7/7: Those Who Live In Glass Houses...

The Blogometer was once told a great story about a king who lived in a two-story grass hut when all others around him lived in one-story abodes. The king was cruel, and forced his subjects to build him a copper throne. When he got tired of it, he made them build him a silver throne and stored the copper one on the second floor. His rear end quickly stopped enjoying the silver throne, so he commissioned a gold throne and put the silver one next to the first throne, upstairs. Once gold began to bore him, he flogged his people until they built him a platinum one. Finally, as he sat in his platinum throne, his second floor collapsed, and the first three thrones -- gold, silver and copper -- crashed down on his head, killing him. Which just goes to show that those who live in grass houses shouldn't stow thrones.

We have a larger point here, and it revolves around the current issue splitting large portions of Dems from what should be its natural base at this moment -- angry activists ready to go out and vote for anyone with a "D" after their name. But bloggers want the best of all worlds, as last night's CT Sen debate shows, and the previous week of events surrounding one entrant's promise to seek independent status if he loses the primary, as well as blog reax to both candidates. They've asked for their thrones -- an anti-war candidate, party purity, promises from party leaders to support a potentially weaker Dem nom over a decades-old friend and usual ally and similar promises from 3 top CT recruits Dems need to win to have any shot at taking back the House.

The debate, in the minds of many political analysts, was pretty one-sided. And it should be -- a veteran pol who's debated as a VP candidate versus a neophyte businessman? But bloggers took the spanking poorly, and those supporting Lamont all note the incumbent's perceived rudeness. In fact, one, in the course of pointing out his rudeness, used a seven-letter word that we felt compelled to edit. Can the blogosphere grow a thicker skin? Can they win a race against an incumbent? Or will they blow their '06 momentum on a seat that, almost no matter the outcome, will remain a Dem seat, instead of spending their energy on seats they might actually pick up for Dems? Is Ned Lamont the throne that begins the hut's collapse?

Stow thrones, throw stones, it's all the same.

CT SEN: Thursday Night Fights

7/6's lively debate between Sen. Joe Lieberman (D) and businessman Ned Lamont had the entire lefty blogosphere -- and a surprising portion of the righties -- watching. Washington Post has a complete transcript of the debate. Spazeboy has all kinds of video. Hotline's Jonathan Martin reviews the debate -- as well as blogger reaction.

Those who think Lamont won the debate frequently charge that Lieberman was "rude" to Lamont. Atrios calls his round-up "Angry Joe." DownWithTyranny!: "Wow, imagine if the mellow Joe we saw 'debating' his pal Dick Cheney in 2000 would have been as aggressive and assertive then as he was tonight in his rude front attack on Democrat Ned Lamont. But of course, George Bush's and Ann Coulter's favorite Democrat has a lot more practice and experience attacking Democrats than he does attacking Republicans (who he generally kisses)." Firedoglake: "Can anyone tell me if they witnessed Lieberman thanking Ned Lamont for the debate? I have heard from more than one source now that he did not, and I must say if that is true, it is appalling. What a poor sport." More (with video): "Lieberman came off as a rude Republican a******, with nothing in the tank but personal attacks." Kos, meanwhile, was clearing brush while watching the debate: "For Lieberman, it's all about power. And he'll be as vicious, as rude, as boorish, and as dishonest as he needs to be to cling to it." One of Kos' 400+ commentors liveblogging through an open thread asks: "Did Joe get botox?" Matt Stoller: "Lieberman kept interrupting and rebutting, but really didn't make any effective points. He started off angry, and ended angry. He didn't thank Lamont for showing up, which is sort of one of those little courtesies you show people in debates." Stoller also fact-checked many of Lieberman's claims. And My Left Nutmeg recalls Lieberman's assertion that he tied for 3rd in NH during his '04 WH bid, and David Sirota recalls one of The Blogometer's favorite movies ever. Copeland Institute: "Honestly, I don't think either of them came off particularly well, though the display of Lieberman's arrogance and annoyance lit up the screen brightly." Lamont fan Crooks and Liars has video of the post-debate analysis on MSNBC and thinks the coverage was fair. TruthDig critiques the two candidates' net outreach and says Lamont is the clear winner.

Lamont's campaign posts a debate fact check, offered a Debate Headquarters last night as well as a post-debate spin room.

Some, however, thought Lieberman, the much more experienced candidate, carried the day. Lefty Ezra Klein: "Lieberman won. No other way to put it. He pummeled Lamont. Even his body language had transformed -- I always assumed him a relatively gaunt, small-framed guy. Tonight he looked one shot of jack away from ripping off Lamont's head and eating his brains. Lamont, for his part, appears to have never had media training. Staring at the camera is the first thing you're taught, yet his eyes were darting about like a pup transfixed by a fly. He looked small, nervous, and unsenatorial." And, says lefty Brad Bauman: "I can't help but feel that activists in my wing of the Democratic Party may be making a big mistake in throwing its support behind Lamont. ... Sure I want to spit every time I think of the warm embrace and kiss that Joe shared with Bush on national television. Sure it infuriates me to think he voted for Gonzales' confirmation (even though he wasn't alone) and yeah, I am mad as hell that he continues to be a strong supporter on an illegal, immoral war that has done more harm to our republic and our standing in the world than anything we have ever done but Joe Lieberman is a Democrat, a loyal Democrat who has served our party and his constituents well in the Senate, has been a consummate gentleman, is deeply devout in his beliefs and frankly, deserves to be treated much better than this." It shouldn't surprise anyone that many of those who agree situate themselves in the middle or on the right side of the blogosphere. New Haven Independent: "So far in the campaign, Lieberman, as the targeted incumbent, has been on the defensive. Not so Thursday night." Ryan Sager: "I admit I came in as a Lieberman supporter (one of his many conservative supporters). But in my first prolonged exposure to Lamont I found him deeply unimpressive." Righty Blue Crab Boulevard: "At the end of it all, my reading is that Lieberman beat heck out of Lamont." Outside The Beltway, which live-blogged the debate: "Without much reflection, it's easy to call this debate for Lieberman. Despite his sometimes overzealous aggressiveness, I think anyone listening carefully would agree that Lieberman defeated Lamont handily with those silly little things called facts with which Lamont was curiously light."

Joe Gandelman rounds up the debate's key points, and those of MSM coverage afterwards. He concludes, noting that Lieberman was looking for knockout punch lines (erm, no pun intended): "So you think this was Lincoln Douglas quality? There you go again......" Hot Air live-blogged the debate, while RedState's Mark Kilmer, calling Lieberman a liberal, is rooting for Lamont: "When the fringe is successful in combating the middle, the party is not healthy. The Democrat Party is ill. Whether the disease be terminal depends on the persistence and the success of the lefty Nutroots and the other alternate-universe sorts."

In other CT Sen news, Arianna Huffington asks: "What the hell is Barbara Boxer thinking?"

WH '08: Say It Ain't Joe

Sen. Joe Biden's (D-DE) statement, reported in OnCall, that one must have an Indian accent to enter a 7-11 or Dunkin' Donuts in his home state has drawn criticism, though mostly tounge-in-cheek from those who think Biden had no shot to begin with. RedState's Leon Wolf: "Thus ends the 2008 Presidential Campaign of Peter Griffin Joe Biden." Michelle Malkin: "There are plenty of reasons to roll your eyes when Biden opens his mouth. This doesn't make my list." Adam Graham: "On the bright side, it won't really destroy anyone's political career over an Un-PC mark given that Biden's going to lose in 2008 regardless." Irish Pennants: "Slow Joe may not be a laugh a minute, like Al Gore, but he's close." Jonathan Leffingwell: "I don't have to ask what the reaction would be from the MSM and the left (pardon the redundancy) if a Republican said such a thing, do I?" Rhymes with Right agrees: "I'm curious -- where is the uproar? Where is the outrage? Certainly this is much more offensive than Trent Lott's courtly compliment to a centenarian." Ankle Biting Pundits offers a round-up of other things you can't do without an accent. Some are pretty offensive, but our favorite is just funny (unless you're French): "You can't enter into a surrender pact unless you have a French accent."

BUSH: Reminds Us Of Letterman's Great Old "Larry King Looks Like An Owl" Bit

The birthday boy sat down for a Larry King grilling yesterday, and some bloggers took note of a few choice statements. Truthdig noted Bush's saying that he doesn't have intelligence briefings on Sundays, "Presumably because that's the day the Lord takes a break from those updates, too." The One With Aldacron, on Bush saying he'd "rather be judged as solving problems and being correct, rather than being popular": "Well, we all know he won't be judged as being popular. As to solving problems and being correct ... in his fantasy world, perhaps. " Crooks and Liars quotes Bush as saying he doesn't know Mexico Pres-elect Calderon, and then quotes an interview with AP in which Calderon says he's met with Bush "several times." Rooks Rant: "All I want to know is-did Bush manage to resist the urge to snap King's suspenders? You know that Ignoramus was thinking it the whole time." The Heretik: "All Larry King interviews end the same way. Questions always remain for the subject and questions about King's questions will have no answer." Newsbusters quibbles with the New York Times' Alessandra Stanley's assertion that Bush only went on "LKL" to boost "ever-sliding ratings in the polls."

IRAQ: The Missing Link?

Fox News' Ray Robinson reports that an Arab regime, possibly Iraq, "supplied how-to manuals for Arab operatives working throughout Afghanistan before 9/11, and provided military assistance to the Taliban and Al Qaeda." Captain's Quarters wonders if this pre-9/11 find is evidence of a Taliban/Saddam link. "It's not exactly a smoking gun, but it provides yet another piece of evidence towards that conclusion." Iowa Voice: "It's rapidly becoming clear that Saddam was connected to al Qaeda, he had lied about not having WMDs (despite what the libs tell you, the munitions found ARE WMDs), and was more than likely making plans to restart his WMD programs." Confederate Yankee: "This document, of course, will be contested by those who refuse to believe that Saddam supported terrorism. ... For the rest of us, however, every document that Ray Robinson's team translates helps to build a picture of a Baathist regime every bit as dangerous as we thought it was."

The New York Timesreports Southern Poverty Law Center claims that recruitment difficulties has caused officers and officials to turn a blind eye to "large numbers of neo-Nazis and skinhead extremists" who have joined the U.S. Army, with some serving in Iraq. The racists' goals are to recieve military training for a future "race war." The SPLC has called on Def. Sec. Donald Rumsfeld to "appoint a task force to study the problem, declare a new zero tolerance policy and strictly enforce it." Righty Gateway Pundit doesn't believe the report because "First of all, military recruitment is up this year despite the best efforts from the Left and John Murtha. So, the New York Times ought to write a correction for that misrepresentation, alone. Show us one! Just one! I've never even met a Neo-Nazi or a Skinhead in my entire life, but I am supposed to believe there are thousands in the military?... Please!" Fellow righty Marc Shulman at AMERICAN FUTURE says Gateway is using "Curious logic, indeed. I've never met a Tanzanian, so I suppose that means there aren't any." Blue Crab Boulevard doesn't dismiss the claims out of hand, believing "If there are members of the military who are also members of "hate groups", they should be discharged. But reports like this from issue groups like the SPLC probably have a great deal more to do with the group's fund raising efforts than with reality these days." Chris in Paris at lefty AMERICAblog says to deniers that if they "pretend like it's not a problem, it must not exist, I suppose. With the desperate attempt to fill the ranks of the military, standards have really dropped as we can see with the latest rape charges in Iraq and now this horrifying story about hate groups who are joining the military despite regulations against them. .... Rummy has nothing to say about it so far, but I wouldn't expect him or anyone else in the administration to complain, as long as they get their numbers or close to the target numbers."

SECURITY: What A Bunch Of Hacks

A number of bloggers follow up on the Washington Post's report on Thursday that a gov't consultant was able to "crack the FBI's classified computer system and gain the passwords" to FBI employees, incuding dir. Robert Mueller, using programs "easily found on the Internet." Outside The Beltway clarifies a bit, noting that "this was not an Internet hack into the system, but rather a government contractor encouraged to hack the system by a local FBI office." Daniel Drezner: "The administration seems to be obsessed with protecting data from journalists. I'd much prefer it if they were obsessed with protecting their data from hackers." Bark Bark Woof Woof: "What that tells us is that the biggest threat to American security isn't Osama bin Laden; it's a bored teenager with a computer who could hack into the FBI faster than he could download the latest edition of Girls Gone Wild."

NORTH KOREA: Kim Jong-Il Brings Us Much Aloha

Reuters cites unnamed U.S and Japanese sources who claim North Korea's failed Tapeodong 2 missile was headed for Hawaiian waters. Righty bloggers' ears all perked up, and many say Plan B should soon become Plan A. with many considering an attack on N. Korea. Captain's Quarters thinks if the report is correct, "it will increase pressure on the White House to pursue a tougher line on Pyongyang and its missile tests -- perhaps even pushing us towards the risky policy of hitting the launch sites before any more ICBMs fly. .... That shows that the North Koreans represent a direct threat to our territory. Wizbang echoes: "The US may have to destroy any ICBM's that are positioned on the launch pad for fueling. Just because the first Taepodong missile failed quickly, doesn't mean NoKo won't get the technology right eventually." FullosseousFlap's Dental Blog wants to go Cold War on N. Korea because the UN "will not vote for any type of punitive sanctions. Russia and China love Kim Jong-Il sticking a finger in the eye of the United States. America must DETER North Korea much as it did during the Cold War with the old and failed Soviet Union. The United States can bargain from a position of strength and let Kim Jong-Il know that should another provocative action occur towards the United States that there will be swift and deadly retaliation." Ace of Spades reports that "some (according to the commenters) say the missile is 'merely' alleged to have been aimed at the waters near Hawaii. Which isn't much more comforting. If true, that's still an act of war."

Joe in DC at the lefty AMERICAblog mocks Pres. Bush as "the great statesman, (who) can't get China and Russia on board with his strategy for North Korea. ... because the President invaded Iraq, he has to be passive confronting the other threats. What a mess." Bush said the world expects Kim Jung-Il to "adhere to international norms." Liberal Blah3 tells Bush to "fill in your own list. Just for starters: Tossing aside the Geneva Conventions. Torture. 'Extraordinary rendition.' Guarantees over WMDs. The cost of the war. The length of the war. Getting warrants for wiretaps. And to quote Yul Brynner: 'Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera!'"

COULTER: iThenticate? No, YOU Thenticate!

The Blogometer has avoided recent Ann Coulter kerfuffles because there has been little serious news to them, regardless of cable news' infatuation with the leggy blonde. Today, though, we're covering a different part of the story. On 7/2 the New York Postreported that "John Barrie, the creator of a leading plagiarism-recognition system, claimed he found at least three instances" of "textbook plagiarism" in Coulter's newest book, after he "ran the book's text through the company's digital iThenticate program. ... Coulter did not respond to requests for comment." Now, Editor & Publisherreports that the Universal Press Syndicate, which runs Coulter's newspaper columns, said it will see what it can find on its own and may use Barrie's software to investigate.

Much of the blogosphere's reaction comes from the left, which thinks Coulter is getting her comeuppance. Righties are largely silent. Jeff Jarvis, who was "talking with an editor I know about the Coulter Cerfuffle [sic], shaking my head that we in media are such idiots for falling into her spider's web and giving her just the publicity she wants for saying the next outrageous thing. No, the editor said, it's actually a conspiracy: Media are loving it, for they get another alleged controversy and lots of ink and link and hot air on-air. It's a conspiracy, a conspiracy of cynics." ECHIDNE OF THE SNAKES wonders if the accusations are "what gets the establishment media upset with one of their favorite interviewees and not her exhortations towards violence or her inability to answer any questions without turning them into some hare-brained accusation, well,...I forgot how to complete that sentence. I've lived too long in a world where values are upside down." Similarly, Eric Boehlert of the Huffington Post's Eat The Press believes the accusations against Coulter and "begs the question, how long is Universal Press Syndicate and its clients going to put up with Coulter's complete -- and I mean complete -- abandonment of journalistic standards and professionalism?"

BLOGGERS VS. BLOGGERS: Blood On Malkin's Hands?

Hit and Run's David Weigel noted the suicide of UC-Santa Cruz Chancellor Denice Denton, and noted that Michelle Malkin had nothing to say about it, even though she had previously posted her contact information and urged readers to call the "capitulationist chancellor." Malkin responded: "Weigel attacks me for not saying anything about Denton's suicide. Crikey. If I had said anything, his ilk would have jumped all over me for not having the compassion to keep quiet about her various scandals and corruptocrat ways and let her loved ones mourn in peace."

Naturally, it can't end there. Weigel responds: "She refuses to consider that because she doesn't enjoy getting hate mail, maybe the people she embroils in hate mail campaigns don't like it either. Most of the time they shrug it off and move on. This time Malkin attacked a woman who was already seriously troubled, and who later killed herself. Some people would put two and two together and feel a twinge of guilt for piling on this woman. Malkin didn't." Greg Sargent: "Malkin also defended herself by saying that, no, she hadn't described UC Santa Cruz as 'traitorous'; she'd merely described it as 'seditious.' What a relief -- Malkin went easy on her." John Amato thinks Malkin is auditioning to be the next Ann Coulter. Ace of Spades HQ: "Malkin states the obvious: she didn't kill Denice Denton. Her own troubled psychology did."

BLOGGERS VS. THE MSM: Lefties Pile-On Zengerle

According to the Boston Globe, Kos/Armstrongate may not be significant because of what actually did or didn't happen, but because it "may be a benchmark in the blogosphere's entrance into mainstream politics, as blogs begin to face the same level of scrutiny as traditional media outlets." Then again, it's still about The New Republic's Jason Zengerle fighting with the Kos and MyDD. Zengerle also claimed "death threats" were made to him after he started fighting with Kos and Armstrong. The big lefty blogs are raging at Zengerle. Steve at THE NEWS BLOG writes that "The Globe article makes Zengerle out to be a victim, when in reality, he victimized several people, including me, by his sloppy, inaccurate writing, I can't really call it reporting. But the underlying premise ... was that Kos is taking money from pols for support. God, what a f****** stupid transposition of reality. Kos gives money to pols. Most of the current ads on his site are for media products and unions. ... As for some secret alliance with Jerome Armstrong, uh, Armstrong had his own site, MyDD, which is also quite popular. He never was a part of Daily Kos. So why isn't MyDD pushing Warner? TAPPED's Matthew Yglesias thinks Zengerle can't be offended by Kos' accusations that TNR is "The Joe Lieberman Weekly" because the magazine explicitly committed itself to the advancement of Liebermanism in an unsigned editorial. Atrios says Zengerle hasn't provided "any actual examples of the claimed death threats. It's certainly possible that Zengerle got them, but everyone always claims they get them whenever bloggers get annoyed at their dishonesty and nobody ever seems to produce them. Personally I'd suggest forwarding them to the FBI and having people arrested. Oddly that never seems to happen either."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: In Case You Didn't Agree With Ned Or Joe ...

Ex-DNC press sec. Terry Michael posts what he calls "a libertarian Democrat manifesto." He writes: "Since the end of the Sixties, the party that boasts the oldest continuing national committee in the world, formed in 1848, has been experiencing a problem not uncommon to venerable institutions: a loss of brand equity. ... People still vote Democrat, of course -- they still buy the product -- but the old-time Democratic religion lost its revivalist energy sometime after Nixon resigned and Carter failed. Nowhere is that reflected more than in the abandonment of our party's old auxiliary label, liberal, which all but disappeared in the 1970s and was replaced by the soft, safe descriptor: progressive." He suggests replacing one "L" word for another -- libertarian instead of liberal -- saying it "can inspire a 21st Century base and attract many voters who have come to believe both parties may be obsolete, and are seeking an alternative. We are going to get a new party in America, but not by addition. It will be in a way Shirley McClain might appreciate -- through reincarnation."

LEST WE FORGET: Philosophers, Always Good For A Laugh

The Blogometer wishes it had read more philosophy in college. It read some, but it always felt like there was more to find. For those of you who feel the same way, this Friday we offer The Philosophy of Kissing. Our favorite: The Nietzscheian Kiss: "She/he who does not kiss you, makes your lust stronger."

Truer words were never spoken. Which reminds the Blogometer that it really ought to buy its girlfriend some roses.