I'm at the Park Hyatt in Philadelphia, where Hillary Clinton will eventually give her victory speech, assuming that she wins, which is what everyone assumes. Barack Obama is heading to Indiana, where the campaign heads next (along with North Carolina). And he's not here, because, well, you leave the building early when you think you've lost.
Ohio polls have closed. And, surprise, it’s too close to call in the Democratic race. (Btw, McCain wins AGAIN!!!! Is it me, or is starting to look like McCain might be the Republican nominee?)
The polls have closed in Vermont. We (or at least the boys and girls at CNN) have a winner. Try to control your excitement.
Mike Huckabee said he was "embarrassed." Sam Brownback said it was a "disgrace." They looked like they actually meant it.
Rudy Giuliani, he didn't say anything at all. Neither did John McCain or Mitt Romney or Fred Thompson. That's because they weren't anywhere to be seen, or heard.
As you've no doubt heard, the Big Four in the Republican primary race decided to blow off the PBS debate on issues facing black Americans. All four apparently had, uh, scheduling conflicts. For those inclined to believe the excuses, here's Newt Gingrich's take: "Any of them who give you that scheduling-conflict answer are disingenuous. That’s baloney.�
"Disingenuous" is a long word for "lying." And baloney -- note to David McSwane -- is just one thing you can be full of.
You can wait for the things-are-getting-better-ever-so-slightly-so-we-need-to-stay-in-Iraq-just-another-couple-of-years-or-so-if-not-forever Petraeus/Crocker/Bush/Cheney report in mid-September. Or you can take the word of pliant congressmen just back from their military-escorted tours of the Green Zone and maybe just beyond.
Or you can read the real story -- hard-earned truth -- from seven noncommissionered officers who have spent the last 15 months in Iraq and who bravely wrote this op-ed for The New York Times.
I'm on the campaign trail watching Hillary Clinton in Las Vegas. Hey, it's my job. And how can you resist the siren song of the $10.99 all-you-can-eat, surf-and-turf buffet?
In any case, I'm with a friend who's definitely in the anti-Clinton camp who tells me, "It scares the hell out of me that she might actually get elected." When I ask him why she scares him more than the other Democrats do, he thinks and then admits he doesn't have a good answer.
I do. It's Karl Rove's fault. OK, it's not all his fault. He didn't invent the red-blue divide in this country or the anger that goes with it. Rush Limbaugh loved to pillory Hillary long before any of us heard of Karl Rove. It wasn't Rove's fault that the Republicans impeached Bill Clinton either.
But Rove encouraged the division. He nourished it. He won elections with it. He didn't invent the idea of the wedge issue - but you have to love what he did with it. Who else could have made a war against 9/11 terrorists into a battle to see which party could get to 50 percent plus one?
Bob Beauprez is plotting a comeback from his home on the 17th hole of a Lafayette golf course -- on the same land, give or take a fairway, where he was born.
It would be funny if it weren't so, well, funny. (He moved to the golf course home, he told the Rocky's Chris Barge, because he wanted to get back to the land. And, I guess, to the sand traps.)
If you read the article, you can tell that Beauprez still thinks he has a political future. Which raises the question: What is washed-up Republicanese for delusional? And does it involve a pitching wedge?
There is hardly any higher compliment in my business than to be ripped by Bill O'Reilly. The other night in his "Talking Points" segment, he called me a, gasp, secular progressive (to which I plead, uh, what exactly is a secular progressive?).
And he even used my picture. How much better publicity can you get? At least he didn't have his boys from Fox stalk me outside a grocery store.
He was quoting from a column I wrote about Ward Churchill. And, as you know, nobody can pound a dead horse -- or a discounted lefty professor - the way O'Reilly can.
Everyone wants to say the YouTube debate worked because, God, it would be so un-hip, so un-power-to-the-people to say it didn't.
Well, it didn't. It wasn't a flop. It was just a gimmick that amounted to nothing more than all the other debates.
I'm not saying the just-folks questions were any worse than watching Chris Matthews trying to talk over a line-up of presidential contenders. I'm saying the "funny" stuff wasn't particularly funny, and while the moving stuff could be "moving," it didn't elicit any "moving" answers from the candidates, who, in the format, didn't have to engage each other, didn't have to engage the video questioners and, basically, didn't have to do anything more than be engaging for 30 seconds at a time.
