December 05, 2007
12/5: Huck-A-Boom A Bust On-Line
As Mike Huckabee's poll numbers increase, so do the attacks on his words, positions, and record. Today, conservative bloggers are taking Huckabee to task for his ignorance about the NIE report on Iran and his role in a serial rapist's release. These two damaging stories will certainly not improve Huckabee's reputation among conservative bloggers, who already distrust him because of his fiscal record and his positions on immigration and torture. If Huckabee manages to win Iowa and claw his way into a two-person race with Rudy Giuliani or Mitt Romney, it seems increasingly likely that conservative bloggers will rally behind his opponent.
GOP FIELD: Understanding The Huckaboom
RCP Blog's John McIntyre thinks that Romney and Giuliani's squabbling has hurt both candidates: "I suspect the voters have been very much turned off by the recent nastiness between Giuliani and Romney. Huckabee has been one clear beneficiary and he just today passed Romney in the RCP National Average, dropping the former Massachusetts Governor all the way to 5th (which is effectively last). And John McCain, the guy who was anointed the media front runner a year ago and then left for dead over the summer, has quietly moved back into 2nd place in the RCP National Average for the first time since June 11th and is now the candidate I would call the dark horse to win the GOP nomination."
NRO's Rich Lowry agrees: "It seems foolish of Romney to have gotten tangled up in a fight with Rudy Giuliani. There is only so much time and energy a candidate can devote to attacks without tarnishing himself and Romney wasted his time and energy on Rudy. His campaign allowed itself to get seduced by Rudy's national numbers into taking him on, when the most important obstacle to Romney's early-state strategy was Huckabee. Romney took his eye off the ball. Now it's going to be even more ticklish for him to try to drag down Huck in Iowa."
GOP FIELD II: So What So What So What's The Scenario?
Conservative bloggers continue to speculate about the possible outcomes of this topsy-turvy GOP race:
The American Scene's Noah Millman speculates: "There's a very reasonable prospect that the Iowa returns are: Huckabee in first, Romney a close second, [Fred] Thompson and Giuliani competing for third. That's what the polls look like now, anyhow. Romney is probably strong enough and well-known enough in New Hampshire to hold onto the state after a strong second-place in Iowa. But if his defectors split between [John] McCain and Huckabee, you could see a New Hampshire finish that is Romney in first, McCain in second, Huckabee a close third, and Giuliani in fourth. I don't think that's a set up for a two-man Giuliani-Huckabee contest. It could be Romney-Huckabee, Romney-Giuliani, Romney-McCain, Huckabee-McCain -- there would be lots of options ... Bottom line: if you are a stop-Giuliani Republican, I think you can spin a positive story out of the rise of Huckabee even if you think Huckabee loses a two-man race with Giuliani."
NRO's David Freddoso links to yesterday's Rasmussen tracking poll, which shows Giuliani tied with Huckabee at 18%, and writes: "Now the whole field is leveling off. Only 11 points separate Rudy -- who is tied for the lead -- from Ron Paul...Many people here have asserted that Huckabee's success comes as Giuliani's benefit. But is that necessarily true? Given how polls are looking in the early states and nationally, I wonder whether Giuliani will have the strength he needs by Feb. 5. If he performs 'pretty well' but fails to clean up that day, we could well end up with no clear leader and a brokered-convention scenario next year."
Right Wing News' John Hawkins: "It would be easy to see a scenario that features Huckabee winning Iowa, Romney winning New Hampshire, Rudy winning Michigan, and then Fred hanging around long enough to win South Carolina, which would mean that there would be 4 viable candidates going into Super Tuesday, when more than 20 states will vote."
HUCKABEE: Like Fred, Only Better
Several conservative bloggers are noting that Huckabee is filling the role that Thompson was supposed to fill but didn't:
Commentary's John Podhoretz: "Huckabee is filling the role Fred Thompson entered the race in September to fill. He is the socially conservative Southern pro-life candidate with a silver tongue and a pleasingly low-key affect. It was Fred Thompson who was supposed to overtake Mitt Romney in Iowa, and it was Fred Thompson who was supposed to be a force to reckon with in national polls in December. But as a candidate, Thompson has proved to have all the spark of a wet firecracker...Somebody was going to occupy that Thompson space. The question was whether one of the three top-tier candidates -- Giuliani, Romney, or McCain -- would manage to convince that portion of the Republican base to make common cause with him. The answer, it seems, is no."
Rich Lowry agrees: "Fred Thompson famously was going to run a different sort of campaign, and he has, without much in the way of results so far. It's Huckabee who has run the successful different sort of campaign. He hasn't raised any money -- in fact, despite lots of criticism in the press, he has always preferred doing yet more media interviews to raising money. He has very little organization to speak of in the organization-state, Iowa...He has thrived on exactly what was in theory going to boost Fred -- superior communications skills that have shined in the debates and in interviews; good gut political instinct; Southern charm and an inherit likeability; a very grounded sense of authenticity. Plus, the grass roots enthusiasm of social conservatives. Maybe this means -- despite my skepticism -- Fred wasn't wrong to think he could run a different sort of campaign. Huck proves it's possible."
Soren Dayton has a slightly different take: "While I see the logic in all of this, I do think that something else is going on with Huckabee. After all, Fred supporters didn't want a soft-on-immigration populist who could change the party. They wanted to keep the whole game together. Somehow, I don't think that's Huckabee's game."
That said, neither Podhoretz nor Lowry thinks that Huckabee can win:
Podhoretz: "I said two weeks ago that the Republican race was down to two men, Giuliani and Romney. I still believe that is the case, because while Huckabee's surge has given voice to an important segment of the GOP's electoral pie -- pro-life evangelical Christians primarily -- his candidacy does not offer much, if anything, to any mainstream Republican voter who is not part of that segment...Say Giuliani melts down this month, owing to more revelations about the intersection of his private life and his public duties. Or Romney melts down, in part because Huckabee's rise means he will lose Iowa and therefore make it impossible for him to win every early state and thereby 'slingshot' his way into the nomination. Huckabee won't be there to pick up the pieces, because he speaks to a different electorate. But John McCain will..."
Lowry: "I agree...Huck has filled the Thompson space; it's still likeliest that Romney or Rudy will win; but if Romney and/or Rudy meltdown, there's an opening for McCain."
Campaign Standard's William Kristol, on the other hand, thinks Huckabee has a definite shot: "Huckabee's surge, if uncontested, is likely to continue for at least a while. One question is, which one (or possible two) of the other candidates can reverse his downward trend, create his own surge, and pick up some momentum? The other question is, can any of them afford to go negative against Huckabee? On the one hand, going negative usually has at least a short-term negative effect on the negative-goer. On the other hand, if Huckabee wins December as he did November, he'll probably win the nomination."
HUCKABEE II: A *Huge* Skeleton In The Closet
Yesterday, CBS News published an article explaining how Gov. Huckabee lobbied for the release of a convicted rapist who would later rape and murder another woman. Today, The Huffington Post published a long, detailed account of Huckabee's role in lobbying for the rapist's release. In the article, journalist Murray Waas reports:
"While on the campaign trail, Huckabee has claimed that he supported the 1999 release of Wayne Dumond because, at the time, he had no good reason to believe that the man represented a further threat to the public. Thanks to Huckabee's intervention, conducted in concert with a right-wing tabloid campaign on Dumond's behalf, Dumond was let out of prison 25 years before his sentence would have ended...But the confidential files obtained by the Huffington Post show that Huckabee was provided letters from several women who had been sexually assaulted by Dumond and who indeed predicted that he would rape again -- and perhaps murder -- if released."
AmSpec Blog's Quin Hillyer: "This detailed, convincingly irrefutable column today on the Huffington Post...should, if there is any justice, destroy whatever credibility Mike Huckabee has left. It shows that Huck utterly ignored a boatload of evidence from other rape victims of now-infamous rapist/murdered Wayne DuMond that DuMond was dangerous and vicious and would likely rape again. And it tells of serious efforts at a cover-up by Huck directly and by his campaign aides in 2002. Frankly, on substance, it is the single most devastating news story of this entire election cycle, for either party...In substance, it is WORSE than the Willie Horton case, because the governor's (Huck's) involvement was so personal and so specifically directed at freeing DuMond. This is serious, serious stuff, and it shows a serious, serious lack of judgment."
NRO's Byron York calls it "the story Mike Huckabee dreads" and writes: "Huckabee doesn't duck talking about [convicted rapist Wayne] Dumond or the larger clemency issue. But he doesn't enjoy it, either, given that it was unquestionably the worst thing that happened while he was governor. Now, with the press spotlight shining on him, he has no choice but to explain himself."
RedState's Erick Erickson: "The Dumond thing has the potential to be devastating because it is only a matter of time before Dumond's victim's mother appears in a television commercial attacking Huckabee, using Huckabee's own words against him."
Townhall's Hugh Hewitt: "This story is another big problem for Huckabee."
HUCKABEE III: NIE? What NIE?
Huckabee's admission last night during a dinner with reporters that he was not aware of the new National Intelligence Estimate on Iran is generating scorn among conservative bloggers:
Byron York: "Beyond doing nothing to resolve doubts about his foreign policy qualifications, the exchange underscores the fact that Huckabee doesn't really have much of a campaign, in the sense that Giuliani and Romney have campaigns, with teams of advisers and carefully-thought-out policy positions. In important ways, he has been flying by the seat of his pants, relying on his unequaled talents as a retail campaigner. But now that he is leading in Iowa, and moving up nationally as well, the deficiencies of his campaign might come more and more into the spotlight."
Townhall's Mary Katherine Ham: "I know the Huckabee campaign doesn't have that much cash, but use some of that new front-runner influx to get the man a Blackberry. That's a big blow to any candidate's credibility on national security."
Hugh Hewitt: "This is a pretty astonishing admission of cluelessness on the part of Governor Huckabee."
Meanwhile, conservative bloggers continue to rail on Huckabee:
Power Line's Paul Mirengoff: "When it comes to foreign policy, Huckabee more closely resembles another former governor, Jimmy Carter. It was Carter, not [Ronald] Reagan, who viewed foreign policy as an extension of his own character and personal principles. Carter stood for a foreign policy 'as decent as the American people.' Reagan stood for defeating our enemies. When Huckabee frets about how Gitmo is making us appear to foreigners, when he asserts that 'we broke Iraq,' and when he says he's qualified to be commander-in-chief because of his character rather than because of his understanding of our enemies, it's pretty clear that his foreign policy roots extend nowhere near the fertile soil of Reaganism."
Power Line's John Hinderaker: "I would add that Huckabee's moralistic approach extends to domestic policy as well. To take just two examples, Huckabee has expressed sympathy for the idea of a national ban on smoking. From a moralistic perspective, this may make sense: smoking is bad, so let's ban it. But Huckabee shows no understanding of either the basic freedom issue involved, or the implications for federalism of adopting this kind of measure on a national basis -- presumably on the theory that smoking affects interstate commerce. Similarly, Huckabee reacted emotionally and moralistically when he advocated providing scholarships to the children of illegal immigrants. Surely, Huckabee said, we shouldn't punish children for the sins of their parents. But this moralistic approach fails to even consider the consequences and public policy implications of the approach Huckabee advocates."
AmSpec Blog's John Tabin: "Am I the only one who finds Huckabee viscerally unappealing? There's nothing endearing to me about a cross between a diet guru and a televangelist selling condominiums in Heaven, which is how Huckabee strikes me. The guy's so full of crap I can smell it wafting out his ears."
AmSpec Blog's Shawn Macomber: "Maybe a portion of the Republican electorate wants their very own right-wing Jimmy Carter to piously preen and moralize as he embraces class war rhetoric and nanny state regulations, but I'd rather go with someone Bill Clinton isn't so wild about."
ROMNEY: The Return To Sanctuary Mansion
Today, The Boston Globe published an article reporting that illegal immigrants continued to work on Romney's lawn as recently as last week. The article began:
"Standing on stage at a Republican debate on the Gulf Coast of Florida last week, Mitt Romney repeatedly lashed out at rival Rudy Giuliani for providing sanctuary to illegal immigrants in New York City.
Yet, the very next morning, on Thursday, at least two illegal immigrants stepped out of a hulking maroon pickup truck in the driveway of Romney's Belmont house, then proceeded to spend several hours raking leaves, clearing debris from Romney's tennis court, and loading the refuse back on to the truck."
Most conservative bloggers responded to the article by defending Romney and criticizing The Boston Globe's investigative tactics:
NRO's Kathryn Jean Lopez: "My question is: Do we really have to stake out presidential candidates homes? It's a wonder anyone decent runs for office."
Erick Erickson: "It is deplorable that a newspaper would stand outside the man's private home and harass people working at his home to score a partisan shot against him. That's really pitiful. Made more so because you and I both know they were harassing the workers who looked hispanic solely because of their appearance."
Michelle Malkin: "The answers are loud and clear: It isn't 'harassment' when liberal MSM journalists spy on illegal aliens...if it will embarrass a Republican presidential candidate. It isn't 'stalking' when liberal MSM journalists snap photos of your lawn and conduct two-month-long recoinnasance missions...if it will embarrass a Republican presidential candidate...Watch as they exploit this report and then turn around and attack everyone other than liberal MSM journalists who advocates the repeal of sanctuary gag orders or uses the same basic investigative techniques to report a story."
Townhall's Hugh Hewitt: "The illegal immigrant yard worker story is of zero consequence to voters. Romney's 60 and on the road running for president. Ann Romney's on the campaign trail as well...The kids are grown and gone. Romney ordered the company not to employ illegals. It did so anyway and he fired the company when informed of it. Trying to make that a big story is simply laughable, and the fact that The Globe staked out the Romney home for three months tells a lot of center-right voters just how invested in beating Romney the left wing agenda journalists at The Globe -- and elsewhere -- are."
Other conservative bloggers analyzed the political ramifications of the report:
Byron York: "The question that's Romney's action raises is how could he keep using Community Lawn Service after the controversy over illegal workers arose last year?...Now, it turns out Romney was still using the company even after he knew it was a problem. Perhaps he'll get points for giving them another chance, but the bottom line is he is now re-embarrassed by an issue that embarrased him a year ago."
Townhall's Patrick Ruffini: "You have to wonder what Romney was thinking using the same company that got him in hot water the year before. You would think he would have had this kind of thing squared away before he became an active candidate. It's not like he's ever at the house overseeing these guys, but that's no excuse. This is exactly the kind of treatment any candidate can expect...The other immediate results is that this gives retrospective legitimacy to Rudy's gutsy 'sanctuary mansion' attack from the last debate...This has validated an initially controversial attack and given it a new set of legs."
ROMNEY II: All Eyez On Me
Conservative bloggers continue to discuss Romney's upcoming speech:
NRO's Jim Geraghty: "Maybe Romney will give a brilliant speech; maybe after it, any further questions about his faith will seem awkward, forced, and snide -- er, more awkward, more forced, and more snide than they already are...But it's easy to see this not working out well. I fear that a little too much 'I love my faith, you love your faith, we're all one happy family under God,' will leave Romney sounding like Barney the Dinosaur. My personal taste would prefer a little bit of anger in this speech, a bit of what we saw when he got into it with that radio talk show host in Iowa. I think it's okay for Romney to tell us that his faith and his relationship with God is his business (and His business), and that he'll ask for our vote, but he won't subject himself to a theological SAT."
CBN's David Brody: "Maybe the most important thing Romney can do Thursday is to just be himself. By all accounts, from people who know him, he's a warm, loving, family man type of guy who likes to joke around. But on the campaign trail we see 'Metric Mitt' who has a reputation of not doing the best job emotionally connecting with voters...Bottom line: this is a great opportunity for Mitt Romney to not only look presidential but to show that he's genuine as a person. But if the speech is the same old lines that we've heard on the campaign trail before (just repackaged differently) then it may just leave Evangelicals and others in the same place."
NRO's Jonah Goldberg: "The people Romney needs to win over believe that there should be more, not less, room for religion in public life. He won't gain votes by calling them bigots -- no matter how gently -- either. And the last thing Romney can afford to do is backpedal on his religious faith. That would be a flip-flop too far. What he needs to do is reject the Kennedy comparison entirely and sell his candidacy on its own merits. Electability is still more important than theology to most Republicans, and that's where he should take his stand. Instead, he's heading to Texas to play a game he can't win."
The Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan: "My bet is that his speech will be a Neuhaus-ghost-written defense of religion's centrality to politics. I doubt a great deal that he will address all the conventional LDS-specific issues many evangelicals have. Romney clearly doesn't want to talk about that at all, and I don't blame him. But once you make your appeal on the grounds of faith to a religiously-based party, it's tough to keep to secular reticence and privacy on the subject."
CLINTON: Throwing The Kitchen Sink At Obama
Hillary Clinton's increasingly sharp attacks on [Barack] Obama have provoked a mini-backlash in the liberal blogosphere:
Daily Kos diarist Bob Johnson: "Are Clinton's internal poll numbers sinking like a rock? I don't know what else would account for the sheer inanity of the attacks on Obama that Camp Clinton has produced the last few days."
CQ Politics' David Corn: "Until the caucus-goers of Iowa speak, there is no way to know if Clinton's DEFCON-1 assault on Obama will succeed or backfire. But the Clinton attacks do say something about Hillary Clinton. She's adopting a whatever-it-takes strategy, mixing legitimate criticisms with truth-stretching blasts...If the Clinton campaign throws anything it can against Obama -- with little regard for accuracy or decency -- that will reflect her own character and values. It could, to turn her words against her, be a disqualification for the job. Clinton is playing with fire. In explaining to reporters that she will be tougher on Obama, she said, 'Now the fun part starts.' That was tasteless. It's a remark that certainly can -- and will be -- used against her. And some Democratic voters might worry that the comment reveals too much desire for (political) blood."
Daily Kos diariest Geekesque: "People have wondered why Hillary Clinton's campaign has been so strident and angry over the past week or so. Why remind people of what they don't like about Clinton -- that she is polarizing, thrives on conflict, and is a generally negative figure. David Corn pokes around and gets the answer: the Clinton people hate, hate, hate, hate Barack Obama. So, this latest episode of 'When Hillary Attacks' is not about strategy -- it's about the emotions of fear, anger and hatred."
Blue Hampshire's Mike Caulfield is taken aback by the latest HRC fundraising email, which accuses Obama's campaign of push-polling and voter suppression techniques: "Of all the emails I have got this season, none has made accusations of this breadth and magnitude of a primary opponent. Time will tell if the campaign chooses to pursue these allegations, or simply use them for fundraising purposes. But this, combined with the investigation of Obama's kindergarten record yesterday point to a campaign engaged in two-fisted battle, with a surprising tone-deafness to the shrill transparency of their techniques."
On the right side of the blogosphere, Rich Lowry is amazed by HRC's abrupt shift to attack mode: "Extraordinary. She's lost some altitude nationally, and a little ground in Iowa where it's always been a pretty close race, so nothing seems to suggest a need to break the glass-as in 'break the glass in case of emergency.' But there's broken glass scattered over the place and she's taking the fire ax to Obama's campaign. What does the Clinton campaign know about this race that we don't?...Her campaign has apparently concluded she can't do much more to sell herself and has to rip down Obama. This, of course, risks confirming all the negative attitudes about her, kicking away all the work she's done this year to try to soften her image, and puncturing her own sense of inevitability."
Lowry continues: "What's fascinating is how all the roles have reversed in the race: Clinton who was above responding in kind to attacks is now throwing the kitchen sink at Obama; Obama who had been attacking Hillary is trying to adopt something of her above-it-all attitude toward the fray; [John] Edwards who had launched the harshest attacks on Hillary is getting out of the way of the Clinton-Obama feud. The stakes are still higher for Obama and Edwards in Iowa than for Hillary; she can lose there and fight another day, whereas that will be harder for them (impossible for Edwards). But the stakes are still huge for Hillary. If Obama wins Iowa, you can see a clear path to the nomination for him...Hillary is probably going after Obama so hard in Iowa because she can afford to have Edwards win there in a way she can't with Obama."
RCP Blog's Steven Stark thinks there may be "a method to Clinton's negative madness": "So why go negative? There are two possible reasons. The first is that Clinton would much rather face John Edwards in the later primaries than Obama. It's true that in a three-way race, attacks usually hurt both the attacker and attackee, benefiting a third candidate. Yet that may be perfectly acceptable to the Clinton campaign on the theory that if Edwards does well in Iowa, he still ultimately doesn't have the resources or the support to run a true national campaign on February 5th. The second possible reason is that Hillary is a woman. We're in untested waters here in presidential politics, but it may be that when a woman attacks a man, voters don't see it in quite the same way as when one man attacks another."
CLINTON II: The Joke's On...Us?
Bloggers are incredulous about HRC pollster Mark Penn's claim that the HRC campaign's "Kindergarten Attack" on Obama was a joke:
TAPPED's Kate Sheppard: "Hillary Clinton pollster Mark Penn says their attack on Barack Obama's kindergarten-era presidential ambitions was just a joke. Well, I was laughing, but I think it was more in the 'laughing at them' category than 'laughing with them.' Consider me skeptical. I'm guessing they saw how poorly it played and are trying to find an out."
The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum: "Who knew the Clinton press shop had such a dry sense of humor? But the really remarkable thing is that after Mark Penn told Joe Scarborough the whole thing was just a gag, he went on to complain that it had been blown all out of proportion. 'The spin machines are so hyped up,' he said. Mark Penn is complaining about overactive spin machines?"
The New York Times' Patrick Healy is also doubtful: "In rather head-spinning fashion, Hillary Rodham Clinton's presidential campaign is now saying that it was only joking when it noted on Sunday that one of her rivals, Barack Obama, wrote an essay in kindergarten titled, 'I want to become president'...Pardon me? When reporters traveling with Mrs. Clinton in Iowa on Sunday received the information about Barack-as-kindergartener, it was presented quite seriously. The press release disclosing the information (see below) made no mention that it was a joke, nor was it written in a tongue-in-cheek way...Moreover, Clinton advisers on Sunday sounded deadly serious when they referred to the kindergarten essay."
EDWARDS: Getting Himself In Trouble
One week after HRC angered the netroots by declaring that she would offer Colin Powell a job in her administration, Edwards joined Bill Richardson in promising to include Republicans in his Cabinet. Edwards said, "I want people around me who will say, 'You're wrong about this, and you could do grave damage if you do it. Mr. President, you need to change your mind.'"
TPM's Eric Kleefeld suggests that Edwards' promise "could help him appeal to more independent voters."
Open Left's Chris Bowers strongly disagrees: "Earth to Richardson and Edwards: America is voting for Democrats in order to remove Republicans from powerful governmental positions, such as cabinet posts. And putting Republicans in your cabinet would not distinguish you from Bush, whose cabinet has quite a few Republicans. Having Republicans in the cabinet is part of the problem...Given that Republicans have a favorable rating of 40% or lower in every poll not taken by Fox this year, and that about 30% of the country self-identifies as Republican, it strikes me that bowing to have Republicans in your cabinet is about the best way I can think of to not appeal to independent voters."
Firedoglake's Blue Texan is similarly confused by Edwards' reasoning: "The idea that an Edwards administration can only avoid serious policy mistakes if it contains Republicans is, on its face, totally absurd. Does Edwards really think he can't find a handful of strong, smart, capable Democrats who disagree with him on stuff and won't hesitate to tell him so? Really? Even worse, it really makes absolutely no sense at all in a political climate where the public prefers Democrats to Republicans by a margin of 14 points...This just reeks of 1990s/DLC Stockholm Syndrome. I'm really over Democrats who say we need Big Grownup Republicans to save us from irresponsible flaky selves. It's bad for the Democratic brand. It's bad politics. Can you imagine Rudy or Willard or Thompson making such a pledge? I can't."
THOUGHT OF THE DAY: They're Just Like You And Me
AmSpec Blog's Shawn Macomber is tired of all the talk about the "weirdness" of Mormonism:
"The 'specifics' of Romney's faith are no more outlandish than the 'specifics' of any other religion. If an atheist wants to lecture on the weirdness of Mormonism, fine. Anyone following a book they believe is divinely inspired, however, is going to have to work pretty hard at not seeming bigoted or, dare we say, jealous -- the recruitment rate and cash reserves of the Church of Jesus Christ these days are nothing to sniff at, after all -- since no Mormon belief is any crazier than what Catholic, Jewish, Muslim or Protestant beliefs look like to someone outside of those faiths. If you're an evangelical who buys into all the great and miraculous events of the Old and New Testament you need not convert to Mormonism to recognize the miracles of the Book of Mormon are not so excessive in comparison. Not by a long shot.
...More than one pundit has posited Mitt Romney must tread softly tomorrow to avoid giving the impression that he's calling those among the religious right who harbor these prejudices bigots. Happily, I am not running for president and therefore not bound by the same constraints."
LEST WE FORGET: The Only Show That Matters
We heartily second Matthew Yglesias' recommendation that you check out HBO's The Wire:
"Season four of The Wire is now available on DVD and it's the perfect gift for any decent person out there. Of course, you won't want to run out and buy season four unless you've seen seasons one, two, and three, so keep that in mind. But if you've never seen the show, you have to see the show. You have to stop reading this post right now, open up your Netflix queue, and sign yourself for disc one of season one and then come back.
Okay, back? It's the best show on television. The best show in the history of television. And with season five ready to start airing in about a month, it's by far the best show that's currently still on. So you need to watch it. Okay? Okay."
Posted by Ian Faerstein at December 5, 2007 01:30 PM
The Watergate · 600 New Hampshire Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20037
202-739-8400 · fax 202-833-8069
NationalJournal.com is an Atlantic Media publication.
