January 22, 2008

1/22: There Will Be Blood

The sharp, hostile tone that characterized the first half of last night's Dem debate, which was sponsored by CNN and the Congressional Black Caucus, surprised a lot of bloggers. As one would expect, conservative bloggers were positively gleeful at the prospect of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama tearing each other apart. Liberal bloggers, while initially taken aback by HRC and Obama's sniping, ultimately ended up declaring the debate a success. Most of them found the major exchanges substantive and enlightening, and the general consensus was that John Edwards shined. More than a few bloggers were turned off by HRC's attacks on Obama, which they perceived as "tendentious" and (on one occasion) "factually false." However, most bloggers concede that her attacks were effective and that Obama needs to learn how to defend himself better.

DEM FIELD: As Nasty As They Wanna Be

Many prominent liberal bloggers enjoyed the debate in spite of (or perhaps because of) its heated tone:

TalkLeft's Big Tent Democrat: "I thought it was a great debate. I think Clinton and Edwards got the best of Obama but he proved he can fight. Also all 3 were Fighting DEMOCRATS tonight."

Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher: "I have to say I enjoyed this debate quite a bit. After the first half snipe fest, the candidates sat down and conversed. Obama seemed much more at ease at that point and was actually quite gracious and funny about being on the receiving end of the Clinton/Edwards tag team. But most importantly, I felt like we were finally getting to enjoy the benefits of having a woman and an African American as frontrunners in the race. Perhaps it was because the field has now narrowed to three, but a lot more time seemed to be devoted to discussing the subjects of equality, equal pay and social justice as core Democratic values by candidates who were speaking from the heart, from experience. I was actually quite proud of them all."

TPM's Greg Sargent: "As ugly as this primary has been at times, the bottom line is that Hillary and Obama, and Edwards perhaps to a slightly lesser extent, are formidable and impressive figures who have the potential to be important historical figures, and Dems are lucky to have this array of choices before them."

DEBATE CLINTON: Pants On Fire

The Washington Note's Steve Clemons was impressed by HRC's wonkiness: "Hillary Clinton performed with an authority, presence in that huge hall, and mastery of detail that was just second to none...She had numbers and details flowing forth as if they were as natural as could be."

Several liberal bloggers were put off by HRC's factually incorrect charge that Obama said that he "really liked the ideas of the Republicans over the last 10 to 15 years."

AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "Wow, brutal outright lie from Hillary. Obama said he 'liked' the ideas of the Republicans? Nice spin, but an outright lie. Obama said the Republicans have had all the ideas the past few decades and that it was time that the Democrats started promoting big ideas. It is a flat out lie to say that Obama said he liked the GOP ideas or that they were good ideas. Flat out lie."

The Nation's Ari Melber: "Accused of inaccuracy, Sen. Clinton hit back with inaccuracy, claiming that Obama said he 'really liked' President Reagan's ideas. In fact, Obama actually said Reagan helped establish the GOP as 'the party of ideas,' which Obama was quick to stress in a rebuttal."

TPM's Josh Marshall: "I still think Hillary is just intentionally misrepresenting what Obama said about Reagan. It makes me cringe. As much I like her, it makes me cringe...I find myself refinding my positive feelings for Hillary, my gut level support, when she talks about herself as a fighter, about her never giving up, being there today and tomorrow. And then she launches into these attacks and she starts to lose me."

Obsidian Wings' publius: "Both of these attacks -- i.e., Reagan and the 'present' voting -- are clearly factually false. And everyone who pays attention to the news knows it. And Clinton knows it too. Obama's invocation of Reagan had nothing to do with praising Republican ideas, and the 'present' thing has already been debunked too...Attacks like these are demonstrably false to the 'super-informed,' but the Clinton campaign doesn't care. They just want the message of 'Obama Hearts Reagan' in the minds of people who are too busy to read multiple national newspapers and dozens of blogs. All that said, maybe this is a feature not a bug. If you've become even more cynical than me about what it takes to beat a Republican, then maybe this practice is a virtue. and perhaps you're right. But I'm still naively in the 'expect more' stage. So I don't like it."

The Atlantic's Matthew Yglesias is similarly conflicted about HRC. He reproduces a statement from one of his commenters and says that it "sums up [his] feelings about the debate":

"It's really strange...each time Hillary really goes for the jugular (fairly or unfairly), I am repulsed. And then 30 seconds later, I realize that that's the whole rationale for her candidacy! She (and Bill [Clinton]) will simply do whatever it takes to win. And she's really whip smart, and was quicker than Obama in this debate. I think it will come down to whoever the media spins as the 'winner' of the early flare-up -- otherwise, another draw."

Yglesias: "It's an uncomfortable truth, but there you have it -- the very tendentiousness of some of her attacks on Barack Obama is sort of the point. Those of us who remember Florida 2000 from the butterfly ballot to the 'bourgeois riot' to the rigged Supreme Court ruling appreciate that the other side plays to win and there's no real honor in letting the country fall under a spell of catastrophic malgovernance. But still, if voters are considering being persuaded by the merits of Clinton's arguments about Obama and the war, or about the 'present' votes or whatever else, they ought to be aware that this is all basically bogus. What's more, I think it's worth pointing out that Clinton seems to have gotten herself firmly into 'flip-flop' territory on the war at this point; hawk was bad, substantively and politically, but this may be worse."

DEBATE OBAMA: Not Built For Brawling

Josh Marshall has concerns about Obama's ability to defend himself: "One observation stands out to me from this debate. Hillary can be relentless and like a sledgehammer delivering tendentious but probably effective attacks. But whatever you think of those attacks, Obama isn't very good at defending himself. And that's hard for me to ignore when thinking of him as a general election candidate. In most of these cases -- such as the Reagan issue -- I think Obama's remarks have been unobjectionable but ambiguous and certainly susceptible to both misunderstanding and intentional misrepresentation. And if you're going to talk like that -- nuance, as we used to say -- be able to defend it when people play with your words. And I don't see it."

Big Tent Democrat, in contrast, thought Obama did a decent job of defending himself: "While I think Obama has been taking the worst of it for the last half hour, Obama's performance actually give[s] me much more confidence in his abilities going forward. He has stood and fought. He is facing easily two of the best debaters we have seen in politics in the last 15 years. And he is not getting completely destroyed. Obama will wipe the floor with any Republican. 'Course Hillary and Edwards could wipe it a little better."

Big Tent Democrat's co-blogger, Jeralyn Merritt, disagrees: "I thought it was one of Barack Obama's worst debate performances, from his launching attacks on Hillary (transcript here) to his stuttering and his hostile, dismissive yet arrogant demeanor."

Matthew Yglesias continues to prefer Obama to HRC on foreign policy matters: "[I'm] glad to see Barack Obama taking HRC on on her claim that her record of backing catastrophic invasions of Iraq makes her uniquely qualified to battle Republicans on national security issues."

The Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan: "Obama did great, but he's a cool character, with a wry sense of humor. He's not made for brawling. And sometimes, you've got to brawl in politics. Stylistically, he's a one-off. I like that about him."

DEBATE EDWARDS: The Last Shall Be First?

Most liberal bloggers felt that Edwards had an excellent debate performance:

The Huffington Post's R.J. Eskow: "Edwards had the best night of his campaign tonight. He had the advantage of not being in anyone else's sights, but it was more than that: He kept the discussion on higher ground. His rhetoric was inspired."

Ari Melber: "While Clinton and Obama exchanged their personal barbs, John Edwards broke through with the best arguments of the night. Edwards tweaked both his opponents for making the debate about political squabbling instead of public policy. Returning to his populist economic platform -- especially salient as Americans ponder a recession -- he reminded voters that he was the only candidate to outline a comprehensive plan to end poverty, and the first to introduce a national economic stimulus proposal."

MyDD's MassEyesandEars: "Edwards reminded me why I support him and, indeed, why I spend time involved with politics at all. It's not because of horse race intricacies or keeping score on political pot shots...Throughout the debate, Edwards was the candidate bringing the discussion back to people's real concerns and the real fight that needs to be waged in this country."

CLINTON: Live By The Bubba, Die By The Bubba

In an interview with TPM's Greg Sargent, HRC advisor Howard Wolfson claimed that Obama's assertion that Bill Clinton is fibbing about his campaign is a "right wing talking point." Wolfson's claim annoyed liberal bloggers, many of whom are uncomfortable with Bill Clinton's large role in HRC's campaign.

Open Left's Matt Stoller: "I don't particularly care if Bill Clinton chooses to step out of his elder statesman role, but this is very annoying...Bill Clinton claimed that Obama didn't oppose the war. He also claimed that he himself did. Both of these things are not true."

Stoller continues: "You might not like Bill participating so heavily in politics after his Presidency, but it's not like this is new. Bill Clinton lied about the Iraq war election between Lamont-Lieberman in Connecticut in 2006, when he promised to endorse the winner of the primary and then on Larry King after Lamont's victory said that it didn't matter whether Lieberman or Lamont won because both are good Democrats. These kinds of games are not new to Bill Clinton, and you shouldn't expect him to back off until he's forced to do so. He's been Hillary's attack dog for a long time now. Wolfson and company like to throw out the right-wing talking point argument all the time, and it's tiresome and in this case, untrue."

Matthew Yglesias: "According to Howard Wolfson, pointing out that Bill Clinton is lying is a 'right-wing talking point' and thus all good liberals have a duty to grant Clinton a blanket license to fib. So when Clinton said he opposed the Iraq War, that must have been true, because I'm a liberal. And when Clinton said Barack Obama didn't oppose the Iraq War, that must have been true too, because I'm a liberal. Look, obviously Bill's in an odd position because we've never had an ex-president's wife run for president before. But if he wants to be treated as an elder statesman figure for fellow progressives, he needs to act like one. If he wants to be Hillary Clinton's attack dog in a primary campaign, then he's going to be treated as one. Certainly he's not above criticism."

Ezra Klein: "For awhile, I was sympathetic to Bill Clinton's involvement in the primary...But the overwhelming deployment of Clinton into the primary as an attack dog, as a bad cop, as a figure large enough to engage Obama in the mud of the primary while Hillary Clinton floats above the fray, is unsettling. Bill Clinton is a former president, one of only two living Democrats to have held that office. He is -- or was -- a unifying figure, and he's trashing that...It's not that I don't understand, and on some level admire, Clinton's ferocious advocacy for his wife. But he's got to balance that with his responsibility to the rest of us. Over the past seven years, Clinton has largely checked his criticisms of Bush and bit his tongue in order to retain his role as a statesman. Throwing that restraint out the window in a Democratic primary will do enormous damage to his reputation."

The Huffington Post's Marc Cooper: "The ex-president has been rolled out as campaign attack dog to bark, bite, snap and tear away at Obama in a way that Hillary -- as candidate -- cannot and will not. Hillary can't have it both ways. You can't deploy the clout of your husband the ex-president in the middle of your campaign and then not take responsibility for every word he utters, every action he undertakes. Right down to his shameful direct intervention in a crucial polling place in last Saturday's Nevada caucuses."

Meanwhile, Chris Bowers gives HRC a 90% chance of capturing the Dem nod and explains how she can do so: "Win South Carolina on Saturday, and it is all over. Failing that, the first thing she must do is make sure she wins California, since it is her only must-win on February 5th. Assuming she does that, then she needs to hold Obama's win totals and delegate totals down as low as possible on February 5th. If Clinton can hold Obama to six or fewer wins on Super Tuesday, and if she can amass a pledged delegate advantage of 200 or more, then she will finish Obama off on February 5th."

OBAMA: Too High-Brow?

Open Left's Mike Lux: "Obama and the Obama campaign continue to perplex me. Floating along on their lofty post-partisan hopefulness, they give you the impression that they are too noble to do what it takes to win. This whole Reagan thing was Obama acting like an above-it-all professor of history, analyzing things from the mountain top without thinking about the effect that the Reagan presidency actually had on people, or what his effect his words might have on the Democratic primary electorate. The reason Obama lost New Hampshire and Nevada is that he is floating so high above the nasty world of partisanship and politics that regular voters, especially the blue collar voters who actually face the gritty realities of the real world, are rejecting him. Obama was perfectly positioned to go on and win this thing after Iowa, not because of momentum but because he was convincing voters that he would actually change their lives. But this high brow crap is killing him."

That said, Lux thinks Obama still has a chance: "I would caution everybody rushing to say Clinton's got it. She's clearly and firmly re-established her front-runner status, but what happens over the course of campaigns every day really does matter. Momentum doesn't matter very much at this point, and if Obama runs a smarter campaign than he's run so far, or if Hillary makes even a modest sized slip, Obama still has a chance."

MyDD's Jerome Armstrong offers his explanation for why Obama is losing: "I believe that the reason why Obama lost Nevada is because of his unqualified adoration of Ronald Reagan while he was pandering before a rightwing editorial board in Las Vegas...Obama's praise of Reagan has been played again and again, with the egging on of both the Edwards and the Clintons (2 on 1 again), bloggers and more...because no one who is a real progressive will agree with a positive frame of Reagan. Period."

Matt Stoller thinks Obama helped himself when he said that he disliked Reagan's policies during last night's debate: "This is a step forward. Obama doesn't like ideology, so to hear him rebut claims about Reagan by appealing to it is something of a shift. He probably gets that the Reagan stuff has cost him."

Meanwhile, The Atlantic's Matthew Yglesias defends Obama against New York Times columnist Paul Krugman's latest attacks on the IL senator: "I think this is getting a bit silly. In his column, Paul Krugman seems to suggest that the main reason the Clinton administration failed to bring about major progressive change in the 1990s is that they didn't talk enough smack about Ronald Reagan. And now on the blog we learn that Clinton is clearly the more progressive alternative to Obama because here's one quote of Clinton saying something lefty sounding and here's one quote which Krugman insists on willfully misconstruing. Whatever happened to the Krugman who used to urge journalists to worry less about what rhetorical style politicians adopt and more looking at their policies?...I wish Krugman would at least acknowledge that there are foreign policy issues facing the country and some of us think they're important. I don't think 'that Candidate B [i.e, Hillary Clinton], despite the progressive talk, is just Bush the third' but at times she's shown a disturbing amount of common ground with Bush's foreign policy views."

However, Yglesias wishes that Obama would start defending himself more effectively: "That said, I'll freely grant that I'm getting a bit tired of defending Obama and his campaign. Stuff like this from Krugman clearly hurts them, but the easiest way to deflect claims that Obama is the more conservative choice would be for Obama to say so himself in a clear and direct way. Given that Clinton is very much running as her husband's wife, it should hardly be impossible to make the case that establishing continuity with the moderate Clinton administration is the moderate choice."

Meanwhile, Chris Bowers gives Obama a 10% chance of capturing the Dem nod and explains how he can do so: "Obama faces a must-win in South Carolina on Saturday. Assuming he pulls that off, he can immediately even up the nomination on February 5th by winning California. A win there would be a huge momentum boost heading into a very favorable schedule for him the rest of February. However, if he wins South Carolina, but loses California, then he needs to take as many delegates and states as possible in order to survive for the favorable February schedule...Obama must appear viable according to the media dominated rules of our nominating process in order to keep going after February 5th. The only way to do that is to win a bunch of states, probably seven at a minimum."

EDWARDS: Who Says He Needs To Drop Out?

Josh Marshall thinks Edwards is under no obligation to drop out: "Seriously, why should John Edwards drop out of the race? I think his chances of winning the nomination at this point are quite slim. And I could understand if he wanted to drop out. But is there some reason he should? Is he under some obligation?...His campaign has had an effect on this race out of proportion to his poll support in as much as he's forced the two other leading candidates to grapple with issues they would not have otherwise. And in this race specifically, there is at least a chance we could come into the convention with neither candidate having a majority of the delegates, in which case he might play the kingmaker. Not likely, but not impossible."

Atrios agrees: "I can come up with arguments for why Edwards should drop out, but those arguments require some sort of goal. I want him out to help Obama! I want him out to help Clinton! I want him out because I'm tired of looking at his face! Or, maybe even I want him out because that way it'll be more likely he'll get a position in the Cabinet! But increasingly it seems that John Edwards should drop out...because, well, he just should that's all! Um, why? The honorable thing? WTF?"

Chris Bowers: "[Edwards] can't win, but [he] can still be a factor...[he] can hang in the campaign, and still be positioned to take about 100-200 delegates to the convention. While a longshot, it is possible that amount of delegates could prove decisive, making Edwards the kingmaker in the event of an Obama vs. Clinton brokered convention. Also, even if he doesn't go all the way to the convention, by staying in the campaign, he improves Obama's chances in South Carolina and several February 5th states.

GOP FIELD: Where Do We Go Now?

Glenn Reynolds summarizes the state of the GOP race: "Lots of people -- even Tom Delay -- are saying they'll stay home if the wrong guy gets nominated. Even Rush Limbaugh is saying he might not support the nominee. Well, I've already said I'd vote for Hillary over [Mike] Huckabee, but I'm not a Republican so that's not as newsworthy. But the GOP folks seem pretty unhappy...[Fred] Thompson's good on policy, and I like him, but he's run a lousy campaign so far. Still, Thompson aside you're left with four Republicans of the less-than-conservative variety: [John] McCain (good on the war, but what about immigration, campaign finance, etc.), Rudy (abortion, gun control, etc.), [Mitt] Romney (abortion, gun control, etc.) and Huckabee ('I'm from the government and I'm here to help!'). So you can see why people are unhappy."

Power Line's Paul Mirengoff offers his take on the state of the GOP:

"In South Carolina, as in Iowa and New Hampshire, the real loser in the Republican primary was mainstream conservatism. That's because, once again, candidates who take conservative positions across the board (essentially Romney and Thompson) came up well short compared to maverick candidates (McCain and Huckabee) who reject portions of the traditional conservative agenda. [...]

Though Romney and Thompson have their flaws as candidates, the relative failure so far of across-the-board conservative candidates requires more of an explanation than that. There are basically two possibilities. First, it may be that voters who embrace a given set of conservative beliefs no longer agree with the other sets of belief that have made up the conservative coalition. For example, it may that evangelical social conservatives as a group no longer believe in tax cuts or an aggressive, proactive approach to the war on terror. [...]

The alternative explanation is that, although a critical mass of Republicans is still conservative across the board, each faction within the coalition places a greater premium on adherence to its position than on adherence to traditional conservatism across the board. In this account, Huckabee's supporters back him not because they agree with his Carteresque foreign policy pronouncements or like his record of raising taxes in Arkansas, but because his purity on social issues trumps any flaws on other issues. [...]

Selecting between these two competing hypothesis is of major significance. If the first explanation -- rejection by one part of the coalition of the views of other parts -- holds water, then the Reagan coalition (to speak loosely) really is dead. But under the second explanation -- that Republicans are putting a premium on their pet issues -- we're simply witnesses normal behavior for a party that's been in power for a while. In this scenario, the coalition is still alive and capable of being patched-up. [...]"

NRO's Lisa Schiffren prepares for the worst: "I have never voted for a Democrat in my life. And I don't intend to start anytime soon. I even voted for Bob Dole, though that required holding my nose...If the GOP ticket is McCain-Lieberman, I will, again, not vote. I just wouldn't want to participate in the ruin of the GOP, or the governing mess to come...If either McCain or Romney gets the nomination, as unfortunately seems likely, he must choose the single most conservative running mate he can find, who is sane and articulate. Or else Obama becomes President, with a lot of crossover GOP votes."

Michelle Malkin isn't ready to declare McCain the nominee: "Here are two things the liberal media desperately want to be true: (1) John McCain's inevitable GOP presidential victory. (2) Rush Limbaugh's demise. Wrong on both counts, as usual...Conservatives have never let the MSM choose who speaks for them and who represents them. It's no time to let them do so now."

Captain's Quarters' Ed Morrissey isn't ready either: "John McCain has won two significant primaries in the early contests, New Hampshire and South Carolina. However, both allowed for crossover voting from non-Republicans, and in both cases, McCain's margin of victory came from those voters. In Michigan, Mitt Romney won despite the crossover votes. Florida, however, only allows registered Republicans to vote in the primary. Can John McCain win a closed primary?"

ROMNEY: Mr. Fix-It?

Townhall's Matt Lewis thinks the growing focus on the economy will benefit Romney in FL: "Under normal circumstances, I would say that John McCain has the advantage in Florida. But but today's economic news is sure to have an impact on the upcoming Primary. This hurts McCain who -- though advised by fiscal conservatives like Jack Kemp, Phil Gramm, and Tom Coburn -- admits the economy is not his bailiwick. McCain is far better off talking about the surge than about the economy. Mitt Romney probably benefits from the economy overtaking security as the top issue. He is a turn-around expert who helped turn around struggling companies for Bain Capital, and also turned around the Winter Olympics. And there is no doubt that he was comfortable talking about the economy in Michigan a few weeks ago."

AmSpec Blog's Jennifer Rubin thinks [Rudy] Giuliani will benefit as well: "I agree that Romney has an opening in Florida. However, I'm not sure the current economic problems don't equally benefit Rudy. Club for Growth send out an email blast calling for permanent economic measures such as indexing capital gains in lieu of short term stimulus plans. They end with this: 'The Club for Growth commends Mayor Giuliani for including this proposal in his tax-cutting plan and encourages all candidates to make it part of their economic stimulus plans.' Expect to hear a lot more comparisons between Rudy's record and what both McCain and Rudy will contend is Romney's less than impressive record in bringing Massachusetts back from the 2001 recession."

GIULIANI: Time To Attack The Mac

Commentary's John Podhoretz is not surprised that Giuliani has begun hitting McCain in FL: "The logic of the McCain and Giuliani candidacies has always pretty much been the same -- a strong leader in the War on Terror who is able to secure the votes of independents. But with Giuliani's political life on the line, he has no choice but to try to uncouple McCain's recent converts from the Arizona Republican and send them back Rudy's way. And McCain will have no choice but to respond -- and given the aggressive tone of the Giuliani hit this morning, McCain will surely give as good as he got. Thus do political friendships collide with political reality."

Campaign Standard's Matthew Continetti: "Speaking anecdotally, I can say that during the last 48 hours the Giuliani campaign's attacks on McCain have been on par with, if not more intense, than Romney's. Yet one lesson of the GOP primary campaign so far is that attacking one's opponent seldom works. And what will happen if Fred Thompson decides not to compete in Florida? Will his voters go to Giuliani, Romney, or McCain?...There's the sense that as the field narrows, more conservative Republicans will rally to the anti-McCain alternative. But that may be wishful thinking on the part of those who are dead-set against McCain's nomination."

Lisa Schiffren sees little hope for Giuliani: "Rudy's strategy is looking particularly dark and dumb right this minute. There is still a chance that he will come up with creditable numbers on Super Tuesday, and on February 5th...Though, why Romney or McCain would defer to him at this point, even if he does pretty well, is beyond me...So, being a pessimist by nature I think he blew it (and will be delighted to be proved wrong). His strategy clearly relied too much on somewhat evanescent national numbers, and the kind of talk that strategists love of odds and percentages, but which does not relate much to the real impulses of real voters on the ground at a particular moment."

NRO's Jim Geraghty thinks Giuliani could survive a close second-place finish in FL: "If Giuliani loses, say, 30 percent to 31 percent to McCain, he's viable. Yes, I realize some recent polls have him down in his Feb. 5 trifecta -- New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut, but I think that's a short-lived McCain bump. By winning South Carolina, McCain is ensured another week of his flaws being described by Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, etc...Also note that in the final days before each contest, the undecideds have tended to shift to the top two candidates. We'll probably see the same phenomenon in Florida -- a fairly close fight between numbers one and two, and three, four and five pretty far behind them."

THOMPSON: Closing Time?

Townhall's Mary Katharine Ham discusses Thompson's expected withdrawal from the race: "I really like the guy. I like his policies. I like the fact that there was enough enthusiasm back during the summer for him to really fill a vacuum. It just never happened, and I've always felt he wasn't all the way in. Of course, I rather think a guy who's not as keen on being president/running for president might be the best kind of conservative president...So, does Fred want to be veep? That's an 8 year (maybe even 4-year) path to the presumptive nomination if, say, McCain named him a running mate. In that case, he would need to stay in 'til Florida to split Huck's vote again."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Putting The Debate In Context

After watching last night's fiesty debate, The New Republic's Noam Scheiber wonders how the rest of the Dem primary will play out:

"I understand why it was important for Obama to show some backbone tonight after the intense Clinton assault of late. And, if that was the goal, he clearly accomplished it. Having said that, I suspect the Clintons would be delighted to turn this race into an endless game of tit-for-tat. [...]

The question I have after tonight is: Which half of the debate is likely to define the rest of the campaign? If it's the first half, that could mean trouble for Obama. If, on the other hand, the first half was just a one-off demonstration of mettle -- and maybe a warning shot to the Clintons -- I think it was probably helpful, even necessary. Moreover, if the second half was an indication that Obama can easily revert to his seductive high-mindedness even after sticking a shiv in Hillary's gut, that could bode pretty well for him. We shall see."

LEST WE FORGET: The Value Of Perspective

The Atlantic's James Fallows describes his feelings upon returning to the U.S. after his latest trip to China:

"I've had this reaction on each of my previous return trips to America over the last 18 months: the abundance! The affluence! The choice!

I walked into a high-end Whole Foods grocery store in Washington this morning -- and after a few minutes, had to walk out again.

The burnished fruits and vegetables. The forty varieties of bread. The souvenir-looking cuts of meat. The wines and cheeses. (The beers!!) Emotionally it was too much. I realized that my wife and I spend a significant amount of time each day in China thinking about how to get stuff -- food, clothes, supplies. I know that America is on the verge of disastrous recession and that China is the dynamic power of tomorrow, etc etc. But, my lord, life can be good here. (And where are the men pulling carts full of coal or scrap paper down the street, as if they were human beasts of burden?)

By tomorrow I won't notice any more."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at January 22, 2008 12:53 PM