August 19, 2008

8/19: Veep Fever

Like the rest of the political world, the blogosphere is preoccupied with VP rumors today. Now that journalists are reporting that Joe Biden sits at or near the top of Barack Obama's short list, liberal bloggers are discussing the DE senator. Most liberal bloggers appear comfortable with (albeit unenthusiastic about) the prospect of Biden as VP. While they acknowledge that Biden's Iraq vote and his lengthy tenure in Congress could create image problems for Obama, they like his feistiness and his willingness to engage the GOP on national security issues. Furthermore, they consider Biden ideologically preferable to IN Sen. Evan Bayh and VA Gov. Tim Kaine. However, Markos Moulitsas remains very critical of Biden:

"Biden voted for the Iraq war. But beyond that, even if we stipulate that he has foreign policy chops, how does that make him a good veep choice? It strikes me that any pick designed to cover up a 'flaw' in Obama (i.e. 'lack of foreign policy credentials') only accentuates those flaws."

Meanwhile, conservative bloggers reacted very negatively to National Review's report that the McCain camp "is serious about the possibility of a pro-choice VP nominee." Righty bloggers saw this as an indication that McCain is seriously considering ex-PA Gov. Tom Ridge and CT Sen. Joe Lieberman, and conservatives are unhappy about both of these possibilities. Michelle Malkin wonders: "Is McCain going to screw conservatives (again)? Wouldn't put it past him. Would you?"

OBAMA VEEPSTAKES: Can The Netroots Abide Biden?

Most liberal bloggers appear comfortable with the prospect of Biden as Obama's running mate, although they're not particularly excited about it:

• Open Left's Chris Bowers: "Biden is not a reinforcing choice, as he has served in the Senate for 36 years and supported the war back in 2002-2003. In two key ways -- Iraq judgment and 'change' election -- that is very much the opposite of Barack Obama, and could muddle his message. Still, when it comes to ideological leanings and campaign ability, Biden is a preferable choice to Bayh and Kaine. [...] As a campaigner, while Biden is often criticized online as never finding a camera he didn't think should be filming him, he is very familiar on the national stage, with the national media, and is a strong debater. He is also a good attack dog, and you shouldn't have to worry about him falling down in that category. Maybe my support for Biden is mainly a testament to how poor the crop of potential candidates is than anything else. After all, being preferable to Evan Bayh isn't really saying much of at all."
• TPM's Josh Marshall: "On the one hand, it's not the most exciting choice. [Biden] doesn't bring a state. Delaware's going to go Democratic. [...] Biden also occasionally says something really whacked, which we'll probably find out more of if he's the pick. On the other hand, wholly separate from the cosmetics and electioneering calculus, I think he'd be a good choice. On substance, maybe a really good choice. Most senators grasp of foreign policy is fairly thin -- and it tends to be heavily influenced by whatever lobbyists or power players are in their orbit. But Biden has a pretty deep knowledge of pretty much every big foreign policy question. And his ideas and judgment strike me as fundamentally sane."
• Atrios: "I'm a lot cooler on Biden than Josh [Marshall], but like Chris [Bowers] it wouldn't bother me that much if he were to be chosen. Of the people I don't really want to be Veep who keep showing up on those fake short lists people keep coming up with he bothers me the least. Enthusiasm!!"
• Think Progress' Matthew Yglesias: "I think putting someone who voted for the 2002 Iraq AUMF on the ticket may be more politically problematic than people realize -- Obama has cited his opposition to that bill as key evidence of his good judgment, but presumably you'd want to put Biden forward as a knowledgeable and experienced foreign policy person, thus setting up a problematic contradiction. But that vote aside, Biden really is someone who's genuinely knowledgeable about foreign policy questions rather than simply being 'strong on defense' or some BS. What's more, [...] picking Biden would signal a clear intention to engage with McCain on national security issues rather than try to dodge away from them, which is definitely a decision I support."
• Crooks and Liars' John Amato: "I was against Kaine, Bayh, [NE Sen. Chuck] Hagel and [ex-GA Sen. Sam] Nunn. I haven't thought too much about Biden yet. He a pretty smart guy, but doesn't help Obama win in any area of the country so what's the point?"
• Scott Lemieux: "Perhaps I've been buttered up by the fairly dismal alternatives being offered, but like Steve I find Biden a surprisingly decent option. At a minimum, he's strongly preferable to Kaine or Bayh, infinitely preferable to Nunn or Hagel, and clearly behind (among vaguely viable candidates) only Sebelius and [RI Sen. Jack] Reed. [...] If I thought the VP choice should be determined by political considerations, I would pass; his penchant for saying silly things and hailing from a small, safe state would rule him out. Since I think the VP pick should be primarily substantive, however, I think he would be decent -- he could play a constructive policy role comparable to Gore and is considerably more progressive than most of his assumed rivals for the job. He wouldn't be at the top of my list, but of the InTrade top 3 he's the best by a huge margin."

OBAMA VEEPSTAKES II: Bidenmania

Ezra Klein views Biden more positively than many of his fellow liberal bloggers, and he republishes an earlier post making the case for Biden as VP: "Rather than just repeat myself on why I think [choosing Biden is] a good idea, I'm just going to republish this post explaining why I think it's a good idea. The only thing I'd really add is that in the months since I wrote it -- it was originally a June posting -- Obama has shown himself more, not less, in need of an attack dog able to engage McCain on national security."

Meanwhile, Daily Kos' georgia10 pushes back against the suggestion that Biden's 36 years in Washington conflict with Obama's outsider image: "The idea that a hefty resume is somehow a roadblock to change is ridiculous. Politicians do not neatly fall into Column A 'experience' types and Column B 'change' types. But this political taxonomy is catchy, so certain members of the press gleefully run with it. Obama's image as a 'change' candidate will not be 'undercut' if he happens to pick a familiar face in politics. On one level, that image is culled from the historic nature of his candidacy. On a deeper level, it exists because the entire Obama candidacy, from the grassroots up, has been build on a foundation of change, on a need for change, and on a belief that the old politics of George Bush and John McCain are hurting the American people. That foundation is so strong (2 million supporters strong, to be exact, and millions more who volunteer or support Obama's candidacy) that it won't be cracked if and when Obama chooses an old white guy with decades of D.C. experience."

Daily Kos' Moulitsas, on the other hand, does believe that putting Biden on the ticket would detract from Obama's message of change: "Biden voted for the Iraq war. But beyond that, even if we stipulate that he has foreign policy chops, how does that make him a good veep choice? It strikes me that any pick designed to cover up a 'flaw' in Obama (i.e. 'lack of foreign policy credentials') only accentuates those flaws. Make him secretary of state. Sure, compared to Bayh and Kaine, Biden looks almost passable, but that's a low hurdle to pass. I'd rather not have to choose my poison. I'd rather have candy. I'm already assuming disappointment on Obama's pick, so I won't belabor one bad choice or another. But I'd love to see him pick a fresh face in politics who reinforces Obama's message of change. Biden doesn't. Clinton doesn't. Bayh certainly doesn't. If holding out for [KS Gov. Kathleen] Sebelius is too much to ask for, and if Obama is going to pick a guy that has been around for decades, then pick Kerry. Or even [ex-SD Sen. Tom] Daschle. But the senator from MBNA? That choice would be exciting to perhaps two audiences -- the Broderites and the credit card industry."

MCCAIN VEEPSTAKES: A Pro-Choice Veep? Seriously?

Conservative bloggers are buzzing about Rich Lowry's report that McCain is thinking about picking a pro-choice running mate:

"NR has learned that the McCain campaign has been calling key state GOP officials around the country the last couple of days and sounding them out about the consequences of a pro-choice VP pick. The campaign is asking about the reaction of conservative grass-roots activists to such a pick and whether a pro-choicer can be sold to them. This is an indication that the McCain campaign is serious about the possibility of a pro-choice VP nominee and that McCain leaving the door open to Tom Ridge last week may not have been merely a friendly nod to a longtime supporter."

Conservative bloggers strongly oppose the idea of putting Ridge or Lieberman on McCain's ticket:

• Malkin: "Is McCain going to screw conservatives (again)? Wouldn't put it past him. Would you? Which is why, despite all the encomiums he's received from his Saddleback appearance, I haven't (and won't) joined the ga-ga bandwagon."
• Right Wing News' John Hawkins: "Lieberman is EXTREMELY liberal when he gets off of defense issues and I am not really sure it's a great idea to have a guy like in the #2 slot when the head man is 72 years old. As to Ridge, he's a squish, closely associated with the Bush Administration, not well liked by conservatives, and he's pro-abortion. Still, if could carry Pennsylvania, McCain might have to consider him, but take that away and he'd be a real dud of a VP choice."
• NRO's Jim Geraghty: "If McCain picked Lieberman, some would salute the gesture as a genuine effort at bipartisanship. But Lieberman was effectively cast out of his own party when Ned Lamont beat him in the 2006 primary. His approval rating in the state is 45 percent vs. 43 percent disapproval. [...] It would be nice for a Republican candidate to win Connecticut's 7 electoral votes that everyone is already tossing in the Democratic pile, but it's something of a long shot. There's much lower-hanging fruit elsewhere -- New Hampshire, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin... Beyond that, McCain would be asking Republican voters to put a socially and economically liberal Democrat a heartbeat away from the presidency, said heartbeat belonging to a 72-year-old who has survived cancer. A lot of Republicans and conservatives like Joe Lieberman, but they don't want to see him as president. Ridge was last elected to high office, the governorship of Pennsylvania, in 1998. [...] It's not fair, but he's probably most associated with the color-coded terror alert system instituted at the Department of Homeland Security. Is Ridge worth 4 to 12 percentage points in Pennsylvania? He would likely help McCain, but not by that much. The race has been looking good for McCain for the past few weeks or so. Picking either of these men would suddenly and irreversibly complicate the task before him immensely."
• NRO's Kathryn Jean Lopez: "If John McCain picks Joe Lieberman as his running mate, he would 'snatch defeat from the jaws of victory,' as radio talk-show king Rush Limbaugh put it in an e-mail last night. Joe Lieberman should be commended as a profile in courage on the war in Iraq, standing athwart the defeatist Democratic party at a crucial time in history. But that does not a vice-presidential candidate for the pro-life Republican party make."

RedState's Erick Erickson doesn't think McCain will pick Lieberman or Ridge: "There are a lot of people getting really upset of late worrying that Tom Ridge or, to a lesser extent, Joe Lieberman, could be John McCain's Vice Presidential Pick. That is not going to happen. People should step back from the ledge. Why do I know it won't happen? John McCain does not get to be the Republican Presidential Nominee without (A) being a smart man and (B) surrounding himself with smart people. And smart people are smart enough to know that a pro-choice running mate would sabotage John McCain's chances of being President. [...] Tom Ridge, Joe Lieberman, and the other potential running mates who are abortion rights supporters are non-starters, deal breakers, and totally unacceptable. John McCain knows this. He and his campaign want to win in November. Couple both of those data points and you realize Tom Ridge and Joe Lieberman are imagined picked by the media designed to sow discomfort among the ranks of people just coming to terms with John McCain as the GOP nominee."

MCCAIN: Shades Of Christmas In Cambodia...

Yesterday we reported that liberal bloggers were speculating about the possibility that McCain modeled his "cross in the dirt" POW anecdote after a story told by Russian author Alexander Solzhenitsyn. Several liberal bloggers continue to discuss this topic:

• Obsidian Wings' hilzoy: "One thing that has come out since I wrote last night makes me think it's more likely that McCain made this up. No More Mr. Nice Blog points out that The Nightingale's Song, a 1995 book about five graduates of the Naval Academy, one of whom is McCain -- contains a chapter on, of all things, three Christmases McCain spent in captivity. (Thanks to Amazon's 'Search This Book' feature, and the fact that the chapter in question is only four pages long, I've read it, and you can too.) It contains no mention of this incident at all. [...] To my mind, it's a lot harder to believe that McCain never mentioned the story about the cross to Robert Timberg, who wrote The Nightingale's Song, than to believe he didn't mention it in his 1973 piece. Timberg interviewed McCain, and says that McCain spent 'a lot of time' with him. He was, moreover, writing about Christmases in captivity. If mcCain didn't mention it at the time, that would be very odd. Someone should ask him."
• AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "It's a bit odd that McCain's story about the prison guard drawing a cross in the sand doesn't appear in McCain's detailed account of his captivity, circa 1973. The first time that I've been able to find McCain mentioning this story is 1999, a full quarter of a century after he was released. If it was such a pivotal story in his life, why did we not hear about it until McCain had decided to run for president?"

NRO's Byron York spoke with McCain aide Mark Salter, who claimed that McCain told him the "cross in the dirt" story:

"I just got off the phone with Mark Salter, John McCain's closest aide whom some in the blogosphere are suggesting made up, or embellished, or did something to create the 'cross in the dirt' story. Salter told me that he absolutely did not do that."

• The Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan, who has been blogging continuously about this story, remains unconvinced: "The reason this is weird is that it's not just one memory out of countless ones. It's a very specific Christmas memory about a character McCain recounts in other anecdotes -- and was a significant enough memory to be packaged as a Christmas-themed campaign ad last year. But this riveting story which McCain 'will never forget' didn't occur to McCain when asked to come up with Christmas memories in captivity in 1995. Salter explains that McCain could easily have forgotten it because it was not 'pivotal.' Watch the ad again and listen to McCain's testimony from Saturday night. It sure sounds pivotal to me -- something that would surely resonate deeply over the years."
• Oliver Willis thinks Salter is in no position to objectively evaluate McCain's story: "McCain Aide: My Boss Isn't Lying. Oh, well, that settles it. Stay tuned as Byron York goes in depth to tell us how McCain staffers think that John McCain is the best choice for president while Obama staffers disagree!"

MCCAIN II: How Low Can You Go?

Conservative bloggers are pushing back fiercely against allegations that McCain made up or embellished his "cross in the dirt" story:

• Hawkins: "The netroots, with absolutely no evidence to back it up, has been accusing McCain of making this story up -- which is cheap, even for them. Seriously, they're accusing a POW of lying about his experiences in captivity to make himself look good based on nothing more than the fact that Alexander Solzhenitsyn once told a story that was somewhat similar."
• Townhall's Hugh Hewitt: "Sometimes you think the left has hit bottom, and then it falls off the floor."

Conservative bloggers are also arguing that by focusing attention on McCain's POW experience, liberal bloggers are helping the GOP nominee:

• Hot Air's Allahpundit: "Anything that keeps McCain's heroism front and center, without a shred of evidence from any eyewitness that he's lying, is tantamount to an in-kind campaign contribution. More, please."
• The Weekly Standard's Dean Barnett: "By all means, let's focus more attention on McCain's stint at the Hanoi Hilton. Maybe the Obama campaign will offer up as a counterpoint Obama's supremely courageous opposition to the Iraq War while on the front lines of the Illinois state legislature. And by all means, let's have the left continue its campaign to minimize McCain's service in Vietnam. That should work wonders for Obama!"

OBAMA: I Have A Bad Feeling About This...

Two of the netroots' leading number-crunchers -- Nate Silver and Chris Bowers -- are both projecting Obama's lead over McCain to be nearly gone:

• Silver: "Although Barack Obama remains a slight favorite in this election, his position is more vulnerable than at any point since the primaries concluded, and he no longer appears to have a built-in strength in the electoral college that we had attributed to him before."
• Bowers: "It is bitterly disappointing that Obama is not ahead by more entering this crucial three week stretch, but I guess we will see where things stand one month from now."

Meanwhile, liberal bloggers are growing increasingly concerned about the state of the Obama campaign. They are particularly upset about what they perceive to be its lack of aggressiveness:

• Aravosis: "There is an incredible discontent out there with the way this campaign is being run. The fact that the discontent isn't being recognized, isn't being assuaged, is disturbing. People aren't worried about the election, they're becoming despondent about it. They're not motivated to work twice as hard, they instead feel as if they've had the wind knocked out of them. This is far beyond a healthy skepticism as to whether Obama can win. While Obama's attacks today on McCain are heartening, we need to see more of it. People need to see that Barack Obama has as big of balls as John McCain and, well, Hillary Clinton."
• Bowers: "It is very difficult to not conclude that McCain is winning the messaging war right now. If Obama is winning in field, paid media, and free media exposure in a very Democratic year, what other explanation could there possibly be for his narrow lead nationally? It honestly scares the crap out of me that the Obama campaign will run another vacuous, 'positive' campaign like Kerry's that simply does not attack and define the Republican nominee in a way that is necessary. If things do not go well in the next three weeks, McCain could enter the third week of September with a lead similar that the one currently held by Obama. If that happens, he will become the favorite, no matter how hard the Democratic winds are blowing."
• Open Left's Matt Stoller: "Various insiders are now fretting about Obama's campaign strategy going off course, and are doing what insiders do, which is to recommend shifts in how the campaign operates. My guess is that, as with [Al] Gore and [John] Kerry, at this point no one is in charge of the Obama campaign, there are too many competing fiefdoms for message discipline to work. That's why lobbying on the inside doesn't really work for things like message changes on a Presidential level. Remember also that just being negative is not 'taking off the gloves' or 'going on the attack'. Polling about issues and then criticizing McCain based on that data is not working, Obama is going hard against McCain on big oil and McCain but McCain is still gaining. So any effective messaging strategy will have to start from outside and gradually be adopted by the campaign, since it will have to seem internally as if the major power centers have independently arrived at the same conclusion."
• digby mourns the Obama camp's opposition to independent expenditure groups: "The Obama campaign does not want to be involved in negative campaigning on this scale and perhaps, as the new, lesser known guy, Obama has to be more careful of such things. That, needless to say, is why the independent expenditure groups would have been so important. It's now rumored that the donors have been set free to finance some non-campaign related efforts, but it would be a miracle if they could pull it off at this late date. These things have to be planned --- something I'm sure Freedom's Watch and their advisor Karl Rove have certainly been doing for months."

The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum urges Obama supporters to calm down: "Liberals have been in a dither for several weeks now over Barack Obama's supposedly listless campaign performance following his return from Europe, and as near as I can tell this turned into something close to panic after his performance in Saturday's Saddleback Church pseudo-debate. Obama was deliberate and thoughtful! McCain was direct and forceful! Joe and Jane Sixpack will take wrong but strong every time! Give me a break. Of course McCain was direct and forceful. He was on his home turf and he could afford to be. Abortion? Life begins at conception. Gay marriage? Against it. [...] Obama, of course, had no such option. What's he going to say? That he has a 100% approval rating from NARAL? Gay marriage is a gift from God? [...] If this had been an AFL-CIO forum, the tables would have been turned. But it wasn't, and Obama played the hand he was dealt. That's life. Obama's campaign tactics will almost certainly get more aggressive after the convention, when most people finally start paying attention, but in the meantime it's worth noting that Obama's performance at Saddleback Church might have been better than all the heathens who read this blog think."

Daily Kos' DemFromCT also believes that the Obama camp doesn't need bloggers' advice: "Obama needs to be more succinct, start throwing in better sound bites, and needs to reach the gut as well as the heart and the head. He needs to get over the C-in-C threshold, but the key to the election is the economy. And he needs to better define McCain. But, you know, these aren't great mysteries, and the campaign has done pretty well so far. So, rather than give advice to people that don't need it, I think I'll just sit back and enjoy the next two weeks."

OBAMA II: Where's The Outrage?

Liberal bloggers are decrying McCain's allegation that Obama's opposition to the Iraq troop surge is grounded in his "ambition to be president." Liberal bloggers believe that McCain is "basically accusing Obama of treason" and they want Obama to respond more forcefully to McCain's remarks:

• TPM's Marshall: "With so many instances of corruption and influence-peddling around him and whatever problems with the candidate that are keeping the campaign from letting reporters interview him anymore, John McCain is now again charging Obama with what amounts to soft treason -- wanting to lose the war in Iraq in order to make himself president. The lack of any consistent lines of attack against McCain is becoming palpable."
• Aravosis: "McCain accuses Obama (again) of treason. Will Obama respond? Ever?"
• Daily Kos' BarbinMD: "More thinly veiled accusations of treason? It's time for the Obama campaign to stop 'respecting' John McCain's service to this country more than 40 years ago and start pounding him for his repeated failures in judgement over the past seven years."
• Firedoglake's Scarecrow: "In his speech to the VFW today, McCain not only misrepresented his support for the veteran's bill that [VA Sen.] Jim Webb championed, he also again attacked Obama's patriotism, repeating the outrageous smear that his rival would put political ambition over America's security. After this, the media has no further excuse for assuming the man John McCain has become is honorable. Note to media: Lying and smearing your opponent are not honorable."

OBAMA III: How To Go After McCain

Several liberal bloggers are discussing possible anti-McCain narratives:

• Stoller: "What is important is not the specifics of the attack but that the Obama campaign find a way to test potential narratives. McCain fished around for awhile with his ads before hitting on celebrity. He tried going after him for being a flip flopper on Iraq, for cutting funds to troops, for raising prices at the pump, for being wrong on Iraq, for arrogance, and for being an obstructionist. They didn't stick. When McCain did find a line of attack against Obama -- as evidenced by youtube views and cable news views -- that stuck, he went off and produced new versions of that same theme. It's an approach that is evolutionary, not top-down. This is not Karl Rove evil genius work psychoanalysis or sophisticated psychographic polling and micro-targeting, it's simple trial and error that any popular junior high school bully uses to find the weak spot in the new kid. Mock him until he starts squealing, as measured by outrage and youtube views."
• Stoller continues: "Why not do the same in going back at McCain? Obviously Clark's line of attack, that McCain's POW status is pretty irrelevant to his race for the White House, and that he has no actual executive experience, drew blood. The reaction was fierce and angry, which is precisely what you need for a message to resonate with the public at large. But really, any effective narrative on McCain would work. What is clear though is that any narrative that does work draws, as Clark's did (and as McCain's celebrity ad did) squeals from elite pundits and journalists. Elites don't like changes in narrative, so be aware that any real shift against McCain will be disliked by elites. It probably makes sense at this point to work from outside to test different narratives. Right now, there are two competing ideas. The first is that McCain is no longer the honorable man he used to be, the second is that McCain is old, crazy, and unsuited to be President."
• BooMan: "Karl Rove perfected the strategy of going right after a candidate's greatest strength. In Kerry's case it was his distinguished military record. In Obama's case it is his charisma and popularity abroad. In McCain's case it is his reputation as a maverick, his media-darling status, and his record as a Vietnam veteran and POW. Those are precisely the strengths that need to be taken on squarely. And there are more. McCain is showing age-related performance problems. He's taking radical right positions on abortion, on foreign policy, on social security, and more. Many members of his caucus are profoundly discomfited by the very idea of John McCain as commander in chief. [...] What are a few panders and flip-flops in comparison? The danger for Obama is that by listening to Beltway consultants and media insiders he may make the mistake of conceding that John McCain was once a man of honor, integrity, and principle. He wasn't honorable at the Naval Academy. He wasn't honorable in his first marriage. He wasn't honorable when he voted against MLK Day, or when he got involved in the Keating Five. He wasn't honorable when he defended the Confederate Flag (as he has admitted). He's not being honorable now. So, when was he honorable? There is only so much deference you can pay to a man's captivity at the hands of the NVA."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Reading The Tea Leaves

FiveThirtyEight's Nate Silver makes some predictions about Obama's VP choice:

"I would not dismiss the possibility of a surprise choice, precisely because the Obama campaign has the discipline to pull it off. Still, I have to agree with Sean that the more build-up there is, the more pressure there is on the Obama campaign to deliver on a big name. Would a head-fake make sense if the Obama campaign were going to deliver us a [TX Rep.] Chet Edwards or -- bless his political heart -- a [MT Gov.] Brian Schweitzer -- someone who had all those iPhone-carrying Obama supporters furiously checking Wikipedia after they received Team O's text message?

Not much. Either they're playing it straight-up -- meaining Biden, Bayh, Kaine, or Sebelius -- or it's some kind of A-lister, someone for whom the elaborate staging of it all doesn't produce an anti-climax. That list is probably limited to Hillary, Gore, Kerry and Colin Powell, though I have real trouble imagining the latter two. Somebody who had officially disqualified themselves -- [ex-VA Gov.] Mark Warner or Jim Webb -- would presumably also produce a lot of shock value. But I think we need to start discounting some of these second-tier picks that don't have strong brands, like the Jack Reeds and the Chris Dodds."

LEST WE FORGET: Double-Jointed Man On Date Breaks It Out Too Early

From The Onion:

"COOPERSTOWN, NY -- Double-jointed man Stephen Rothkowitz's first date with Lois Hiller, 30, was irrevocably derailed when the 29-year-old process server prematurely demonstrated his ability to bend his thumb all the way back to his wrist, witnesses reported Tuesday. 'There seemed to be a lull in their conversation, and then he just started yanking his thumb around,' said patron David Cantrall, who was seated adjacent to Rothkowitz's table at the D&R Steakhouse. 'He didn't even preface it with something like, "Hey, guess what I can do?"' Rothkowitz was reportedly unable to salvage the evening by shooting milk out of his eye."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at August 19, 2008 01:50 PM