But at least I’ll be brief. You might have heard about the resignation of Barack Obama’s main foreign-policy advisor over what she thought was an off-the-record comment that was, with the exception of one colorful noun, not incorrect and I’m sure milder than many other remarks made on both campaigns. (I’m prejudiced, of course, but from what I’ve seen online at the ground level the Clinton camp is far more prone to going with the nuclear rhetoric, but then I’m a hateful, true believing, misogynist Obamabot.)

Though I think she fouled up, I’m still angry because hiring Samantha Power, an extremely intelligent author and specialist on issues of genocide and human rights, was one of the things that made me really take Senator Obama seriously a few months back, and was probably the single reason I never quite signed on with John Edwards. I’m even more angry that this is the main political story right now because just in the last forty eight hours Clinton has basically endorsed John McCain over Obama. (I thought that all but endorsing a Republican was a cardinal sin in a Democratic primary — but I guess only the reverse is true.)

On a lighter note, yesterday, Clinton’s serpentine main spokesman, Howard Wolfson, equated Obama to Ken Starr. There is a difference, of course, between Ken Starr and a monster. Monsters are sometimes lovable.

Anyhow, time is short today, but fortunately, ace pundit David Corn has said it for me (h/t Josh Marshall). I’m not happy about this.

UPDATE: Has Hillary Clinton touched what should be a third-rail in her statement about qualifications and John McCain? Gary Hart thinks so; meanwhile Blue Texan at Firedoglake (who might be a Hillary supporter, for all I know) thinks she needs to knock it off, anyhow. And, somewhere in West L.A., Larry David, yes, curbs his enthusiasm regarding Hillary and any possible proximity to a red phone.

H/t Election 08

Update: Well, Vermont listened, which is weird because Google Analytics tells me I don’t have any readers there. But now the question is: will this thing ever end? I’m going to have to take a break soon after the next couple of smaller primaries…that Hillary barely seems to be contesting, which seems weird and wrong to me — it’s like she’s using a modified version of Rudy Giuiliani’s strategy, only Hillary fans think it could actually work while others, who are decidely not, say it can’t.

That’s actually what the internal battle among the Democrats is largely about, a 50-state strategy versus a big-state m.o. — actually one major reason for my Obama support is my dislike of the kind of top-down, Beltway-centric disdainful politics and people that Senator Clinton has surrounded herself with, and my support for a more grassroots, or to use Markos Moulitsas’s apt phrase, “people-powered,” approach.

I also note that part of that top-down strategy I oppose seems to be big Google Ads buys, as I see on the right side of my front page right now. How ironic.

So, what movies are playing?

*****

Also a calm from the voice of reason (even if took him forever to stop leaning the other way and come out, mildly, for my guy), Orange County’s own resident nationwide pundit, Kevin Drum. I think I agree. I’d be more certain if things weren’t so freaking…excuse me, “fraking”….scary right now.

****

Were you wondering how the nationwide popular vote was tallying up so far? I was.

DNC-Sanctioned Contests
Obama 12,920,961
Clinton 12,322,695

Including Florida
Obama 13,497,175
Clinton 13,193,681

Including Florida And Michigan
Clinton 13,521,832
Obama 13,497,175

Short version, Obama is still ahead — even if you include Florida where there was no campaign, and Michigan where there was no campaign and Obama was not on the ballot. That won’t change for awhile, though it obviously could, if her momentum continues. I suppose if Wyoming and Mississippi are disappointing for Obama and then Pennsylvania is not just a win but a big blow-out, that could happen by the end of April.

I know that the popular vote doesn’t have any particular official weight to it, but if I were a superdelegate, I’d be looking at the results of my home state and the national results extremely closely. Ultimately, I really and truly hope that if the supers end up determining this race (or there’s some other type of mishigoss, maybe <shudder> at the convention), it had better reflect the popular vote or we’re all in a lot of trouble, and that obviously goes for either candidate.

THIS TIME I’M REALLY THROUGH UPDATING, BUT…: Remember “NAFTA-gate”, well, according to an article in Canada’s Globe and Mail, it was based on an offhand remark (and is, therefore, of course, complete hearsay) that got taken out of context and was in any case 100% reversed in terms of which party made the “Canadian wink,” to wit

The conversation turned to the pledges to renegotiate the North American free-trade agreement made by the two Democratic contenders, Mr. Obama and New York Senator Hillary Clinton.

Mr. Brodie, apparently seeking to play down the potential impact on Canada, told the reporters the threat was not serious, and that someone from Ms. Clinton’s campaign had even contacted Canadian diplomats to tell them not to worry because the NAFTA threats were mostly political posturing.

The emphasis is obviously mine, but the point couldn’t be clearer.

And a huge, big time h/t to Kos for spotting this final end to this possibly crucial non-story that might have helped swing an election or two. There’s a lot of idiocy on many of the diaries over at DailyKos these days, but the “front page” remains highly worthwhile. (and the diaries should improve once the primaries are over).

America’s greatest living right winger is dead. Though much of what Buckley wrote is pretty hard to take, even at times hard to excuse, he was a thoughtful writer who I think believed everything he wrote and, more importantly, didn’t mind others not believing one word of it. He was a fine writer and something only one or two of today’s more prominent hard rightists are — a gentleman. Moreover, he seems to be held in high regard by nearly everyone half sane or half decent who he met, nearly as many of them liberal as conservative. Which explains why relations were reportedly strained with Norman Podhoretz and some others of today’s far right on a National Review cruise last year when he dared to opine that the war in Iraq wasn’t exactly turning out to be a great thing.

And, of course, as we all know, he smoked dope on his yacht (outside the 3-mile limit) and hung out with lefties (not necessarily at the same time). The man knew how to live, and his writer son Christopher noted, he may have died with his boots on, so to speak, working on another entirely wrong headed but interesting, column.

He was a man of taste, at least some of the time, and my fondest memories were his introductions and post-show discussion following the original broadcast of the TV Brideshead Revisited way back when. (Evelyn Waugh’s novel is as casually right wing as many more modern novels are casually leftist.) On the other hand, that taste could obviously break down when confronted with the shock of the relatively new. As per the AP, here’s what Bill had to say about the musical of those dangerous ragamuffins, the Beatles:

“so unbelievably horrible, so appallingly unmusical, so dogmatically insensitive to the magic of the art, that they qualify as crowned heads of antimusic.”

I wonder if he still felt that way after a doobie herbal jazz cigarette?

******

There’s a ton of great stuff to read about the man online. Today’s NYT obituary is unusually thoughtful, lengthy, and definitely worth a read, and this shorter one from the AP (thanks Zayne). Historian/liberal blogger Rick Pearlstein has a touching (if typo-filled — [Update: not that I’m anyone to talk! I just added one important missing word above.]) remembrance of the old Tory. (H/T Jane Hamsher) And, from the National Review itself, which is holding a kind of online wake, comes the memories of his final debate opponent, Mario Cuomo.

Here in liberal cinephile land, the recently self-outed Brian Doan beat me to the punch on this and has some very good stuff to say. (But if George Will and David Brooks are two of the most idiotic voices of the right — what are we to make of these people? Intriguingly, no mention only an extremely brief post acknowledging Buckley’s passing. They’re Podhoretz-heads all the way, I guess. Figures.)

And since I say I love spy stuff, maybe it’s time to read one of those Blackford Oakes novels…sex with the queen of England? Kinky, but definitely conservative.

UPDATE: Jacob Heilbrunn offers a possible reason for Dirty Harry’s loss for words.

There’s a whole lot of insanity out there as we undergo the too-long process of deciding the future of our nation, but this says what’s important.

Film blogging will return…and so will this song, I’m sure.

Today on a special Presidential FtY we’re presenting one video you likely haven’t seen, and two you likely have if you’re a regular web surfer.

For years people told me I was experiencing some kind of memory hallucination, when I described this show. (Please remember that the following is fiction. No resemblance to any Presidents or Presidential candidates is intended, with the possible exception of Mike “You Kids Stay Offa My Lawn!” Gravel.)

And, since we’ve got primaries tomorrow in Wisconsin and Hawaii and since I know that at least some people who occasionally visit this sight aren’t exactly regulars on the political blog scene, I’m putting on a couple of hugely popular videos that seem apposite.

First, I’m presenting the famous viral Obama campaign video featuring various mostly younger celebrities and musicians musicalizing the Senator’s speeches. Though I’m an unapologetic Obama booster, I actually have mixed feelings about this pretty widely acclaimed (by pro-Obamans, at least) short film.

Maybe I’m just constitutionally allergic to complete earnestness. if you haven’t seen it for some reasons, it’s well-done and does have its inspiring moments — even if the only people I recognized right away were Laker’s great and jazz fan Karem Abdul-Jabbar, Herbie Hancock, the wheelchair guy from Oz, and actor Eric Balfour, an apparent Buffy regular who was unceremoniously vampirized and staked in the second episode and who is a shoe-in if they ever make The Jack Palance Story. (How the heck did I miss Scarlet Johanson? Must be the pony tail.)

However, I have no mixed feelings whatsoever about this parody video — which has also been all over the ‘net — which explains in images and sounds, better than I ever could, why this election is the Democrats’ to lose.

Happy P-Day.

So it appears that my visions of the California Super Tuesday race tightening up to a near tie are going to remain naught but visions, short of something really dramatic happening in the whole ultra-confusing “double bubble trouble” mishegas in Los Angeles.

In his exhaustive and somewhat exhausting piece, voting maven Brad Friedman states that perhaps hundreds of thousands of decline-to-state voters might have been disenfranchised, and takes pains to mention and indirect Diebold connection through a departed and apparently entirely incompetent election administrator. (What good is a voting debacle if you can’t at least mention Diebold?)

While I’m sure that Los Angeles Decline-to-State voters would lean heavily toward Obama, it doesn’t sound to me as if including the possibly discarded ballots would do much more than add or subtract a few delegates. Taking action is definitely worthwhile both for the sake of the principle of counting all votes and because, in this wacky election season, a few delegates could make the difference. However, it’s also pretty obvious that it won’t likely make the kind of titanic difference it would take to sway perceptions of the California results. [UPDATE: On the other hand, this mishap or malfeasance in New Mexico really could sway that state’s extremely close caucus. H/t doschi at DKos.] Still, in retrospect, it really does appear that the concerns I passed on about this whole issue in previous Boring Posts were sadly justified.

The other source of my vision was the fact that I spent the better part of a couple of days phone banking for the Obama campaign at their Santa Ana headquarters. When you’re in the bubble of a campaign, you can easily get an incorrect impression of what’s really happening. In our case, we were calling pre-screened phone lists that for good strategic reasons skewed heavily Obama and were, we noted, largely in Alameda county — true Obama country in that the area is dominated by Oakland and Berkeley, a sort of demographic wonderland for the quasi-insurgent Obama campaign, especially with both John Edwards and Dennis Kucinich having dropped out.

For those of you who care about this stuff, my impression of the campaign was a good one. It was as grass roots as you might expect, with a pretty good mix of youthful enthusiasm and professionalism, particularly from the longtime staffers, some of whom had just come from having spent more than a year in Iowa and South Carolina. Regular volunteers (including myself, though I was a johnny-come-lately) were at times a bit woolly, but on the whole substantially saner and much more diverse than other activist types I’ve worked with, one mildly annoying, hand-holding “power circle” notwithstanding.

In fact, pretty much every age, gender, and ethnic group was represented to some degree and I was encouraged by the number of Spanish-speaking callers. Still, I was doing this in Santa Ana, one of the most heavily Latino cities in all of California, so the sampling was (as results bear out), far from scientific.

But that bubble effect kicked in again after the polls were supposed to close statewide at 8:00 p.m. It was supposed to be the post campaign election-return watching party, but then word came that the polls in Alameda county had run out of ballots earlier in the night, and were staying open until 9:00, that meant we could still remind stragglers to get to the polling place — many of whom would be assuming that they missed their opportunity to vote. Phone lists were hastily generated and calling started up at about 8:25. By 8:55 most of had quit…but then word came that the polls were staying open there until 9:30 and then 10:00. Something remarkable seemed to be happening.

I’ve actually worked in telemarketing and phone fundraising a large portion of my life, and one hard and fast rule was never, never, never call after 9:00 p.m., but I was making calls until about 9:50 to people who, with one exceptions, had already voted. Perhaps it was Bay Area enthusiasm for Obama, or perhaps, I’m just a good caller, but no one complained as I hastily suggested they tell anyone they knew who might have missed their chance about the late closing. One caller got a guy, we’ll assume a Berkleyite, in mid-meditation. The meditator, we were told, took the call as a sign from the cosmos and ran out to vote.

Of course, even as the news nationwide was pretty encouraging, we all got a dose of reality on the local results. Certainly, as it turned out, Obama was anything but a big winner in our backyard — but then the real goal in California was always to see how far his campaign could narrow the Clinton victory, given Hillary’s once-prohibitive lead in the local polls. Considering her early lead, the effect of voting by mail, and the proportional nature of the Democratic primaries, 42% really wasn’t too horrible.

Now that my state’s race is over, I did have a bit of demographic fun checking out the results at the California Secretary of State’s site. It’s not news that Northern California was more pro-Obama than more heavily Latino Southern Cal.

Still, the countywide results defy too much easy categorization. For example, more upscale liberals are supposed to be trending toward Obama. But in the national capital of both wine and cheese, Napa, Hillary took the day much as she did in the rest of the state. I’m sure it’s possible the support of United Farm Workers in the vineyard laden region might have swayed the race toward Clinton. But in the neighboring wine capital of Sonoma, Barack managed to edge her out by a few percentage points. Does this all boil to the difference between the two counties in the numbers of Hispanics and/or farmworkers? I could tell you if knew more about the population figures of the two places, but I don’t. I do know that, driving through the counties, the demographic differences are far from obvious.

Some of it was relatively easier to stereotype: upscale, vegetarian-rich Marin, Bill O’Reily’s favorite town ofSan Francisco and, of course, Alameda went decisively for Obama. More business-centric and Latino Santa Clara County (aka Sillicon Valley), went fairly heavily for Hillary. She also nailed the cozy confines of Contra Costa County, just east of Alameda county, which I might have guessed would have leaned slightly Obamaish if I had had to make a bet.

On the other hand, neighboring Yolo and Sacramento counties went narrowly for Obama. Yolo is a little surprising when you consider the heavily agricultural nature of the area, less surprising when you remember that it includes the UC Davis campus. As for Sacramento, which also includes its share of agriculture — are the policy wonks in our state capital breaking heavily for Obama now? I could do this all day, but I’ll stop now. Time to focus on the future.

*****

Did I promise to say something about the end of Mitt Romney’s campaign? Oh yeah, it’s in the title of the post.

Well, I’m tired and I’ve got other stuff to write today and besides, what do you say about the emptiest of empty suits? I’ll just repeat what I’ve said so many before, here and elsewhere.

I’m sorry to see Mitt go because he would have been, I think, by far the easiest candidate to beat. He’s a more handsome John Kerry on whatever is the reverse of steroids; his constant re-engineering of his beliefs to meet new constituencies should have made him an easy mark. But also, by the weird chance that he got into office, I’m think Mitt would have been the least dangerous President, his perceived greater conservatism in comparison to John McCain notwithstanding.

I would have preferred the malleable Romney in many ways to Mr. “More Wars, Fewer Jobs” McCain. Intelligence and perhaps some vestigial integrity is a good thing, I guess, but I’ll take the guy who’ll do the least damage.

Forced friendliness or seething sexual tension?

Well, that was interesting…an election that four out of the five remaining candidates could claim as a victory, though clearly not all victories are created equal. For one thing, the media focus on who won or lost particular states is somewhat misleading on the Democratic side. I’m sure many voters are unaware that these are not winner-take-all primaries and that “almost” actually counts here. So, for all the dramatics, the difference between “winning” and “losing” an extremely closely divided state might be slim to none. Hillary won the Nevada caucuses in terms of votes, but in terms of delegates — which are what actually counts in the primary system — each candidate received half of the state’s 28 delegates. Conversely, Obama famously beat her by about 8 points in Iowa, but they wound up getting exactly the same number of delegates.

Weirder still, despite beating Clinton by a fairly wide 14 percent margin in Alabama, Obama is currently estimated to be gettng two fewer delegates than Clinton there, presumably because he won fewer precincts. The Democratic primary is both horseshoes and hand grenades. (My source for all this is CNN’s handy delegate/election scorecard — though keep in mind that the delegate counts are mostly estimates and there is disagreement about the math.)

As you’re no doubt aware, Hillary Clinton got attention-getting, morale-boosting majorities in the biggest states California, Massachusetts, and New York, though the margins in California may still narrow a little in my opinion because of a number of factors (more on that in the next post). She definitely did score a somewhat lopsided victory in her adopted home states of New York and obliterated Obama in Arkansas with 70 percent of the vote there. For his part, Obama trounced here to a slightly lesser degree in his adopted home of Illinois with 65 percent. However, that one might have stung a bit as Hillary is an Illinois native who grew up in the state and still has some connections there.

On the other hand, Obama beat her handily in a healthy number of medium and smaller states, mostly caucauses. My favorite example being his midwestern shellacking of Hillary in Minnesota to the tune of 67 percent of the vote and an estimated 51 out of 88 delegates. I like to attribute the size of this one to a late endorsement by Minnesota’s public radio superstar Garrison Keillor. I call it “the Lake Woebegon Bounce.” Clearly, something gave shy Minnesotans the strength the get up and do what needed to be done.

Regionalism aside, Obama’s strength in most of the caucuses and Hillary’s corresponding weakness speaks to a significant passion gap between the two candidates, particularly among the kind of people who volunteer and donate modest sums of money. Which brings us to the Obama campaign’s post-election surge in the so-called “money primary”.

Riding a wave of smallish donations, Obama has raised $7.2 million since the election as of the last article I checked, while Hillary Clinton was apparently forced to loan her campaign $5 million of her own money amid reports that, for the time being, many of her staffers are working without paychecks. This is obviously a bad problem for her, especially as her donors tend to be wealthier while her base is less well off than Obama’s. [UPDATE: Or, maybe not. Apparently, the bad news triggered a wave of donations for the Clinton campaign putting them on more of an even footing with Obama. No one said this was going to be simple.]

Conventional wisdom in the liberal blogosphere has it that many of her likely contributors are already legally maxed out. If this is so, where will her new supporters come from? On the other hand, John McCain had a similar problem some time back, and a similar response and he’s now considered a likely lock for the Republican nomination. It’s possible she could fare as well and be a financial comeback kid — though the ongoing war of attrition could be tough.

Still, politically, the most important thing is the popular vote. Hillary currently leads in delegates, mainly because of a strong lead in getting the support of super delegates, though the large majority remain uncommitted and will likely lean towards whoever wins the most popular votes nationwide. (Currently committed super delegates also retain the ability to change their allegiances as well — they’re basically high-end voters.) Most of the supers are congressmembers and other pols, and are therefore not likely to risk the wrath of large numbers of their most involved constituents by thwarting their will. I imagine the results nationally and among their constituents will lead their choice.

So, what was Hillary’s lead with the national popular vote on Tuesday? .4 percent. A tiny lead, but still a lead. But then consider that in California as many as 40 percent or more of the votes cast were cast by mail, and it is hardly the only state where — encouraged by convenience as well as by fraud-fearing liberal activists — absentee voting is growing in popularity.

That means that an unknown but undoubtedly large number of the ballots in many states were sent in weeks ago. As of right now, Hillary’s lead is still real. However, in a very literal sense, it is also currently a thing of the past.

NEXT: I Go Local: Madness in Santa Ana, “Double Bubble Trouble” and (less locally), “Mitty, We Hardly Knew Ye”

See, no pic, even.

Sure, I could try and sex this blog up by declaring the FtY bump, as the race in California and throughout the nation tightens within an inch of its life after my stunning, shocking, and all together earthshaking surprise endorsement of Barack Obama. (Maria Shriver? Never heard of the woman.) But all I’d be doing is stealing a joke from Stephen Colbert and, until his writers return, he needs every single one right now.

Instead, I just want to remind readers that tomorrow is probably the most important primary election in the last thirty years.

Here’s the really crucial part: If you are in California and are a “Decline to State” or “Undeclared” voter (i.e., you’re registered to vote, but not in any political party), you CAN vote in Tuesday’s Democratic primary — but you have to ask for a Democratic party ballot. You can find a lot more about it here. The bottom line is, no BS, you can vote in Democratic primaries and it’s illegal for poll workers, who might not be aware of the law, to prevent you from doing so. Be firm, but polite. Speaking softly is good, carrying a big stick might get you arrested, however.

[AND ANOTHER UPDATE — IMPORTANT: Notwithstanding what I wrote below and what’s in comments, there are a large number of anecdotal reports coming in via KPCC’s Airtalk call-in program that there a number of poll workers are apparently not as clued in to the situation as John P. Garry. In particular, there is a lot of confusion over the term “independent” as it seems that both poll workers and voters are unaware that the American Independent is a very small, far-right party (which goes by another name in other states). Non-partisan/Decline to State voters need to be very vigilant that they are being escorted to the correct booth and are given the correct ballots.]

[UPDATE: My thoughts are this are just a jokey variation on what was written in the page I linked to at the Courage Campaign above, as well as the content of the commercial recorded by Bradley Whitford. There was also an incident I discuss in the comments which caused me some concern. However, thanks to FtY friend John P. Garry III below, we read that that at least one poll worker and general, all-around geniusey guy known to me in the real world, has received what sounds like excellent training and will actually offer it as a choice rather than having to be asked. Hopefully you’re mileage won’t very by too much…we shall see. Our friendly bloggingwood poll worker has also helpfully posted a link below to LAVote.net, where Los Angelenos can go to for information, etc.]

If firmness doesn’t work for some reason, then If there are any issues, you can call the California Obama Election Protection Hotline (for fairly obvious reasons having to do with the sensibilities of most Decline to State voters, Hillary Clinton’s campaign isn’t as interested in this aspect of the election — though a big turn-out helps all Democrats and all sane folks, generally)

That’s it. End of my most boring post as I run off to volunteer. Whoever you vote for tomorrow, please vote out of hope, not fear. Fear is what got us into this mess.

So, the other day I spent hours writing this mega-lengthy post trying my best to explain why I think it’s urgent that Democrats and Californian Decline-to-States should vote for Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton. A waste of time.

Now, through the miracle of reverse psychology and counter-example, I will, with but the click of my mouse, persuade every single liberal reader to the side of Barack Obama. A bold statement, to be sure, but I am confident.

I have, via a short clip from, forgive me, Hannity and Colmes, an irrefutable argument that will magically sway all wavering liberals to Obama. And now I cede the floor to… Lord, I can’t believe I’m doing this….

I feel dirty, yet vindicated.

(Backhanded h/t: I found this while trolling reading through the comments at the site formerly known as Blogs for Bush, now Blogs for Victory. Always good entertainment.)

2,080…that’s the number of hits you get on Google if you a very slight variation on the title of one of the better known songs by the Clash. Never think you can beat a million typewriting monkeys to a clever play on early Gen X/late baby-boom pop culture references in the face of big news. In this case, big news is also good news.

Mayor Giuliani is usually called a moderate, but on foreign policy he is probably the single major politician most in step with the war-crazed, utterly discredited yet seemingly un-killable neoconservative movement. (”You fools! Abject failure won’t stop it!”) Honestly, he’s the Republican candidate I feared the most.

Though he probably would have been easy for any Democrat to beat, I didn’t want to take the chance because a victory would have risked a complete breakdown of civilization, and I think I’m being lowkey when I say that. Sure, the others might abridge our freedoms, continue our ruinous foreign policy and all that. But Rudy was a good bet to start that clash of civilizations that neocons fear could end with Britney Spears in a burkha if we don’t start a new war every few months, but which would much more likely would end with millions of dead civilians all over the world, possibly including me, while most of these brave, brave typers, whose “will” never fails, would be cozy in some nice underground bunker with Miss Foreign Affairs, Dr. Strangelove, and Walter Matthau’s character from Fail Safe.

Do I sound extreme? Well, check out the words of the senior foreign policy adviser of the mayor’s now defunct campaign.

(H/t David Weigel.)

That’s Norman Podhoretz, author of the “The Case for Bombing Iran” and longtime grand poobah of the neoconservative movement, who has been so very right about so many things when it comes Iraq and whose support of some of Latin American best loved fascist regimes still warms the cockles of our hemispheric neighbor’s hearts — at least the ones whose relatives weren’t tortured to death.

Here, he urges war with Iran because, when it comes to wars of choice, there’s always room for one more. And, in any case, all other options for preventing Iran from developing a nuclear weapon (you know, the one they’re not working on) have proven “sterile.” But don’t worry, he tells us, because most likely we would have been secretly applauded by all kinds of people in the Middle East. I think they’re the same ones who were so (secretly) delighted about Iraq and who have greeted us with well concealed flowers and candies.

Still, thanks to the good offices of Rudy’s very clever strategy for nabbing the GOP nomination, Mr. Podhoretz is going to have to find a different path to causing the kind of mass destruction he prays for.

As for Rudy, since I’ve got the Clash on my mind, here’s a song dedication.

UPDATE: A departure I’m MUCH sorrier to hear about. I guess the choice is becoming more stark, or something.