If Pat Caddell didn't invent modern polling, he was certainly one of the very early architects. He advised five Democrat presidential candidates, including one for current Vice-President Joe Biden. He was a figure of considerable influence in the ill-fated Carter White House, which makes his comments about Obama's political prospects, and those of the Democrat party in particular, of particular interest.

Some of his critics have accused him of being a crypto-Republican, but Caddell is still very much a creature of the left, supporting Ralph Nader in word, deed and with cash. He's just extremely candid and self-assured about his political principles.

“President Obama’s undoing may be his disingenuousness,” Caddell says. After campaigning for post-partisanship, Obama, he observes, has lurched without pause to the left. “You can’t get this far from what you promised,” Caddell says, “especially when people invest in hope — you must understand that obligation. The killer in American politics is disappointment. When you are elected on expectations, and you fail to meet them, your decline steepens.”

Caddell, as a first hand observer of Jimmy Carter's political dissolution, is perhaps positioned better than any other political observer to understand the scope of Obama's failure, and the implications for Democrat political fortunes. He doesn't disappoint.

“We may be at a pre-revolutionary moment,” he says, unsmiling. “Everything is in motion.” This November, he predicts, “will be more of a national referendum than any [midterm election] since Watergate.”

The polling data show how restless the country is. “A Rasmussen poll from earlier this year showed just 21 percent of voters believing that the federal government enjoys the consent of the governed — an astounding figure,” Caddell says. “Then a CNN poll showed that 56 percent of Americans worried that the federal government poses a direct threat to their freedom.”

“Democrats are aware of this,” Caddell continues. “They know that the general outcome is baked.” As the fall campaign kicks into gear, “the question now becomes whether Obama can mitigate their losses. You see them trying to localize their campaigns and pretending that they don’t know Nancy Pelosi. It’s all rather amusing.”

Unlike President Reagan at his first-term midpoint, in 1982, “Obama is not able to go out there and say, ‘Stay the course.’ That’s just not possible. The Democrats’ hope with health care was that ‘people will like it after we pass it.’ Well, they hate it, and you don’t see any effort to promote it. The Democrats had a chance to do this right — most people supported aspects of reform — but because of the way it was passed, as a crime against democracy, the country has simply not accepted it. The lies, the browbeating, the ‘deem and pass’ — all of it was a suicide mission.”

At this point, prediction of an electorate rout in a couple of months is low-hanging fruit. The real value of what Caddell is saying is the lesson for Republicans. He points out that in spite of the unprecedented 10 point generic poll lead (Rasmussen), "no one likes the Republicans much either..." That's undoubtedly true...I don't like the Republican much myself.

A victory in November while certainly useful, won't bring sustained benefit to either the party or the country unless Republicans understand that job one will be to restore national confidence in its governing institutions. Failing that, Democrats wouldn't be unreasonable to expect a repeat of 2008 at some point in the future.

The Shard will be the tallest building in Britain and Europe. It's by London Bridge,  a few minutes' walk from my London apartment. Here's an album.

Newsweek's upcoming issue:

Obviously an artifact of deep frustration by the left that they haven't been able to manage Obama's image to their liking, but I've been perplexed at their incredulity that this is happening to the Messiah--after all, Messianic messengers tend to end their careers on the run, in a prison or at the hands of executioners--sometimes all three.

What's become clear over the transition between the Bush and Obama administration is that while everyone would like to manipulate public opinion, everyone basically runs into the same problem. You can incite a mob to form, but you can't control it--and its collorary--one mob begets another.

60s anti-war protesters recreated their organizing techniques in the new millenia, using modern communication technologies to great effect, which in turn were the basis for the Tea Party's birth. In both cases, the elite's control of the traditional messaging apparatus was circumvented with the technological equivalent of a jungle telegraph.

Just as the ruling class thought they had co-opted new media with secret collaborations like journolist (among many others...), a true high-tech jungle telegraph emerged in the form of Facebook.

Something happened last week that turned the light-bulb on. An old friend I recently reconnected with on Facebook asked me a simple, but pregnant question: "Where do you get this stuff?"

She had unquestioningly accepted the mainstream media narrative for decades, only to discover an entire alternate universe of reporting and perspective in the minimalistic but regular postings on my Facebook page. What contributed to her awakening was the credibility of my sources (the page A-12 stuff the media prints but hopes you never read...) and the fact that it wasn't necessary to establish trust. Trust is implicit in the nature of our relationship.

Almost everyday, one of my Facebook friends reposts at least one of the articles that I've posted, suggesting an organic process of transmission that mathematically portends a reach far broader than anything the mainstream media could hope to accomplish directly. The great thing about this (depending on your point of view) is that I function as editor--deciding what pages page one, and what doesn't.

The bottom line is that there is virtually no way to hijack this particular jungle telegraph. You may wring your hands that nearly 20% of the public thinks the President is a Muslim, but there is literally nothing you can do about it because Obama has neither the trust or the access to effectively repudiate the claim.

The implications for future administrations are challenging to say the least.

Much is being written these days about the end of a distinction between public and private behavior. Google's CEO went so far as to suggest that a few years hence will see a strong trend towards legal name changes, as young people seek to escape their socially networked misspent youth for professional and political reasons. His larger message is important--technology has erased the traditional expectation of a public and private face. We will now only have one face and in all likelihood, the worse thing we've ever done will be the first thing people learn about us.

There is no reason to expect that this won't also be true for the political sphere as well and we are in fact seeing this in real time. The failure of the global warming hoax can be attributed to the impossibility of controlling information thoroughly enough to see such a monstrosity fully translated into national and international law. The incredibly aggressive effort to ram through Obamacare became a Pyrrhic victory, and a likely temporary Pyrrhic victory at its alleged benefits will be as illusory as the economic rebirth promised by the so-called stimulus.

Politicians may have to do something unprecedented--sell their propositions on the merits.

Today Obama will take credit for ending the US combat presence in Iraq, a successful outcome due to Bush forcing thru the surge against domestic opposition on all sides:

Obama denies Bush the credit, which brings us to a punchline from Powerline:

One can debate whether Obama is a terrible President--I think he is--but I don't think anyone can deny that he is an unmanly jerk.

Of 749 self-identified employees of ABC, CBS and NBC who gave money to Obama or McCain, 710 contributed to Obama's campaign and 39 to McCain's campaign. That is 95% were Obamans.

But Jake Tapper of ABC reports:

During a hastily-called Rose Garden event during which the sound system failed him, President Obama attempted today to communicate to the American public that his administration remains on top of the economic crisis. ... The event in some ways could be seen as a metaphor for the administration’s flailing on the economy. Originally no remarks were scheduled, then on Sunday evening, the White House announced the president would make remarks in the Oval Office after his economic daily briefing. Then on Monday that was upgraded to remarks by the president at 12:30 p.m. ET in the Rose Garden after his briefing, signifying a more formal event. Then those remarks were pushed to 1 p.m. Finally the president approached the lectern at 1:20 p.m. Only five sentences into his remarks, the P.A. system fizzled. “What we did know was that it took nearly a decade -- what we did -- how are we doing on sound, guys?” the president asked “Is it still going to the press?” he asked, checking to make sure even if he couldn’t be heard clearly in the Rose Garden, broadcast networks were getting clean sound, which they were. “OK,” the president said. A plane flew nearby, drowning out his voice. “What we did know was that it was going to take nearly a decade in order for -- can you guys still hear us?” Reporters nodded.
   
“OK,” he continued, “let me try this one more time.”

Bob Herbert finds this comment by Glenn Beck to be beyond the pale.

Facts and reality mean nothing to Beck. And there is no road too low for him to slither upon. The Southern Poverty Law Center tells us that in a twist on the civil rights movement, Beck said on the air that he “wouldn’t be surprised if in our lifetime dogs and fire hoses are released or opened on us. I wouldn’t be surprised if a few of us get a billy club to the head. I wouldn’t be surprised if some of us go to jail — just like Martin Luther King did — on trumped-up charges. Tough times are coming.”

He makes you want to take a shower.

I don't know what facts and reality Bob is talking about, but the fact and reality of his column is that he hates 'uppity white man' Glenn Beck with a passion, along with the half million or so people, estimated by the media to be attending the "Restoring Honor" even on the Washington Mall. Enough to let loose the dogs and take a few whacks at the bitter-clingers with a billy-club?

Well, let's see--someone shot out the front door of the Republican headquarters in Maryland. Tea Party protesters have been attacked by crazed left-wingers on several occasions. A gold-star Mom was told by a code-pink protester that her son deserved to die because he had gone to Iraq.

Those are facts. That's reality.

Barack Obama's attitude towards white, bitter-clingers is also a matter of record. Is the President a racist? Well, I guess that depends on how you define your terms. If a white candidate had denigrated black subculture with the terms 'bitter' and 'clinger', would he or she be accused of racism?

Damn right they would.

If Bob Herbert comes at me with a billy club, he'll know he was in a fight.

Katie Couric and the CBS Evening News tie all-time ratings low.

Surprisingly, there are still 4.5 million people who are watching her every evening on average. I caught a few minutes of Couric recently, and I was struck at how I couldn't really notice any difference between her delivery and that of any other cable news anchor babe, except of course that she is older and less attractive in comparison with her younger competitors.

Is it the credibility? Well, I'm not sure what credibility she every had for hard news. She had been occasionally confrontational on the Today show and I guess that gets confused with gravitas by network executives. There is no sense that she is operating from a larger insight the way Peter Jennings or Tim Russert did.

She appears to be a perfect liberal-left-wing icon; a loyal partisan whose lack of talent and style was supposed to have been hidden by manufactured praise (brilliant! sexy! smart!) that in the end, just can't hide the figure flaws of this naked Empress.

Sound familiar? I'd venture to say that the entire left-wing establishment is in the same boat these days. Minority leader John Boehner called for the resignations or firings of Obama's entire economic team, which of course won't happen, but highlighted a political reality.

Various senior Democrats insisted that Tim Geithner had to be confirmed in spite of his tax problems, because he was uniquely qualified to deal with the financial crisis, there being NO ONE ELSE IN THE COUNTRY who could do the job....

Predictably, Geithner works alone these days for a simple reason--success has many fathers, but failure is an orphan.

Wheel barrels of praise, followed by epic failure, followed by embarrassment, followed by obscurity after they find some other poor sap to help them start the process all over again.

Are you listening General Petraeus?

The Democrats attacks on the 2nd amendment have been a tradition going back as far as I can remember. Assurances to the contrary are, well, lies designed to mitigate the wrath of an electorate enamored of its rights to bear arms.

Now its the first amendment's turn.

It is understandable that the administration has secrets and wants to keep them. But this campaign to flush out sources has the feel of chest-thumping and intimidation. It is one thing to protect information that might put Americans in danger or undermine national security; it is another to bring cases against whistle-blowers and others who divulge information to spur debate and raise questions about public policy.

Its a pretty scary thing when the Justice Department comes calling, and expensive too, which is the point. Its just easier to roll over and make them go away than defend one's rights at great personal cost.

The pretext of national security is dubious just on the basis of the Democrat's delight with leaks during the Bush administration. The Obama administration's efforts to disenfranchise Fox News (as an example) deepens suspicions that a larger strategy is at play.

Well, if you thought that, you'd be right. The kind of total transformation Obama promised if elected requires a major shift in public attitudes. Americans, like citizens of other socialist countries, must place their confidence in government institutions to resolve their personal and community issues. Only in that way can the ruling class exercise the kind of power that they apparently believe to be their birthright.

We have of course heard familiar rhetoric about evil oil companies, evil Fox News, and the general anointing as devil spawn anyone that consistently obstructs the Democrat's socialist agenda. That's easy to do whether in or out of power. Yet it has only been recently that Democrats have had the opportunity to exercise what we'll euphemistically call a positive campaign to engender trust and confidence in government.

Well that's a problem. Just as public corporations are perfectly willing to screw their customers in the name of their shareholders, government bureaucracies are just as willing to screw the citizens for their shareholders--which isn't us, but rather their political and union masters. Creating confidence in that dysfunctional mess isn't going to happen naturally and so a little help is needed.

PR spin.

If you can't actually do your job right, you can always fall back on spinning your performance by taking credit and assigning blame. Of course, when you're the government, you have advantage over large corporations in that you can actually prosecute people--threatening them with the loss of their freedom and confiscation of their assets (well, corporations have at least a limited ability to do this as well...).

The 1st amendment is a huge obstacle to the Democrat's plans to remake the country in France's image, and so therefore must be challenged and undermined wherever possible.

That constitution thing is just a great big hassle for the oh-so-smart people that want to run everything. Don't worry though--they'll be big fans of the 1st amendment again when once again have a Republican President.

Barack Obama as a crypto-Muslim has been relentless ridiculed by the Democrats bag-men in the state media, not to mention early efforts at making reading anything into his middle name and his early schooling in a Madassa the province of unenlightened, ill-mannered brutes.

Yet with less than half of Obama's term expired, U.S. foreign policy has become openly hostile to Israeli interests in the middle east, and freakishly indulgent of militant Islam (which in my experience is a fair description of the entire religious, rather than some radical sect...).

One can only endure so many coincidences before one entertains the 'crazy' notions.

The final straw may have been Barack Obama's open and enthusiastic endorsement of the triumphal mosque proposed to be built near the site of the World Trade Center. Not that this was unexpected considering all the rolling over on its back this administration has been doing when it comes to Islam, but the audience for his remarks is in my mind, far more damning of this administration than yet another crazy-ass statement identifying the President with the enemies of this country than with its clear and unambiguous interests.

As notable as what the President said is the company he keeps. Consider a few examples from this year’s Iftar dinner guest list:

Ingrid Mattson heads the largest Muslim Brotherhood front in the country, the Islamic Society of North America. ISNA was an unindicted co-conspirator in the biggest terrorism financing trial in the nation’s history and was identified as a Brotherhood “associated or friendly” group in documents introduced as evidence uncontested in that Holy Land Foundation prosecution. Ms. Mattson now presides over the selection, training and certification of Muslim chaplains for the U.S. military and prison system – interestingly, a job formerly in the hands of Muslim Brother Abdurahman Alamoudi, the founder and first head of the American Muslim Council, who is currently serving a 23-year sentence on terrorism charges.

Salam Al-Marayati is president of the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC). In 1999, then-House Democratic Leader Richard Gephardt withdrew his nomination of Al-Marayati to a leadership position on the National Commission on Terrorism when it became public that Al-Marayati claimed that the terrorist group, Hezbollah, was a legitimate organization and has the right to attack the Israeli Army.

Dalia Mogahed runs the insidious Gallup Center for Muslim Studies and advises President Obama on Muslim affairs as a member of the President’s Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. In an October 2009 interview with the London Telegraph, she made the following astounding assertions: “I think the reason so many women support shariah is because they have a very different understanding of shariah than the common perception in Western media.” “The majority of women around the world associate gender justice, or justice for women, with shariah compliance.” “The portrayal of shariah has been oversimplified in many cases.”

As the saying goes, who are you going to believe? The apologists for militant Islam or your own eyes?

We call it the Arab-Israeli conflict, but the simple reality is that if it was merely a political conflict, it would have been resolved one way or another decades ago. This kind of perverse longevity is always due to an authoritarian, triumphalist ideology (whether religious or nationalistic). The reality is that its an Israel-Islam conflict with Israel cast in the role of the devil for resisting the will of Allah. The thing about fighting devils is that there can be no surrender, no cessation of hostility. Fighting devils is an eternal proposition, which is why we should have been much more worried than we were when various Islamic religious figures pronounced the West and particularly the U.S. as the "Great Satan".

Moderate Islam is a myth, and all one has to do is study Islam from its inception through to yesterday's date to know that with a certainty.

Democrats have grown powerful and rich on the backs of tactics that have co-opted various minorities into their circles of power. First express sympathy, the offer assistance (legal and organizational). Offer the best and brightest of the target group places in the leadership schools, when after they are fully indoctrinated and identify with the goals and values of the ruling class, offer them authority and status. These trustees, function as a familiar looking face, speaking the language of the culture they've originated from, but wholly loyal to the interests of their sponsors. Hence black, feminist and Hispanic leaders insuring that the political power of their communities flow to their masters.

Its worked so well for so long, its hard to fault Democrats from thinking they can do the same thing with Muslims. So how do I know they will fail? I'm writing this from Utah, the metaphorical Jerusalem or Mecca of the Mormon church, but the previous capital of Mormonism in Nauvoo, Illinois is perhaps more instructive. In Nauvoo, on the Mississippi river, Joseph Smith built a city, larger than Chicago in its day, and possessed of a militia that rivaled the U.S. army of the time. This was all made possible by a very generous city charter facilitated by politicians who saw this large (40-50 thousand in frontier Illinois was pretty impressive) monolithic group as permanent majority stuff.

It become clear on that and subsequent occasions, that Mormonism's first loyalty was to its religious ideology, and that while they were content to take advantage of the naivete of the political class, the church membership was never going to be a compliant special interest.

Mormons want to convert you to their faith, but Islam will kill you if you don't convert to their faith. Nothing good will come of this.

Yesterday President George W. Bush unexpectedly turned up at Dallas/Fort Worth Airport to welcome home US Army troops. "The photos are priceless."

In 2003 Bush made a surprise appearance at a Thanksgiving Dinner in Baghdad, where he helped serve dinner to the troops:

This extract from a message home by a US Army captain describes the scene:

Bremer then said that we should probably get someone more senior to read the
speech. Then, from behind the camouflage netting, the President of the
United States came around. The mess hall actually erupted with hollering.
Troops bounded to their feet with shocked smiles and just began cheering
with all their hearts. The building actually shook. It was just unreal. I
was absolutely stunned. Not only for the obvious, but also because I was
only two tables away from the podium. There he stood, less than thirty feet
away from me! The cheering went on and on and on.

Soldiers were hollering, cheering, and a lot of them were crying. There was
not a dry eye at my table. When he stepped up to the cheering, I could
clearly see tears running down! his cheeks. It was the most surreal moment
I’ve had in years. Not since my wedding and Aaron being born. Here was this
man, our President, came all the way around the world, spending 17 hours on
an airplane and landing in the most dangerous airport in the world, where a
plane was shot out of the sky not six days before.

Just to spend two hours with his troops. Only to get on a plane and spend
another 17 hours flying back. It was a great moment, and I will never forget
it. He delivered his speech, which we all loved, when he looked right at me
and held his eyes on me. Then he stepped down and was just mobbed by the
soldiers.

I was pleased to read Mark Adam's post on Obama's disaffection with the Presidency--admittedly due to some degree of confirmation bias, but also because of the nagging observations that are clumping together at the back of my mind.

Its not just all the vacationing, its the campaigning as well--something he has always clearly enjoyed, feels he's good at, and gives him strokes when he is getting precious few of those from anyone these days. The pea that tipped the scales over into my conscious mind was Robert Gibb's self-described inartful criticism of the professional left as spoiled cry-babies.

Inartful in this context means accidentally telling the truth in liberal-progressive circles. Clearly the man was at his limit, and did the White House version of cursing out the passengers, grabbing a beer and exiting the plane via the emergency escape slide.

Gibbs is simply a bellwether for the internal climate of the White House, essentially confirming what everyone really already knows--its really bad, and its getting worse. The Fed's action today of keeping interest rates pretty much at zero, reveals the whole media narrative of recovery as a total fiction from start to finish. The dreadful reality for the Obama administration is that its economic ideas are indistinguishable from magic spells to make Zulu shields impenetrable to bullets--great for morale before the battle, not so much afterwards.

So is Roger Simon right? Does Obama want to be President? Did he ever?

Well of course he did--his entire life has been a carefully executed plan to achieve ever-higher office, with the natural culmination being the Presidency. Ambition isn't unusual for Presidents, but unlike say, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama has also been a principled President, willing to be unpopular to advance ideological goals. No one really expects Obama to 'triangulate' after what could be a Republican landslide.

In fact, I think his principled (stubborn?) approach to politics is being confused with apathy when its really a matter on how Obama views the Presidency.

For Bill Clinton, ideology was simply a means to an end. When he couldn't go left, he went right, famously declaring that the era of big government was over. For Clinton, life is high school--popularity is the only accepted currency. You try out for sports, run for student council or audition for the lead in the school play to get a spotlight, and score with the chicks. For Barack Obama, popularity was simply a means to an end, which for him was to transform the United States into a socialist Republic literally overnight. Obama is an idealist--a sorely disappointed one at present.

So what does an idealist do when he can't change the world? As much of the professional left is demonstrating, one option is to bitch, moan and blame everyone in sight for your own failures. He's doing that of course, but increasingly he is disassociating--avoiding the unpleasantness and substituting other, more rewarding activities.

Obama is above all, a rational creature, in control of his emotions. He gives every indication that he's reached a conclusion about his Presidency and is intellectually and emotionally moving on to the next project. His faith in himself and his ideology cannot be dented with a small thing like epic failure--he will, he is instead, laying the blame for his failure on circumstances and perhaps misjudgments--figuring out what lessons to take with him.

Obama is 49 years old---a young man by political standards, and one with a mission from God.

Obama recently blew off 45,000 Scouts by skipping their quadrennial jamboree to tape his gigolo act on "The View" (shudder). He sent a video message instead. The Scouts got the message:

Meanwhile Marie-Antoinette Obama uses Air Force 2 and a security platoon and a closed beach to entertain her party in swankiest Spain.

Meanwhile a minority of Americans are sure Obama was born in the USA (CNN poll).

Meanwhile the toss-up state of Missouri votes 71% against Obamacare.

Meanwhile a federal judge strongly implies that he'll strike compulsory health insurance as unconstitutional.

Meanwhile another federal judge rules that Arizona can't make laws to enforce federal law on immigration.

Meanwhile another federal judge finds a constitutional right to homosexual marriage, so galvanizing non-progressives.

Meanwhile the race card has been maxed out and the repulsive Congressional Black Caucus joins 'Granny Rictus' Pelosi as the face of the progressives with an 11% approval rating.

There's a hard rain a gonna fall in November. But there's something else than politics here. It's the immune system of a diseased body at work. By golly I'm optimistic about America. What other society could turn itself around so fast ?

I agree with Roger Simon that Obama doesn't want to be President. I've seen it in others and myself, when everything goes wrong because you know you're out of your depth:

I am not being metaphorical here — I am quite serious. The more I have thought about this, the more I am convinced Barack Obama no longer wishes to be president. The degree that he admits this to himself, I am not sure. But I rather suspect that in the small hours of the morning he fantasizes he were anywhere but 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. And who could blame him? By almost any measure, he is doing a terrible job.

Of course, as we all know, Obama didn’t really expect to be president. This was to be a trial run. And then it took off. He ended up in the White House with virtually no experience that prepared him for the task. His superior intelligence was supposed to carry him through. Only intelligence — whatever his level — is just one component of leadership, and probably far from the largest one.

But the question here is not his qualifications. They are no longer particularly relevant. This is a beaten man, struggling to show he is not, even though everybody knows he is.

The media claque that put him in office is getting disaffected and now his party allies in Congress are beginning to disregard him, sometimes for the better.
....

So what does this mean that POTUS hates his job? On the extremes, he could have a breakdown (as blogger David Thomson has predicted) or simply quit. Neither of these things are likely to happen, though they certainly are within the realm of possibility.

More likely he will stumble on, spending as much time as he can on the golf course or on vacation. Meanwhile, the role of the presidency will begin to diminish. More people will disregard his wishes. If the Republicans win big in November, he will retreat further. This man is not a fighter, because he has never had to fight. He lives in a very close, protective bubble, among people he has worked with for many years, most from Chicago. That will only increase as the wagons circle.

So what we got here?

A judge nullifies a referendum.
A fed nullifies the law-making of a state.
An interested judge doesn't declare his interest.
A homosexual nullifies the assumptions of human society to date.

Government should have no role in marriage, but revolutions have started for less than this.

Yesterday was a party for Newsweek and the liberal media. Sidney Harman, 91 and rich as Croesus, bought the ailing magazine out of passion if not avarice.

Today, the Daily Beast reveals that he bought it for exactly one dollar.

...make no mistake, Harman's pocket change purchase of Newsweek—he paid $1, plus the assumption of liabilities for the magazine—has to be a passion play, because it certainly isn't a financial one. The Daily Beast has obtained a copy of the 66-page sales memorandum that the Newsweek seller, the Washington Post Co., gave to prospective buyers, and it paints a picture of a media property given to someone unequipped to fundamentally change the current trajectory.

Harman's goal is to break-even by 2013, which should scare Newsweek staffers all by itself, because the only reasonable possibility of doing that is cutting the expenses to the bone.

Dig deeper into the document and the numbers get worse. Newsweek lost money in all three of its core areas in 2008 and 2009: U.S. publishing, foreign publishing and digital. Even with the smaller guaranteed circulation, it still retains $40 million in subscription liabilities owed to readers. And then there's Newsweek's lease foibles: last year, it paid $13 million in rent, a startling figure for a company of its size.

Its seems likely that Newsweek's high-profile journalists will seek safe haven with whatever liberal-left media property that is still standing, leaving an empty shell, and perhaps that is the ultimate goal. The name means something, but the old way of doing business is toast. It seems to me that the best outcome would be for Newsweek to rise Phoenix-like from the ashes as a much smaller, more aggressive and more relevant on-line entity along the lines of Politico.

Retired anti-semite Helen Thomas, left her front row seat open when finally not even the liberal press could give her cover anymore, thus triggering a bidding war for her prime parking space in the White House press room.

Sounds like something you'd fight over if you lived in a concentration camp, doesn't it?

Well, apparently the Associated Press get's Helen's seat, and Fox gets AP's seat, which was also on the front row.

Liberal groups had lobbied for NPR's placement in the front row over Fox, which one petition called a "right-wing propaganda outlet."

Well, yes--isn't that how the White House has been characterizing Fox News? Not a "real" news organization? So how does the bete noir of all right-thinking liberals pull down such a prestigious seating arrangement?

Well, ultimately they have the viewers, and like it or not, the White House sometimes has to direct its rhetoric at the benighted masses.

Now its just going to be that much more obvious when Robert Gibbs ignores Major Garrett.

Answer this multiple choice question:

The Deepwater Horizon oil spill was most likely caused by -

A. BP who drilled and completed a nightmare well with unsafe techniques?

B. BP and Transocean who owned and operated the rig?

C. BP and Transocean and Cameron who made the blow-out preventer which failed?

D. The US government?

A report from the Center for Public Integrity suggests that the ultimate responsibility for the BP oil leak disaster lays with the Obama administration, mainly because of a botched response to the initial fire from the Coast Guard. "The Coast Guard has gathered evidence it failed to follow its own firefighting policy during the Deepwater Horizon disaster and is investigating whether the chaotic spraying of tons of salt water by private boats contributed to sinking the ill-fated oil rig, according to interviews and documents. "Coast Guard officials told the Center for Public Integrity that the service does not have the expertise to fight an oil rig fire and that its response to the April 20 explosion may have broken the service's own rules by failing to ensure a firefighting expert supervised the half-dozen private boats that answered the Deepwater Horizon's distress call to fight the blaze. "An official maritime investigation led by Coast Guard Capt. Hung M. Nguyen in New Orleans is examining whether the salt water that was sprayed across the burning platform overran the ballast system that kept the rig upright, changing its weight distribution, and causing it to list." Oil platform fires are generally fought using foam, which is a more effective fire suppressant. While the Coast Guard does not itself fight these kinds of fires, it is charged with coordinating fire-fighting activities at off-shore facilities like oil platforms. The use of salt water rather than foam evidently led to the collapse of the oil platform. This is very important, because the oil leak did not occur until this happened. "While investigators have zeroed in on a series of missteps and ignored safety warnings aboard the rig that preceded the fiery explosion April 20, the question of what caused the platform to collapse into the Gulf two days later remains unanswered and could prove vital to ongoing legal proceedings and congressional investigations. "That is because the riser pipe from which the majority of BP's oil spewed did not start leaking until after the rig sank. Experts and some lawsuits have openly tied the sinking of the drilling vessel to the severity of the leak. " While the Obama administration has received much criticism for its botched response to the BP oil leak disaster, it has, until now, evaded responsibility for having caused it to start with. This is not just a result of Coast Guard incompetence for which President Obama is ultimately responsible for as commander in chief, but, as an article in the Washington Examiner suggests, the direct result of Obama budget cuts that rendered the Coast Guard incapable of making a proper response: "The crippling budget cuts President Obama proposed for the Coast Guard also deserve a closer examination. Obama's spending plan reduced the blue water fleet by a full one-third, slashed 1,000 personnel, five cutters, and several aircraft, including helicopters. According to the Center for Public Integrity, the Coast Guard updated its official maritime rescue manual -- advising against firefighting aboard a rig -- just seven months before the Deepwater Horizon explosion. That change in policy came at a time when Adm. Thad Allen warned the budget cuts threatened to turn the Coast Guard into a 'hollow force.'"

It's just a larger, lovelier, portable version of the trackpad on Macbook Pros.

Let me re-phrase that - it's just a larger, lovelier, portable version of the trackpad on Macbook Pros that will up the productivity of a billion people.

I've used a Magic Trackpad at my desktop for a couple of days now. The killer gesture is the drag. Yes, it drags windows around, which is handy, but it moves anything around, such as image boundaries in 'crop' mode, and window corners to re-size the window, files or other objects from hither to thither.

Oh, oh, oh! I've just discovered the 3-finger backward-forward gesture. My life will never be the same.