magazine, eat your heart out. This is the most important magazine article of the year.

P.S. In 2002, there was some consternation in media circles about the Wall Street Journal's decision to both turn over the files and publish stories about what they had found. In particular there was concern about what, if any, effect it had on the murder of Daniel Pearl. The Columbia Journalism Review published an essay on the matter by Lawrence Grossman, the former president of PBS and NBC News. Ultimately he sided with the Wall Street Journal. I tend to agree, though the possible implications are indeed scary. It's worth reading as well.

YES, THAT LIBERAL MEDIA … MORE CHARITABLY, THAT LAZY MEDIA

Reuters' Adam Entous has one of this week's few stories about the Bush-Cheney campaign today, and it starts off well enough:

In what he describes as the final national race of his long political career, Vice President Dick Cheney is trying to show his more amiable side as he readies for battle with the charismatic John Edwards.

This is true. During his trip West this week he's been cracking more jokes about himself. Lynne has been traveling with him, and at one stop a week or so ago they even shared details about their courtship. If it wasn't obvious, Cheney is staying on the ticket.* But in light of Halliburton, the energy task force and his once-perpetual undisclosed location, he clearly needs to lighten up. But Entous doesn't think it will work, and goes out to find the quotes he needs to support that. Such quotes are not hard to find, but I'm a bit surprised at how little effort he put into it:

Political analysts say it is unclear whether showing a more likable Cheney will help him catch Edwards in the polls.

"You can de-claw a Grisly bear but it's still a Grisly," presidential historian Doug Brinkley said. "It's a packaging ploy."

Stop the presses! Douglas Brinkley is not just any "presidential historian." He's also the author of "Tour of Duty," the laudatory John Kerry biography that came out last year. More than that, though, Brinkley is a frequent commentator on cable news shows where he is always, always promoting Kerry's chances. He is anything but a disinterested observer, as John Miller explained in National Review last month.

And what's with the misspelling of Grizzly Bear? It could be an accident, but even so it seems like a Freudian slip. Dictionary.com defines the word: "Inspiring repugnance; gruesome," and a synonym for "ghastly." I don't know much about Entous, but that does sum up what many of Cheney's detractors think of him.

Also, Cheney doesn't need to catch Edwards in the polls -- Bush needs to catch Kerry. And if you look at this week's WaPo/ABC poll, he already has.

*Interestingly, the front-page New York Times story that pushed the "dump Cheney" meme into overdrive may have precipitated its demise. Not unlike, say, Al Gore's endorsement of Howard Dean.

A TALE OF TWO HATE-RIOTS

National Review's Byron York was privy to a rant by Michael Moore at a Boston gathering held by the lefty Campaign for America's Future yesterday. Here's Moore, on the Republicans:

They're not patriots. They're hate-triots, and they believe in the politics of hate-triotism. Hate-triotism is where they stand, and patriotism is where real Americans stand."

Let no one again say that Michael Moore is not the left-wing equivalent of Ann Coulter. (I've had co-workers say this -- I can't wait until they return.)

In related news, USA Today had enlisted Coulter as a temporary columnist covering the Democratic convention. As you may have read, they hated her first installment and fired her in favor of Jonah Goldberg (who turned out a damned good piece on short notice. Also notable: NRO once fired Coulter for being obnoxious; presumably Goldberg had a hand in that).

Had they ever read an Ann Coulter column? Didn't they know what to expect? Granted, her piece -- currently available here -- is awful. Calling Democrats the "Spawn of Satan" in the first clause is, shall we say, unhelpful.

But will USA Today show the same reticence when the column they've commissioned from Michael Moore is slated to run during the GOP convention?

THE LOST CONVENTION

Seriously, what's the point of blogging about a convention I can't even watch? I don't know. Then again, why can't I? From what I hear of the ratings -- Nielsen counted only 13.5 million people watching even when the Clintons were speaking on Monday, according to the unlinkable Variety -- I could write almost anything about it.

• The big news is Barack Obama, who happens to be the employer of a good friend of mine. I'll catch the speech on C-SPAN sometime soon, but according to everything I've read and heard, it was electrifying -- a well-written speech with a fairly moderate message, delivered superbly. Obama -- yes, it rhymes with "Osama" -- is currently the only candidate running for the Senate in Chicago; you may remember Jack Ryan, the guy who dropped out after revelations emerged that his ex-wife -- whom you may know as Seven-of-Nine from one Star Trek series or another -- wasn't exactly thrilled about a few of the "avant garde" nightclubs he took her to in Paris. A number of commentators opined that he could be the first African-American in the White House ... although they clearly forgot that Bill Clinton was already the "first black president." The best news, though? This is the first Democratic convention where Jesse Jackson won't be speaking on the floor.


• Ron Reagan -- erroneously referred sometimes to as "Jr."; he and the late president have different middle names -- gave a speech on stem cell research as well. Though it's a bit annoying for Reagan, an avowed independent, to throw the Democrats a bone this week by all but advocating President Bush's ouster, a couple things he said on "Hardball" stuck out as encouraging. One was when Matthews asked if any Republicans had tried to discourage him from appearing, when he said: "No, I didn't get any calls from people like that. There were some broadsides I the media, of course, taking a few shots, but my feeling was that as long as they spelled embryonic stem cell correctly, that was okay by me." I'm skeptical about the issue of stem cell research, particularly its efficacy -- which never gets any coverage -- but if he did indeed keep his speech to just that topic, then that's cool by me. By the way, am I the only one slightly annoyed that Reagan was both a speaker at the Democratic convention and is a commentator covering the convention for MSNBC?


• Bono's been wandering around Boston soaking up adoration and, I presume by I can't verify it, yelling the word "fuck!" as often as possible. The Boston Herald reports that he told an audience at one point: "I'm a fan of America. I'm like one of those annoying fans that follows you into the bathroom and screams, 'What happened to the last album?'" Now, I obviously don't agree. But as Bart Simpson would say: Good line, though.


• And according to Lloyd Grove, P. Diddy's butler, Farnsworth Bentley -- is that name made up? -- had the following to say: "Edwards lately has been looking real young-boy hot." Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Okay, that's all I got. At least I'll be able to watch everything tomorrow night, as I found out my Friday schedule has changed. Commentary on the convention will be slim-to-none until sometime Friday, but regular blogging should continue anyway.

DRONES (THEY'RE ALL)

Linda Sanchez, who can be quite a bawd -- I saw her do a pretty mean stand-up routine at a fundraiser a few months back, chiding fellow California Democrat Jane Harman for her hawkishness with a line about "wearing combat boots" -- gets her biggest reaction by holding up a union card. Yawn.

New York's Nita Lowey, on education for girls. Not children, girls. Except when she's talking about child labor. I think she means in this country. She should look into Hollywood; those kids can't all be over 18.

Earl Blumenauer! On the war sort of, but really more about the environment. Also, "science, not politics." Plus, that ubiquitous bow tie.

This is hopeless. And boring. Yesterday Glenn Close was hosting the festivities and 1970s funk music was being pumped into the Fleet Center. Now it's just a string of congresspeople with their interminable, cookie-cutter rhetoric. Believe it or not, but at this point I'm actually sort of interested in what Chris Matthews has to say.

TANNER '88 … ER, '04

Texas Rep. John Tanner finally goes a little bit kooky over the deficit. I understand that it's big and that it needs to be taken care of, but don't forget we're getting ourselves out of a recession -- certainly he wouldn't argue with Keynsianism like that. Then at one point he gravely intones that a future generation of Americans "may not experience this democracy started here in Massachusetts" because of it. You know, my father once owned a book, circa 1993. It was called "Bankruptcy 1995," and it was quite popular at the time. It's out of print now -- but available on Amazon for $.01 -- and eventually his rhetoric will be too.

CHOOSE OR LOSE

Betsy Cavendish of the National Abortion Rights Action League. She tells the audience that if George W. Bush wins, abortion will be made illegal … just as has every pro-choice spokesperson at every Democratic convention since Roe v. Wade. I'm just surprised the announcer actually said "abortion" -- but Cavendish doesn't. It's all about "choice" and "freedom," and who could possibly oppose that? Certainly not economist Milton Friedman, he wrote the ur-text on abortion: "Free to Choose." At least, I think that's what it was about.

STRENGTH THROUGH STRENGTH

After some official business that mostly amounts to the pledge of allegiance and a couple of voice votes on already-decided matters, California Rep. Bob Matsui gives a brief talk at the lectern, explaining that he once wanted to be an architect but now is hard at work building something else: a new Democratic majority in Congress. (Rimshot)

After Matsui follow a string of amiable but dull House candidates from Pennsylvania, Florida, Minnesota. All of them claim a bit of that John Kerry magic (such as it is) and repeatedly talk about strength. The Dems are strong on strength this year. But they're not strong on interesting things to say.

CONVENTION, DAY TWO

Up in Boston on my TV screen the gavel bangs in about half an hour, and the speakers will begin their speaking ways shortly thereafter. Check back throughout the afternoon, because I'll be watching closely to bring you the best of the obscure.

SUBLIMINAL MAN?

The subject matter for the last post was pretty atypical for a post on this blog. The subject matter for this one is only slightly less so: Frank Hughes' latest column for ESPN.com, on the NBA salary cap. He raises an good point about players being paid more for promise than for results, but there's something a bit off about the column, and I don't mean his occasionally awkward prose. It's this bit:

The way I see it, we have sent a satellite or a camera or some such high-tech device all the way to Saturn to get pictures so detailed that the planet's rings look as clear as Mary Kate's cry for help. So why can't somebody somewhere devise a formula that pays players what they are worth?

Really, how difficult can it be? An economist friend of mine has developed a system to track not only how good a player is, but how good he is based on who is out on the floor with him. And even though 3,000 people lost their lives on Sept. 11 in the midst of numerous governmental snafus, nobody involved in the mishaps lost their jobs. To me, it's all arithmetic. So c'mon David Stern, hire the best minds to figure this thing out.

I've really never seen such a total non sequitur buried in the middle of a sports column. Is that supposed to be a subliminal message to sports fans who also happen to be undecided voters? Like, *cough*votekerry*cough*? And if he's trying to imply that David Stern should hire all the people who weren't hired because the federal government hadn't hired them because nobody was fired after 9/11, well, that still doesn't make any sense. I'm at a total loss here. Suggestions welcome.

Meanwhile, I'll give ESPN their softball interview (as it were) with Kerry for this relatively skeptical investigation of his athletic background.

P.S. Check out the creepy image at left -- that's Hughes' official ESPN photo, though it seems to have fallen out of use lately. One can see why -- he has no eyeballs! That, or he's trying to hypnotize you. Youuuu willll voooooote for Kerrrrrrry... We need a regime change in this couuuuuntry... Briiiiing iiiiiiit onnnn....

IT TAKES A VILLAGE?

Rpger Friedman, Fox News' gossip columnist, is a bit of a blowhard but today he really overdoes it. Herewith, an abbreviated fisking:

M. Night Shyamalan's "The Village" could turn out to be more anti-Bush and more controversial than "Fahrenheit" simply on an artistic level.

If it's controversial on an art level then you may read about this in Commentary or the New Yorker, but you won't hear about it, say, on Fox News.

Seen the way the writer-director intends it to be, as an allegory about the culture of fear — the same culture of fear that Michael Moore has been bleating about since Sept. 11, 2001 — "The Village" should speak to the soul of the anti-Bush movement more than Moore's film.

I find this statement very hard to believe. I also doubt the Bush-haters will turn out in droves like they did Moore's -- simply not enough footage of senior officials combing their hair.

So it was ironic to see Disney honcho Michael Eisner congratulating Shyamalan last night when the credits rolled at the end of "The Village" premiere.

Not really. Everyone knows allegories can get away with far more than any literal-minded narrative.

I don't want to give too much away here — there are a couple of plot twists that should not be revealed — but it's safe to say that "The Village" is all about isolation and fear right down to a cover-up toward the end. And as we all know by now, the cover-up is always worse than the crime.

Actually, some think the trailer itself gives too much away. Anyway, Friedman is implying a cover-up by George Bush, I'm fairly certain he's not talking about about the official who leaked Valerie Plame's name to Bob Novak. I don't even think he means anything -- it just sounds ominous. Indeed, he's not too certain:

I wouldn't have been so certain about this, but I did get to talk to Shyamalan about this when the film was over. (This was about the time Eisner was calling "The Village" a winner.) The director confirmed for me that he made "The Village" with thoughts of the 9/11 disasters in his head.

"Certainly that was the feeling, with the fear all around us," he said.

I have very little patience for those who took nothing away from September 11. It's one thing to oppose certain provisions of the Patriot Act but quite another to declare that this is a country inundated with fear. That describes Michael Moore -- who actually made the "culture of fear" the thesis of "Bowling for Columbine" a few years ago -- and unless Friedman is taking Shyamalan's words out of context, that's him as well.

Why anger and fear of the government that is trying, albeit imperfectly, do defend us? Why a blithe dismissal of the terrorist threat? The answer is obviously complicated, but I think Postrel has part of it.

My other question is, why have so few in the entertainment industry made international terrorists the focus of their ridicule? Well, that's complicated too. But later this fall there will be a fairly high profile dissenter. And if you're already familiar with the movie I'm talking about, you'll know why I have to say: "Fuck yeah!"

LIVE AT THE CONVENTIONS (IN WASHINGTON, VIA C-SPAN)

I can't believe I did this much blogging today -- getting up in the middle of the night does funny things to your physiology. You get hot easily and you itch all over for no reason. Then again, some of that has to do with the broken air conditioner in my office building. In any case, the I just realized the worst thing about this schedule: Because I have to get up so early, I have to crash before the big speeches each night. So even though my job requires me to closely follow the convention coverage, I don't get to see Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards or John Kerry. At least not live.

But I do get to watch all the non-prime time speeches, which gives me an idea, however lame. Some of you may remember the Senate talkathon last year, which I more or less covered around-the-clock (do a Find on "talkathon"). In that spirit, I think I will focus on the unknown speakers you would never hear about without me.

Such as: Rod O'Connor, the convention's CEO. And Alice Huffman, the convention's chairwoman. It didn't seem like many paid attention to them, nor the others who followed in recent minutes -- representatives from teachers' unions, abortion rights ... er, choice advocates, and California Treasurer Phil Angelides (Arnold's likely 2006 opponent). I haven't been, either. There's not much Bush-bashing so far, just mindless repetitions of the convention's theme, plugs for their pet causes, and obligator exhortations on behalf of the Kerry-Edwards ticket. Yawn. This will be just like the talkathon, minus all the silliness.

That's all from me tonight. I'm going to try to get another hour's sleep longer than last night so I'm not the total wreck tomorrow that I was today. See you then.

P.S. One last note. As of 7:00 the place is a little more lively. "Everyday People" starts pumping over the loudspeakers and everyone starts dancing -- C-SPAN shows us a roly-poly man doing a shuffle of some kind and a little old white-haired lady clapping aryhthmically -- but they don't show the stage. I take it Sly didn't show.

P.P.S. What are MTV's news people doing giving a speech? Some "news" organization. It turns out they're there to introduce the winner of an MTV "Choose or Lose" contest where the grand prize includes delivering a floor speech. And he does. It's full of mindless cliches about "tax cuts for the wealthy" and wars "fought on false pretenses." Literally, those overused phrases. He does note that most of the working poor are in their mid-twenties to which I ask: doesn't he realize that means we'll earn more later as our careers advance? Whatever. I've given him too much time already.

P.P.S. Seriously, this isn't working. Tomorrow I can blog all day, but I've got to start winding down. I think I'll turn the channel over to MSNBC, which is far less interesting and about which I won't feel compelled to blog. Good night.

SAY WHAT?

Apparently Instapundit was all over this yesterday, but I'm surprised Andrew Sullivan hasn't picked up on New York Times Public Editor Dan Okrent's latest column. His question, by way of the headline:

Is The New York Times a Liberal Newspaper?

Four word answer comprising the full first paragraph:

Of course it is.

This comes as no surprise to everyone except the most parochial of Manhattan liberals. Most of the time Okrent defends his employer, which most newspaper ombudsmen do -- as the Ombudsgod could tell you -- and the same is true of this piece. But other papers' "readers' representatives," especially Jamie Gold of the Los Angeles Times -- as Patterico already has -- would do themselves and their employers a service by conceding the point.

ACTUALLY

Maybe it's a good thing I'm not in Boston this week:

Twenty portable restrooms, like those used on construction sites, are lined up in front of the media pavilion to service nearly 1,200 members of the print media who will be working around the clock. That's about 60 serious coffee-drinkers per toilet.

Huge mistake. Gi-normous. The Note was being polite by only alluding to this over the weekend. To paraphrase a mentor of mine, never deprive adequate restroom facilities to someone who buys ink by the barrel.

CONVENTION WEEK

I'm not in Boston this week, as I once thought I might be -- don't ask; I don't make the decisions. But that doesn't mean I'll be unaffected by the conventions. All week long I'll have to get up at around 3:15 a.m. or so in order to start work at 4:00. The good news is I can go home by noon. The bad news is I'll be waking up at an hour that a few short years ago was my typical bedtime. Then again, I've been getting up early, early for a few years now -- this is a shift of maybe an hour and a half.

What this means for the blog is unclear. I'll be following the convention during most every waking hour thanks to C-SPAN's round-the-clock coverage, but how much I'll be able to write about it for this website I won't really know until tomorrow afternoon. Stay tuned, though.

P.S. Pfeiffer, who did make it to the Hub, called today to report (maybe the Bush campaign was right!) a Nazi rally -- yes, a Nazi rally -- on the street outside the Fleet Center. Where are the Blues Brothers when you need them?

ANTI-FREEDOM LIBERTARIANS

AtlanticBlog points out something I wasn't aware of that only adds to my exasperation with the foreign policy mindset of the Cato-brand libertarians: They advocate retracting our support for an independent Taiwan. Consider this op-ed by foreign policy specialist Ted Galen Carpenter.

His title alone, "China's Patience Regarding Taiwan Is Growing Thin," implies that the ChiComs have the reasonable position whereas the recalcitrant U.S. and Taiwan stubbornly refuse to face facts.

Three times Carpenter flatly asserts that "time is running out" for Taiwan and the current situation. Carpenter is probably right insofar as he points out that China is spoiling for a fight. But in calling the late Deng Xiaoping's hands-off attitude "cavalier" he betrays his anti-Taiwan inclination before finally letting the cat out of the bag with the final two sentences:

American leaders may soon have to change Washington's policy on Taiwan or face the nightmare of having to honor its security commitment to the island. Time is running out.

Methinks Carpenter may have recently watched the disastrous 1980 Paul Newman disaster flick "When Time Ran Out."

The closest he comes to justifying China's ambition is this:

It should not be surprising if Beijing's desire to regain Taiwan is growing more insistent. Taiwan's status is a hot-button issue for most mainland Chinese. Even those Chinese who are not especially fond of the communist regime tend to believe that the island is rightfully part of China. From their perspective, Japan stole the province from China in 1895, and, by shielding the island militarily, the United States prevented reunification following the defeat of Chiang Kai-shek's Nationalist forces in 1949.

For Carpenter it's all about (totalitarian) China's "desire," what they "believe" and "their perspective." Nothing about (democratic) Taiwan's desires, beliefs or perspectives. Nada. It's a settled issue for him.

I wasn't aware of Cato's anti-freedom policy on Taiwan until just now, but I can't say it's very surprising. It shows that the post-9/11 libertarian/conservative split over Iraq was not a new thing (some libertarian analysts even opposed invading Afghanistan) -- it merely highlighted a widening rift.

Previously I had been most annoyed with Cato's Charles Pena. During the Sadrite uprising in April, he told the Los Angeles Times:

"It's time to bail out. If it wasn't obvious beforehand, it ought to be more obvious now that we are in a situation that is no longer in control, and we can't make the fairy tale outcome that we would like to see happen in Iraq."

This was lunacy then and the situation just three months later, with a national government getting on its feet and even Muslim nations preparing to send in peace-keeping forces, shows just how foolhardy the cut-and-run instinct was and is.

I should also note that my annoyance has a lot to do with the fact that I still consider myself a libertarian, at least on domestic issues. I'm far from the only one to feel this way. Former Reason editor Virginia Postrel and ex-blogger Brink Lindsey -- a Cato scholar actually, but an expert on globalization, not defense -- have expressed the same thoughts. Over two years ago libertarian blogger Jay Manifold eloquently admonished the anti-war libertarians thus:

The United States of America is "the last, best hope of Earth." It is the polity in which our hopes are nearest their realization. It contains by far the greatest number of people who share libertarian principles, as enshrined in its Declaration of Independence and Constitution. ... [L]ibertarians everywhere should point to America's successes as their model, and they should defend America -- or defend the idea of defending it -- to the best of their ability. There exists no alternative concrete example with which to inspire hope among ordinary people around the world. It is our country.

Defense of the United States is not metaphorical. Its inhabitants and material assets must be physically protected from attack. This protection may take proactive forms, and may entail substantial efforts to manage future risk by ameliorating the effects of authoritarianism elsewhere in the world.

One can dress up knee-jerk isolationism as something more intellectual -- not that Carpenter bothers to do so here -- but there's no avoiding the fact that this view advocates running away from world crises whenever things are most critical. And September 11 showed us where that leads.

P.S. All along Connecticut Avenue (at least near Dupont Circle) Friday afternoon the Falun Gong/Falun Dafa staged a silent protest, wearing identical yellow shirts and holding up a variety of signs featuring pictures and accounts of torture in Chinese prisons. I felt a twinge of guilt for trying to avoid them even though they weren't bothersome. I think I acquired this distaste for public demonstration in Eugene, Oregon, where less-respectful leftist activists reflexively protest anything and everything that offends their sensibilities. As penance, here is a link to the best website I could that publicizes China's persecution of the Falun Gong.

MIND OVER MATTERS

Boy am I ever glad the "progressive" media watchdog Media Matters for America isn't fighting on my side. Consider this attempt at an expose of a recent Weekly Standard article written by a friend of Armed Prophet's (the article, not the critique):

On July 19, conservative magazine The Weekly Standard reviewed Outfoxed in its online publication The Daily Standard. The review, titled "More of the Same: Watching Robert Greenwald's 'Outfoxed' with a MoveOn.org crowd at the Peace House," panned the film. Eric D. Pfeiffer, a senior writer for National Journal's "daily briefing on politics," The Hotline, authored the review. Pfeiffer's writing has also recently appeared in the conservative National Review Online.

What's that? The Hotline employs a conservative writer? This is a major scandal. No self-respecting news organization would -- or should -- ever hire a conservative. According to Media Matters, that is.

As others noted when Media Matters opened for "business" (it's a non-profit) a few months ago, a substantial number of their critiques hinge not on finding errors in conservative commentary but instead on pointing out that some commentators express conservative opinions. That's precisely the case here.

Perhaps it would likewise scandalize you to know that Media Matters is overseen by the liberal David Brock, who once pretended to be a conservative? Or that the organization is funded by liberal groups such as the Center for American Progress, run by former Bill Clinton chief of staff John Podesta? I sure hope not.

What's more, the way Media Matters phrases the above paragraph, one might think they did a bit of research and found out that Pfeiffer works for the nonpartisan Hotline. I'm sure they'd like you to think so. But what they don't mention is that Pfeiffer's original piece for the Standard itself mentioned his place of employment. So did his last National Review piece.

It's little mystery why their "expose" is so brief. It's more of a mystery that someone thinks an investigation yielding so little was worth publishing.

REPORTERISMS

Recently Spinsanity and Will Saletan argued about the meaning of the "Kerryisms" feature the latter does for Slate, but one thing they both took for granted was that the "caveats and curlicues" recommended for excision are supposed to be Kerry's. So why did Saletan include this in his Wednesday installment:

[19] ... Question: You never went past exploration? Kerry: Well, we never went past that there could be an exploration.

The question comes from Larry King. If you go read the full Saletan piece and see his preferred answer, it also leads naturally to exactly the same question snipped above. Would professional a question-asked like King be satisfied with the Saletanized Kerry answer? I think not.

So has Saletan broadened his mandate to include questions he doesn't think the reporters should have asked? I don't know, but it sure looks like it.

P.S. Today's episode is pretty good, though.

P.P.S. More on Kerryisms from this blog: May 22 and June 29.

THE TROUBLE WITH GOOGLE NEWS

So the last post got me thinking about Google News, which I happen to use a lot. I bet you do, too. What kind of a news source is it? Blogger Dan Gillmor once correctly but unhelpfully noted that it is "not journalism." I doubt many people found that very enlightening -- the readers who commented sure didn't. Slate's Jack Shafer listed a host of complaints about its long-term effects on web journalism, based mostly on how its links are gathered by bots instead of people. I've heard other complaints about Google News -- it's usually the bots -- but none expressing my main concern.

I wonder: What does it say about a news service where the Arab News of Saudi Arabia, Al-Jazeera of Qatar and Xinhua of China are listed alongside USA Today, Ha'aretz and various newspapers from the United States and Australia, in this case regarding a recent clash between Israeli forces and Hezbollah?

To be blunt, why is a state-controlled mouthpiece like Xinhua given the same credence as the Sydney Morning Herald?

It is interesting to see how different outlets cover the news: Al Jazeera puts the deaths of two IDF soldiers and one Hezbollah "militiaman" under reports about Israeli threats, in the fifth paragraph; Ha'aretz buries mention of the Hezbollah "gunman" halfway into the article. Of all places, both Xinhua and the Arab News put both sides' casualties in the first sentence. The American and Australian sources do the same.

While this may be interesting, few people spend any length of time at Google News evaluating all the sources. Rather, they go there to find out what's happening in the world right now. And the problem is, which outlet's version of events are to be trusted? (There doesn't seem to be much disagreement on basic facts in the events mentioned above, but that's not always the case.) Xinhua and Al Jazeera do not have the same standards as the Associated Press or even Reuters, which is often anti-American but at least usually gets its facts straight. Nevertheless, Google News treats them all as equals.

I would imagine overseas newspapers -- even those not operating out of dictatorships -- are more likely than to report rumors and erroneous misinformation than some here stateside. Britain's Telegraph and Guardian certainly are. But what's the reputation of the the Irish Examiner? Of the Hindu Times? Or Channel News Asia? Who knows what the media culture is like in a given country? I don't know, and I'm about as savvy a consumer of news as you'll find. If I don't have time to research all of this, neither will the casual reader.

And I do know the reputations of World Net Daily and Common Dreams, two heavily biased and frequently unrealiable American news websites that Google News links to regularly. I already find it somewhat troubling that they are listed alongside ABC News and the Washington Post. So you can imagine my distress regarding the "evenhanded" treatment of Xinhua and Al Jazeera.

Don't get me wrong, the bots are a great innovation; they're what makes this remarkable service possible. But their impartiality itself turns out to be a problem. Google loves its complicated algorithms -- after all, they've made its founders very, very rich -- so why doesn't it create one to judge the reliability of a given source based on country of location and ownership among other factors, while possibly allowing for some user feedback?

Until then, the bots will color the news like an infinite number of monkeys wielding an infinite number of crayons.

PUMPED UP?

By now you know Arnold Schwarzenegger called Democratic lawmakers in California "girlie men." (Google News counts 545 stories using the phrase; this story is everywhere.) I am not going to wade into the debate over whether he should have said this ... because I'm not really sure there's a debate. Oh sure, you have the state Democrats and leftist activist groups attracting coverage for their conjured outrage at what they're pretending to believe was an anti-gay slur. But no one seriously thinks that. Most people trace it back to the "Hans and Franz" skits from SNL. Chris Matthews swears Arnold told him personally it's what they called wimps back in Austria. There's no debate here, just agitation.

Either way, this story is proof of one thing for sure: news that Iran was tangentially involved in 9/11 and reports that Sandy Berger might have stolen national security documents was not enough to keep this from being considered a slow news day.

PRIMARY CONFLOPTIONS

Armed Prophet will at this point go on a short hiatus, but in the meantime check out a recent post to the Canard about another brush with semi-kinda-sorta-almost greatness. Commentary resumes in earnest on Tuesday.

9/11/04?

Read this. If anyone thinks Islamofascist terrorists are not working hard to bring us another day of infamy as soon as possible -- let alone before the November election -- read this and take it very seriously. It's long, but probably more worth your time than anything I've posted in a great while.

After 9/11 James Woods -- the actor and right-wing nutjob (I use the term affectionately) -- reported to the FBI that he had seen bin Laden's foot soldiers apparently making a dry run for those terrorist attacks on a cross-country flight just weeks before you-know-when. This sounds very much the same. This time the authorities were more vigilant -- but had this been the real deal, it wouldn't have been enough.

(Hat tip: Taranto.)

BIPARTISAN HOMOPHOBIA

I've already linked to this, so now I should link to this. It's only fair.

STILL

No new Brink Lindsey. Too bad. See this for some background. Alas, no new Jack Bog either. But I hold out a little more hope for the latter.

SEARCHING FOR BOBBY FISCHER NO MORE

My snide comment about the United States enforcing U.N. sanctions that the ever-embarrassing New York-based international body let slide may have been somewhat misplaced. According to the New York Times, Fischer did in fact violate American-imposed economic sanctions against Yugoslavia while the Serbs were setting about "cleansing" the region of Muslims and Croats, not just U.N.-imposed ones. There certainly were U.N. sanctions at the time, but it's not quite right to say the U.S. is saving the U.N. from itself again. Or at least that it's the only thing we're doing.

Meanwhile, that Times story has a few more good bits about what a hateful, paranoid nutso Fischer became:

The moody American has been known over the years for his extreme rudeness. He is outspoken in his loathing of Communists, reporters, Jews and women.

Well, he may be right about the first two...

P.S. A Fischer-related tangent has been added to my original post.

STICKS AND STONES

NAACP chairman Julian Bond, on the Republican Party, in 2002:

"Their idea of equal rights is the American flag and Confederate swastika flying side by side."

Bond, on George W. Bush's upcoming address to the Urban League in light of his NAACP snub, yesterday:

"It makes us feel bad."

The world's tiniest violin can't do this justice. Maybe when nanotechnology finally gets off the ground.

PAULIE WALNUTS FOR U.S. SENATE!

It's a bit premature to say for sure, but I have to wonder if Governor Arnold hasn't made it safer to be a Republican in the enterrtainment industry. Latest case in point:

Sopranos gangster "Paulie Walnuts" joined a mob of diehard Republicans yesterday at a Queens fund-raiser that helped pump cash into President Bush's campaign.

Actor Tony Sirico, who plays the mobster on the hit HBO series "The Sopranos," joined more than 100 people at the Belle Harbor Yacht Club, which was sponsored by the Rockaway Republicans.

"I'm here because I'm a far-to-the-right Republican," he said.

Wow! First Ditka goes public as a conservative Republican, now Tony Sirico? These come in threes, you know. I predict the next will be Corey Feldman. Any other guesses?

P.S. The article above seems to imply Sean "P. Diddy" Combs may be a secret Republican. The FEC indicates his only two political contributions were to Al Sharpton and Hillary Clinton, so no dice, but at least he's willing to share their company. After all, can you imagine what his tax break looked like?

YES, THAT LIBERAL MEDIA

Headline for a what was ostensibly a news story in yesterday's New York Times -- it ran on A1 -- about Democrats' whispers that Bush may dump Cheney from the ticket:

"Hear the Rumor on Cheney? Capital Buzzes, Denials Aside"

Headline for what is ostensibly a news story in today's edition about Kerry's careful work on the "biggest speech of his life," which by the way he is writing longhand:

"Kerry Seeks Inspiration by the Sea"

So, which campaign do you think the Times' news editors are rooting for?

"WE GOT 'IM!"

Crazed anti-Semitic fugitive chessmaster Bobby Fischer was finally nabbed this morning in Japan. Fischer, if you've forgotten -- and it's not like he gets much press these days -- has been a wanted man since thumbing his nose at the U.N. to play a 1992 chess match in Yugoslavia. The Atlantic had a fascinating story on him a few years back, including such gems as Fischer describing his enemies as "Jews, secret Jews, or CIA rats who work for the Jews."

More interesting, it seems that the U.S. will prosecute him instead of sending him to the Hague. Considering the mess they've gotten into with Slobodan Milosevic, this is probably a good thing. In any case, here we find the United States following through on sanctions that Turtle Bay has either been unable or unwilling to enforce. Now where have we heard that before?

UPDATE: Meanwhile over at Kevin Drum's personal blog ... er, I mean the Washington Monthly's main page, this is apparently all a joke and another excuse to ridicule the neocons. (See the comments.) Look, Fischer wasn't a mass murderer, but his fugitive status was well-earned, and his arrest is a good thing. Read the Drum-linked New York Times story to see just how flagrant Fischer's actions were -- i.e. literally spitting on the order not to play the match. Pardon me while my respect for the Washington Monthly sinks ever lower...

DEEP PURPLE

Politics aside, how culturally "red" or "blue" are you? The Boston Globe's Anne Kornblut has put together a pretty damned good questionnaire that will tell you which you are. How many people know both how often Rush Limbaugh is on the air and what "Avenue Q" is, plus knows of Jim Jarmusch's oeuvre but has also fired a gun? Well, for one, me.

UPDATE: Hmm, maybe it's not as good as I thought. Is there anybody out there who didn't come up purple as well? Maybe we're all well-rounded. Or maybe the red/blue split is exaggerated.

WELL, LOOKY WHAT WE HAVE HERE...

For professional reasons this blog must remain mostly anonymous, but nevertheless you should know that this exists.

CALLOW? SHALLOW? BAH! ALLOW!

John Kerry and John Edwards called in to "Imus in the Morning" early today to chat it up with Don Imus, the ornery New York/New Mexico talk show host who earlier this year switched his allegiance to Kerry from Bush for no discernable reason. Imus asked Edwards one of those quintessential campaign questions: What's the price of milk? Here's the exchange:

EDWARDS: "I think a half a gallon of milk costs about $2.30, $2.40, is that right?"
IMUS: "No, a gallon costs $2.99 in Albuquerque. Actually, it cost $4.19. What do you think a six-pack of beer costs in Albuquerque?"
EDWARDS: "I have to be honest with you, I haven't drank a six pack of beer in a long time, so I don't know the answer to that."
IMUS: "I know, but you're going to try to get a bunch of those people who do drink it to vote for you."
EDWARDS: "It's a good question. I hadn't bought a six pack of beer in years, so I don't know."

First of all, the price of milk is a classic "gotcha" question -- it's better applied to members of Congress who have lost touch with the districts or states they represent. (They even ask this question of politicians in other countries.) And I'm not sure that Imus knew the answer to either question -- he seems confused on the price of milk and is a self-proclaimed recovering alcoholic. So I'm not too impressed by his line of questioning.

But neither am I impressed by Edwards. Me, I would have asked if Imus meant domestic, micro or import. And even then he should have guessed "six or seven dollars," considering lower beer prices on the West Coast. I'm reminded of Edwards' hour-long interview on "Hardball" last fall when Chris Matthews asked about his favorite movie. Edwards stalled for almost a minute, apparently trying to think up an answer. In the end he lamely answered: "I really don't have one."

I confess to being a bit bothered by the certainty that Edwards will escape the "callow" tag affixed to Dan Quayle long before that infamous 1992 "potatoe" incident. One reason is because Edwards is a passionate speaker who is more telegenic even than Quayle was supposed to be. Another (to speak in crude "liberal media" terms) is that the press fell in love with Edwards' "two Americas" line months ago. He'll get a pass, and for reasons as shallow as Edwards himself.

It's true that the choice of VP rarely matters in the actual vote for president -- LBJ in 1960 is usually considered the most recent one that did -- but I wouldn't be surprised if Edwards gets caught up in a few more embarrassing moments like this between now and November.

FREE KETCHUP!

Sometime later this week C-SPAN will be airing a focus group of undecided Ohio voters conducted by Democratic pollster Peter Hart. Today the Hotline published excerpts. At one point the participants were asked what they thought about what George W. Bush and John Kerry would be like as neighbors. The responses for Bush:

"Good BBQs ... folksy ... helpful ... a good friend ... he'd be outside a lot."

And for Kerry:

"Quiet ... aloof ... reclusive ... formal parties ... free ketchup ... someone I'd wave to but never get to know."

Interesting. Despite this, Kerry seems to have a slight edge among the participants. The who-would-you-like-to-have-a-beer-with factor certainly helped Bush in 2000, but this time around circumstances may usurp likeability as a deciding factor. Or maybe they just really like ketchup.

ABSOLUTELY FABULOUS

Okay, now this is hilarious. And so is this.

FLIP-FLOP, YOU DON'T STOP

The "Outfoxed" trailer is here. It actually looks pretty entertaining, but then so did the one for "Fahrenheit 9/11." One segment features a string of talking heads, hosts and guests alike, referring to Kerry as a flip-flopper. The intent of the piece is clear: Fox News has it in for John Kerry, and the "flip-flop" charge is a favorite.

Let's set aside the fact that fair-minded people of any political persuasion have noted Kerry's frequent panders, straddles and, yes, flip-flops. (Take Mickey Kaus, who will vote for Kerry despite deep reservations -- and is included in the trailer saying: "Flip-flop.")

Wondering how often the phrase occurs on each of the three cable news networks, I asked Nexis -- that oracle of the printed word -- just that question. Searching through Transcripts with the search terms "cnn and flip flop and john kerry," "msnbc and flip flop and john kerry" and "fox news network and flip flop and john kerry," from January 2003 through today. (Note: Fox is called "Network" rather than "Channel" in the database, for some reason.) Here were the results:

CNN: 151
MSNBC: 47
Fox: 82

The actual numbers for each are a bit lower, because Nexis other sources occasionally show up. But it doesn't change the ratios. Now, there are a couple of reasons why this may not be accurate. For one, it's possible that CNN may bring up the issue more often than the others but more fleetingly; Fox may dwell on it. So I looked to the Expanded List, which shows occurrences of the keywords. I couldn't tell much difference.

More significantly, it seems that Fox and MSNBC don't provide as many transcripts to Nexis as the others do. In particular, Fox's morning show, "Fox and Friends," isn't available. So I ran this search: "cnn and flip flop and john kerry andnot american morning." The result? 107 matches -- still well above its competitors.

This proves nothing exactly, but it does seem to suggest that Fox News isn't throwing the charge around with impunity, or at any rate no more often than its liberal rival CNN.

UPDATE, SOMETIME THE NEXT DAY: Obviously all the work on this post went into the research and not the writing. Finally the read-through and edit it needed is done.

BIG LOSER, INDEED

So Slim Fast is dropping Whoopi Goldberg as a spokesperson on account of her foul-mouthed anti-Bush rant last week. Some quarters are sure to decry the stifling of dissent, but these are people who don't understand the difference between state censorship and private companies choosing who they do business with. And others will probably claim the company is just doing a favor for the Republicans. Except there's one problem: Slim Fast founder and CEO Daniel S. Abraham is one of the Democratic Party's most generous donors. And one of the most loyal; many executives routinely split their donations between the parties, but not Abraham. You can search the FEC here for his recent donations, or this Mother Jones feature here and here for some older ones.

As long as Whoopi's got the Hollywood Squares, she'll be just fine. As for Slim Fast, I think they should bring back Tommy Lasorda. After all, Margaret Cho has already blown her chances.

FOXENHEIT 9/11

Having already picked apart one anti-conservative documentary in recent posts, I might as well take on another one: "Outfoxed," which purports to expose Fox News as a bad news network. Very bad. So bad it includes an interview with crackpot Chomsky collaborator Robert McChesny comparing the news cabler with the Nazis. (Is there any campaign season in a half-century where Hitler came up this often? Maybe this post should be titled "Fuhrenheit 9/11.")

Of course I haven't seen this movie, and I may never get to because unlike Michael Moore's blockbuster agit-doc, it won't get anywhere near the same kind of distribution. This doesn't mean it hasn't gotten coverage, though; the Post's Howard Kurtz did a number on it this weekend, pointing out a number of distortions that wouldn't be out of place in a movie by Moore himself.

I have, however, seen a few clips of interviews from the movie's website. The filmmakers scored a handful of coups, including interviews with former employees of that Hitleresque TV network. One is with a former producer, Alexander Kippen, who makes the stunning charge that Fox has

achieved every business' dream ... it's located an underserved market, in many cases, angry suburbanites -- and it's served them. And it's getting rich doing it.

Unbelievable. If this gets out, who knows what people will think. Or do. They might even buy stock in News Corp! Perhaps more shocking, former on-air personality Jon Du Pre alleges that management

made sure everybody understood one concept really clear ... we were not there as journalists or broadcasters to serve the viewers. We were there to serve headquarters. What headquarters wanted, we would give them.

Insidious! Fox employees do only what their conservative audience wants, but they also do only what the bosses tell them! This is truly an outrage.

Du Pre is describing another of the movie's coups (if you could really call them that), having scored a number of in-house memos that demonstrate how Fox manipulates their coverage. Fearing legal action by Fox, these memos have now been removed from the website. But not before CableNewser's Brian Stelter got a chance to look them over. (Meaningless full disclosure: a friend of Armed Prophet used to teach at the high school Stelter recently graduated from.) What he found will shock you. Unless, of course, you are not already shocked. But read on!

Here's a line from a memo Stelter thinks is "questionable":

"Let's refer to the US marines we see in the foreground as 'sharpshooters' not snipers, which carries a negative connotation."

What's this? Favorable coverage of U.S. troops engaged in military action abroad?? Devastating. But Stelter doesn't find it all so ominous. Here's one he approves of:

"Do not ignore the Oil for Food story, please. Fox News is making steady progress in investigating what could be, without exaggeration, the biggest ripoff of all time."

Absolutely. In fact, Fox News is the only American mass media organization covering this story. (Those bastards!)

Anyway, there's plenty to criticize Fox News for, just as there's more than enough to go after CNN and MSNBC about. For example, the locution "homicide bomber" is pretty silly. And their slogan, "Fair and Balanced," isn't quite right. Seeing as how their stable of talking heads leans decidedly right (just as CNN's leans decidedly left) and they already defend their reportage as showing all sides, they should probably change their logo to the more accurate "We're the Balance."

But in any event, this movie sounds even more pathetic than "Fahrenheit 9/11." I suppose I do have to give the left credit for spearheading this new genre -- sort of like campaign blogs, I guess -- along with films like "The Hunting of the President." And with "Michael Moore Hates America" in the offing, the right will catch up soon. And when that happens, I'll be just as hard on those movies, too, perhaps more so.

WELL, IT'S A START

This press release just landed in my inbox:

MSNBC.com, a leader in breaking news and original journalism on the Internet, has achieved its first quarter of profitability since its launch into the information revolution in July 1996. The quarter comes in a year of record annual revenue of nearly $45M. Significantly, MSNBC.com reached this milestone with a diverse advertiser base; more than 80% of the revenue came from 60 advertisers and more than 70 different advertisers spent in excess of $100K. ...

Good for them. Of course the far more challenging task is figuring out how MSNBC the cable news network is going to stay operational after the November election.

I'm predicting at least one more lineup change before they finally throw in the towel. Can you say "Donahue & Ventura"?

PAGING ALL CAVE-DWELLERS, COMA SURVIVORS AND ROCK UNDERSIDE INHABITANTS

Would that this be the last time anyone has to explain what a blogger is.

FINALLY!

The New & Improved™ Armed Prophet is finished. This blog has seen a few different color schemes over the past year and a half, but this is the first major re-design and upgrade. I aimed for a simple modern look — small caps and sans-serifs, straight lines and open white space. I think I've succeeded, but you'll have to decide for yourself.

Among the features you, the reader, have already certainly noticed:

• Customized, non-Blogger supplied logo. Incredibly complex Photoshop work (you have no idea) done by yours truly.
• There's my apartment building. Very symmetrical, no? Almost heroic in a way. One of those balconies is mine.
• Search function. Don't tell Google but I hacked (or fiddled with) their free search code long enough to look as if it wasn't Google's free search code. But when you actually use it, alas, the illusion will be broken.
• Updated blogroll.
• A "Previous Posts" list, something Blogger apparently started offering after I signed up.
• Comments and trackbacks by HaloScan, backBlog begone (and with it the unexplained commas). I apologize to E-R-C and others to whom I once recommended the latter service.
• And at the risk of redundancy, there's the new look. Links on the other side of the screen, a different color scheme, Lucida Grande replacing Verdana, and so on.

Well, okay. Regular blogging to resume later tonight or tomorrow.

UNDER CONSTRUCTION

I assume you've noticed that Armed Prophet is in the middle of a site redesign. The new logo doesn't seem to be working just yet (blasted CSS), the sidebar is a bit of a mess (and then some; CSS again), plus the comments are temporarily disabled. But everything should be shipshape by weekend's end.

UPDATE: Okay, the logo is now operational. Not a CSS problem, just my forgetting to upload to "public_html" ... but the links are still vexing.

HACK ATTACK

Frank Rich really is like a male version of Maureen Dowd, or perhaps Dowd in reverse. Never underestimate his propensity to work politics into his pop culture column regardless of whether it makes any sense:

The extraordinary popularity of [Spider-Man] on America's Fourth of July weekend might give partisans on both sides of the political race pause. As a man locked in a war against terror, Peter Parker could not be further removed from the hubristic bravura of Bush and his own cinematic model, the Tom Cruise of "Top Gun." There's nothing triumphalist about Spider-Man; he would never declare "Mission Accomplished" after a passing victory, and his very creed is antithetical to the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive war.

Evidence, please? Or even an explanation? Peter Parker's "war on terror"? Maverick was in Spider-Man? Or Spidey on the deck of the Abraham Lincoln?? Spidey and pre-emption??? I've seen the movie, but maybe I was in the restroom during that scene.

NEW BLOG!

The enigmatic "Theodore H." -- most of us just know him as Ted -- just opened his blogspot for business a few days ago, so let me do my part to promote his site, Stumptown Lampoon, with a link. I'm feeling generous today: here's another. So far he's posted a Virgin Islands travelogue, anti-idiotarian analysis of current films (but not the one you might expect), and references to his two chief vices: horror films and right-wing radio. Go give a look-see, then hit "Add Bookmark."

P.S. Or "Add Page to Favorites," for those of you inadvisably still using IE.

JOHN LEGUIZAMO IS AN IDIOT

From a NY Post write-up on an anti-Bush rally/John Kerry fundraiser in New York last night:

Latin comedian John Leguizamo said he refuses to believe there are any Hispanic Republicans, claiming that's "an oxymoron," because "Latins for Republicans -- it's like roaches for Raid."

Latin, really? I'd like to hear him tell me the difference between sum, es and est. While I wait, I must wonder: He doesn't believe in Mel Martinez, Linda Chavez, George P. Bush and Henry Bonilla, not to mention the majority of Cuban-Americans? Well, that's idiotic. So is the insinuation that Republicans kill Hispanics like Raid does cockroaches. I'd boycott Leguizamo's films, but now that I think about it I've only bothered to see three or four of them in the past decade. So I've basically been doing my part all along.

AND THE WINNER IS...

John Edwards! What a surprise. But the best choice, really. Anyway, ho hum.

On a completely unrelated subject, the big winners most definitely are not the authors of a study that aimed to predict the outcome of the 2002 midterm elections:

Upcoming mid-term elections will change the balance of power in Washington, giving Democrats control of the House and Senate.  According to the political economy models of Lewis-Beck and Tien, the House will record a net Democratic gain of eight seats, returning Democrats to the majority there. In the Senate, the Democrats will gain three seats, thereby making the Democrat majority less narrow.

Oops. Interestingly enough, this doesn't seem to be a partisan exercise undertaken by liberal professors seeking the applause of their colleagues. (I mean, that could be it too, I don't know.) Based on the criteria stated in the next paragraph -- the president's popularity and disposable income -- the midterm elections looked promising for the Republicans. It then adds:

However, these positive numbers will be overwhelmed by the historic pattern of mid-term losses for the president’s party. The party controlling the White House has lost an average of 24 House seats and 4 Senate seats during midterm elections since 1950.

Yeah, oops. Coincidentally, I wrote in this space over the weekend that the historical norm is a fairly weak indicator unless the mechanism for that perpetuation of circumstances is explained. And in unusual times like these past few years, it's even more suspect.

I guess John Edwards bucked this "historical norm" thing, too. The frontrunner for VP never gets the nod; nor are you supposed to "campaign" for the job. Here in the realm of politics as in all social sciences, we always look to the past to understand current events, because it's the only thing we've got. And that's fine; I'm sure I've done it before and I'll do it again. But if I tell you X will happen because of it, please report me to Blogger and have them pull the plug.

SUPPLY AND DEMAND

The Associated Press reports that items related to Reagan's funeral are fetching high bids on eBay. Programs from the National Cathedral service are going for as much as $1500. Here's

"Personally, I find it very sad. If you were fortunate enough to be able to receive one of the items, I would think you'd want to keep them," said Melissa Giller, chief of staff at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation in Simi Valley.

But she added, "The president believed in economic opportunity and the free market."

Heh. I'm sure the people who complained about entrepreneurs hawking Reagan T-shirts around downtown last month will go nuts when they hear about this. If I'd been at the ceremony, I wouldn't part with that program for anything close to that price. But that's just me; it's nice to see that the free enterprise system is treating Reagan's memory favorably.

AMERICA, THE BOOM-IFUL

Anomalistically, the Canard has been a bit livelier than the Prophet this weekend. Over there I've got posts anbout courteous messages to car thieves, a flailing effort to recall Mayor Williams, the afternoon flood here that canceled some Independence Day festivities, and the celebratory battlefield that was my neighborhood this evening. With pictures. In the meantime, it's fixing to be a busy first half of the week for me in other writing ventures, so posting may be light. Then again, blogging is an altogether compulsive activity, so the opposite could be true. See you soon.

HAPPY BIRTHDAY, AMERICA

No significant thoughts at this late hour, but I'd be remiss if I didn't at least give a shout-out to the best country in the world. Keep on rocking, free world.

In other news, Spinsanity has posted its own take on Fahrenheit 9/11, which has some disapproving comments about Moore's depiction of the segment filmed in my home state of Oregon. I've done my part for curiosity by seeing Moore's polemic; I hope those who are sympathetic to the movie take the time to read dispassionate rebuttals like this one. It's not just us ranting Republicans who find Fahrenheit 9/11 unconvincing.

In somewhat related news, there's a terrific essay in the Hudson Review taking apart both the notion that Europeans are more cultured and thoughtful than Americans as well as the library of recent books that support that idea. In it he praises Robert Kagan's "Of Paradise and Power" -- which is not of that oeurve -- and which I've long said should be required reading prior to any discussion of Europe's perspective on Iraq and American foreign policy. (Hat tip: Tyler.)

HANDICAP? TSK, TSK. "DIFFERENTLY ABLED," PLEASE

CQ columnist (and former Hotline editor) Craig Crawford knows a great deal more about presidential elections than yours truly, but his latest column handicapping the (perhaps soon to be resolved) Veepstakes fun struck me as a tad feeble and sometimes even silly. So here's something like a fisking, though I'll only take on those candidates deemed to have a better than 10% chance of winning Kerry's endorsement:

Sen. John Edwards, N.C.

Odds: 3-1 (Chance for the ticket: 25 percent)

Pro: Caught the fancy of Democrats during the primary seasons, starting with a close second place to Kerry in the Jan. 19 Iowa caucuses. Polling around the country demonstrates an appeal to independent voters that Kerry lacks.

All true. (Some way to begin a fisking, huh?)

Con: A one-term senator with no other political experience, he will be dogged by questions about whether he could take charge in the Oval Office in an emergency. And picking him is so widely expected, Kerry would barely make news with this choice.

Um, I agree. (Is this working? Well, hold on.) While I won't make any prognostications on whom Kerry will pick, I do agree with the widespread belief that Edwards is the likeliest of the likely/available veeps. Many will point to the historical fact that the presumptive pick is never the actual pick, but little about this election so far has followed the history books. Besides: As far as indicators go that's a particularly weak one, unless a very good reason explains why something keeps happening. I'm not aware of one here.

Rep. Richard A. Gephardt, Mo.

Odds: 5-1 (Chance for the ticket: 20 percent)

Pro: Delivers Big Labor.

Oh, sure. Just like in Iowa? Gephardt and Dean more or less split the labor vote, and if they had any impact on the caucus this year, it was barely detectable amidst other factors. Moreover, labor's influence in presidential politics has been in a long decline, and unlike union leadership, unionized workers individually are very moderate and often vote for Republicans.

Could be a slam dunk if Kerry rests his bid on a Midwest play, and might cinch Missouri’s 11 electoral votes. Of all the contenders, he is the most akin to Kerry’s low-key style and liberal ideology.

Low-key style? Try boring, dull, and uninspiring. Sure, Cheney isn't terribly exciting, but with all his faults George W. Bush in 2000 generated enthusiasm far more than John Kerry does in 2004. Kerry needs a bit of juice -- that's why Edwards or Hillary (about which more below) would be better picks.

Con: Widely perceived as an unexciting captive of Washington politics with limited appeal to swing voters.

Unexciting, yes. Wasn't this a plus just one sentence ago? As for the swing voters, I don't know about that. When Gephardt declared his candidacy last year, there was a take-Gep-seriously conservative boomlet. George Will probably wrote the definitive piece on this (if it's available online outside of Nexis, I can't find it). If avowed conservatives find something to like about Gephardt -- and despite his "miserable failure" catch phrase, I do -- then so would swing voters.

Oh yeah, did I mention Gephardt voted for the war and, unlike John Kerry, pretty much stood by that vote throughout the primaries? (Though not as strongly as Joe Lieberman did, and look how far that got him.) Kerry needs the left, since Nader will at least be on the ballot in Florida. A relatively unapologetic Gephardt wouldn't help.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, N.Y.

Odds: 9-1 (Chance for the ticket: 10 percent)

Pro: Like a bunker-busting bomb, picking her would remake this race and provoke a news media frenzy. No one could do more to excite the Democratic base. Her background in health care politics might be an asset as Kerry struggles to spotlight the issue.

Say what? How hard would it be for the Republicans to bring back Harry and Louise? (Yes, I'm linking Wikipedia's black sheep sister, Disinfopedia.) Hillarycare, as it came to be known, was a total disaster. There is some argument to be made for a federal reorganization of health care -- even a conservative one -- but to say that Hillary Clinton is a credible figure on the issue is absurd.

Con: She turns off some swing voters. And Bill Clinton’s book tour is highlighting his scandalous past more than his supporters had hoped.

Okay, I agree with that, too.

Consider this a failed fisking. (So why am I posting it? Because it was fun to write, and I got to criticize someone far more important than me!) If anything, it underscores the point that nobody -- not Craig Crawford, nor any other experienced Beltway observer -- has any idea who Kerry will choose. We all think Edwards is the most likely, but there are a host of reasons to think he will not be the pick. And although Hillary is probably a bit more of a longshot than Crawford writes, it's hard to think of anyone more likely. (Vilsack? Surely you jest.)

Crawford gets the details wrong, but he gets the bigger picture right. Then again, that bigger picture is conventional wisdom, so it's not like he stuck his neck out at all. Despite it all, I do have to give him some credit for titling the column "Use This Tip Sheet Now, It's About To Become Obsolete." Ha! Very true.

P.S. You've probably seen the news on Drudge that Kerry will announce his VP pick first on the internet, in an e-mail to supporters (read: anyone who signs up for the mailing list). This will delay the announcement not a whit, since every news organization up to and possibly including al Qaeda's internal listserv signed up months ago. But it's nonetheless smart: it'll get plenty of undecided-but-curious voters to sign up for regular messages from the campaign. It also hasn't been done before, so it's possibly the most futuristic advancement in online politicking since Howard Dean revolutionized the medium.These are intangibles, and who knows how many votes this could really pick up (just ask Dean). But presidential elections -- especially the close ones -- are often won and lost on the intangibles. So chalk this one up as an ... uh, I don't know. I said no prognostications.

SPRINGTIME FOR GODWIN'S LAW

The Bush campaign's Hitler ad is now pretty much history -- indeed it seems to have been quietly removed from the media page on their website -- but I think there's still a few things worth following up on.

Jonah Goldberg, whom I usually agree with, was harsher on the ad than I was in his syndicated column. He calls it a "bad ad" because

the subliminal message is that all the ranters are similar: Gephardt, Kerry, Gore, Hitler, Dean, Moore, and so on. In other words, the Bush campaign wants it both ways. They want to take the high road by condemning the hateful politics of their opponents, while at the same time they take the low road with a wink and a nod. I don't think the ad is evil or outrageous in the way that the folks at Moveon.org, the DNC and various liberal journalistic outlets do, but, yeah, they have a point. Using your enemies' transgressions as a Trojan Horse to do the same thing isn't worth the cost to your own credibility.

This is essentially the point made by the commenters to my original post on the matter. I suppose I have warmed up to this point in recent days, partly because of this quote line from E.J. Kessler's latest column for The Forward:

While Bush campaign officials deny any intention to use the ad to try to paint Kerry and his allies as extremists on par with Hitler, Jewish organizational officials said they were hearing complaints from members convinced that the ad was designed to do just that.

Well, I'm sorry to hear it. I still don't think the point of the ad was to compare Democrats to Nazis (as Weisberg and Saletan said), and I do think that is a misreading of the ad. If there's evidence to the contrary, no one has yet provided it. But if that's what people are thinking, then I'm sure Matthew Dowd and Ken Mehlman would consider it a happy accident.

Also of note, in the same column the president of the American Jewish Congress, Paul Miller, says:

"Having reviewed the Bush ad, we do not believe that it is a clear comparison of Senator Kerry to Hitler in the way we saw the MoveOn.org ad. ... Yet, we think there are better ways of attacking insensitivity than merely redisplaying the ugliness. The ad should be withdrawn."

And so it seems to have been. Perhaps on a first viewing, some would indeed take this as "Kerry = Hitler." Just as on first viewing, some would see the Max Cleland ad (discussed in that original post) as "Cleland = Unpatriotic." But that was not the point of either ad. And as they say, interpretations are like assholes...