The Angel, the Sidekick, and the King of Pop.






Although this is an extremely difficult time for her family and friends, we take comfort in the beautiful times that we shared with Farrah over the years and the knowledge that her life brought joy to so many people around the world.Farrah Fawcett, 1947-2009.

Also leaving us of late, Ed McMahon, 1923-2009. “‘Quit? Oh, I’ll never quit,’ he told Entertainment Weekly in 2005. ‘This is what I do. If I’m in a wheelchair, I can still do radio. I tell everyone that there is only one way that I’m going to go. I’ll be on TV, we’ll be going to a commercial break, and I’ll look dead into the camera and say, “They’ll be back. I won’t.” And that will be it.’

Update: “‘Michael Jackson made culture accept a person of color,’ the Rev. Al Sharpton said. ‘To say an “icon” would only give these young people in Harlem a fraction of what he was. He was a historic figure that people will measure music and the industry by.‘” Michael Jackson, 1958-2009.

Mr. President, there’s a “Mr. Kettle” on the phone…

“‘This is what happens any time anyone tries to question a statement or a position of Senator Obama,’ Clinton says in an interview now airing on Sirius satellite radio. “The response is, ‘You’re attacking me personally,’ and that relieves him of the obligation to address the substance.Bill Clinton spins himself deeper. When has Sen. Obama said anything of the sort? The closest I could find was this, from Dec. 21, after several weeks of Sen. Clinton’s “Now comes the fun part” attack strategy: “‘So far, I think, attempts to go negative in a way that’s not policy-based have backfired on the people who have gone in that direction,’ Obama said during a brief interview…’I would distinguish between ads that I would say maybe mischaracterize my positions but had to do with policy, versus personal attacks or attempts to go at my character or those things. In which case, I will answer them swiftly and truthfully if they’re false and trust in the voters.’” So Obama hasn’t said anything of the kind. Clinton instead appears to be projecting his own tried-and-tested strategy upon the Senator from Illinois.

President Clinton’s clarifying of his sad “fairy tale” moment is as follows: “Clinton told Sharpton the ‘fairy tale’ remark was only intended to describe Obama’s claim to have exercised better judgment about the war, and was not intended as a sign of ‘personal disrespect.’” Clinton has then continued to press this “flip-flopper on Iraq” attack: “And in fifteen debates, no one ever once bothered to ask Senator Obama, ‘How can you say you were always against the war, and your judgment is better than theirs, and they were wrong to vote for that resolution which authorized force, when two years after you gave the anti-war speech in 2004, you, Senator Obama said you didn’t know how you would have voted on that anti-war resolution, number one, then two days later, you said there was no difference between you and President Bush on the war?’

For what it’s worth, Tim Grieve posted on this on “fairy tale” day, as did I, and an exhausted-seeming Obama responded to ABC then too. (Note, in Obama’s response to Clinton, that he says nothing akin to what Clinton is claiming about personal attacks.) So I’m repeating myself now, but then again so are the Clintons.

As Americans can remember all too well, former President Clinton has a practiced affinity for the lawyerly half-truth. (“That depends on what your definition of the word “is” is,” ad absurdum.) With regard to this continued smear, the key word is “debates.” This exact question may not have come up during a Democratic debate, sure. But it was one of the centerpieces of Obama’s appearance on Meet the Press on November 11 — see page 2 of the transcript — and it’s been asked and answered. (See also this incomplete clip of CNN’s Candy Crowley covering the same ground with Obama.) Worse, Clinton keeps leaving out the parts of Obama’s quotes that prove his charges are baseless. I’ve reposted Grieve’s summation below:

Yes, Obama said in 2004 [at the Democratic convention, as we were nominating two war-voting Senators] that he did not know how he would have voted on the war if he’d been in the Senate at the time. But he suggested in the same interview that his uncertainty stemmed from the fact that he wasn’t ‘privy to the Senate intelligence reports” that sitting senators saw,’ and he added: ‘What I know is that, from my vantage point, the case was not made.” [My emphasis.]

Did Obama really say in 2004 that there was ‘no difference’ between his views and George W. Bush’s on the war? Not exactly. As the Washington Post has explained previously, what Obama actually said in the interview to which Clinton was referring was that while he would have voted against the resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq, he was not in favor of ‘pulling out now.’ Thus, when Obama said that there’s ‘not much of a difference between my position and George Bush’s position at this stage,’ he was plainly referring to the question of whether to stay in Iraq, not the decision to invade in the first place.

Clinton kept repeating this “fairy-tale” accusation in his string of so-called apologies today, but he has yet to give the full story about Obama’s remarks. He’s contrived a negative attack out of a deceptive half-truth, and he’s clearly just trying to confuse people. When it comes to the substance of Clinton’s smear, there’s no there there.

In short, President Clinton is obfuscating here about Senator Obama’s view of the war. Use a stronger word if you’d like.

Update: “‘I’m really troubled by his questioning the sincerity of Barack Obama’s opposition to the war in Iraq,’ Durbin said. ‘I really think it is unfortunate to question Barack’s sincerity on the war. He has been there from the start, opposing this war.’” Obama supporter Sen. Richard Durbin responds — and responds hard. I love this: “If President Clinton had opposed that war as strongly as Barack Obama at the time, it would have helped a lot of us who had voted against authorizing an invasion.” Touche.

The Ties that Bind.

“‘It was probably the most shocking thing of my life…I couldn’t describe to you the emotions I have had…everything from anger to outrage to reflection to some pride and glory.” Genealogists discover a hitherto unknown historical (and perhaps genetic) link between Al Sharpton and Strom Thurmond: namely, in the dark days of slavery, Thurmond’s people owned Sharpton’s. “‘In the story of the Thurmonds and the Sharptons is the story of the shame and the glory of America,’ Sharpton said Sunday.

Biden’s Macaca Moment.

“He’s ‘the first mainstream African American [presidential candidate] who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that’s a storybook, man.‘” As you no doubt heard, Joe Biden torpedoed his own official candidacy announcement this week by using dubious language to describe his rival, Barack Obama. (Well, at least the words were his own.) The sticking point in the news seems to be Biden’s talk of Obama as “clean” — Al Sharpton had a nice riposte: “I take a bath every day.” But really, “articulate” is pretty bad too: It’s one of those classic buzzwords of unwitting racist condescension. (He’s so well-spoken!) Say it ain’t so, Joe.

Harkin to me/GitM for Dean.

In a week of minor stumbles (among them caucus-dissing — let’s face it, the Iowa caucuses are dominated by special interests. Ethanol subsidies, anyone? — and gubernatorial honoraria), Howard Dean pulls up another key endorsement in Tom Harkin. At this point, I’ll just go ahead and say that I hope the good Doctor takes both Iowa and New Hampshire and ends all the primary shenanigans sooner rather than later. It’s a safe bet to say that I like Howard Dean better than any of the other eight candidates, but that frankly isn’t saying much, and particularly given how Edwards, Clark, and Kerry have all underperformed.


I’ll be honest – I’m much less enthused by Dean than I was by Bradley last cycle. Dean has yet to make any policy proposals that I flat-out love, and I find him neither as progressive nor as inspiring as I’d like. In fact, more often than not, he kinda leaves me cold…But, of the nine, he’s the witch-king, so to speak. His occasional grouchiness and glibness does concern me, but no more so than any of the other candidates’ personality traits (And let’s drop the “unelectable” stuff…c’mon, this country elected George W. Bush. Anyone‘s electable. Oh, wait a minute, we didn’t.) In sum, Dean’s run a great campaign to this point, he’s got money and moxie to spare, and he clearly strikes a chord with many Democratic souls out there, so here’s hoping the party coalesces around him before we bleed ourselves to death solely to satisfy the big dreams of also-rans and the bruised egos of the DLC.

Race enters the Race.

Up to now, he seemed content with making a few zingers at the Dem debates. But now, Reverend Sharpton is fighting mad, calling frontrunner Howard Dean “anti-black” in a recent statement. (The Deanies have issued a reply.) Well, I’m perturbed about Dean’s stance on gun control and the death penalty as well (although most of the candidates are pro-death penalty this time around.) But it seems pretty clear in this case that Sharpton is gunning more at the credibility of Jesse Jackson, Jr. (soon to endorse Dean – his father is keeping mum for now) in the black community. Besides, class-based or no, Dean is more of a friend to affirmative action than Gore was back in the day. And speaking of Gore, Dick Gephardt tries once again to pin a Gore-like Mediscare gambit on Dean. Meanwhile, John Edwards, for his part, continues to pursue the Southern strategy.

“Lockbox” is still up for grabs…

Ryan Lizza looks at the charges of plagiarism and kleptomania resounding across the Democratic field at the moment, singling out the Dean campaign as the most “protective–some might say paranoid.” It seems to me that, while there’s clearly a lot of protective camouflage going on, one would have to expect some degree of overlap in a field of nine candidates, particularly when the allowable range of leftiness is so frustratingly small.

Primary Colors.

In a cover story for TIME, Joe Klein gives his take on the Democratic field. I don’t agree with everything he has to say (for example, giving Dubya a pass on Iraq), but it’s worth reading nonetheless.

Round 1.

Well, after watching a rebroadcast of Saturday’s first Democratic debate on C-Span yesterday…

The Top Tier: I’d have to say it’s still a three-man race for my vote right now among Kerry, Dean, and Edwards. I personally thought Edwards came off the best, although he benefited greatly from being the first Dem to step “above” the Kerry-Dean fracas. As per the rap on him, Kerry seemed somewhat bored and remote, while Dean – who usually says the right things on paper – appeared pugnacious and self-satisfied. To my dismay, Dean seemed even less personable on the telly than Tsongas did back in the day. So, of the three, I thought Edwards seemed like he had the best chance of not being pigeonholed as a Standard-Issue Out-Of-It Liberal in a debate with Dubya, and he seemed much more comfortable using populist rhetoric than Gore ever did. To my mind, Edwards wins Round 1, although obviously we have quite a few more rounds to go.

The Rest: If I had to pick a fourth choice, it’d probably be Moseley-Braun, who got in the best line of the evening with her Florida recount gag. (“People said that the black vote would decide the election of 2000, and it did…Clarence Thomas’s.“) Gephardt seemed a bit weary of primary shenanigans, Lieberman (who inexplicably is getting the best postdebate press) is in the wrong primary, and Bob “Live in Fear” Graham, Al Sharpton, and Dennis Kucinich were too busy playing Orrin Hatch, Alan Keyes, and Gary Bauer respectively. Didn’t much care for Stephanopoulos as self-proclaimed Kingmaker either (although I guess ABC had to use someone in their stable, and he was the most likely candidate), and I found his “I speak for the electorate about your foibles” routine in Pt. III to be wildly unproductive, if not downright insulting. While his characterizations of the candidates’ flaws might have occasionally been on the money (although occasionally they weren’t…who says Lieberman is too nice to be the Democratic candidate? Too theocratic, perhaps – too Republican, for sure – but too nice? That softball was a gift.), more time spent on issues and less on inside baseball would surely have been in order for the first debate.