Will Romney win in Alabama and Mississippi?

And if he does, is it all over?

UPDATE: Email from CNN: "Rick Santorum will win the Alabama Republican primary, CNN projects. Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney are in a close battle for second."

UPDATE 2: Santorum wins Mississippi.

Obama views...

... tornado destruction.

And gets criticized for failing to respond to wildfire destruction.

"I don't know how anyone survived."

"We're used to tornadoes here in Tuscaloosa. It's part of growing up. But when you look at the path of destruction that's likely 5 to 7 miles long in an area half a mile to a mile wide ... it's an amazing scene. There's parts of the city I don't recognize, and that's someone that's lived here his entire life."

"Finally, Mississippi and Alabama get a room!"

Ha.

And: "Panhandle Alert." The epidemic spreads.

There's nothing Wisconsin-related in those New Yorker cartoons about state maps. I remember seeing a hand-drawn cartoon in that State Street liquor store window that used to be full of funny signs. It had a map of Wisconsin and writing that said something like: "The Upper Pennisula! WTF? Did we lose a war or something?" That was many years ago. It still makes me laugh. I mean look at the map:



That is ours, baby. It's like that mitten is reaching up there an yanking off our manhood. And speaking of manhood, I think, if we had that peninsula that is rightfully ours, the politics of Wisconsin might shift from Mommy Party to Daddy Party.

Why is there Arabic writing on the Google map of Montgomery, Alabama...

... just above the Lagoon Park Golf Course. And why does it disappear when you try to zoom in?

"I can’t screw up Alabama."

Charles Barkley, explaining why he's going to run for governor of Alabama.

Attacked by Drudge and Malkin, Gwen Ifill breaks an ankle.

1. Drudge, Malkin, etc., lay into Ifill -- the chosen moderator for the VP debate -- because she's got a book coming out about the success of various black politicians, notably Barack Obama.

2. Suddenly, we hear that Ifill has tripped at home on a staircase and broken her ankle. Coincidence? Looking for a graceful exit via a clumsy fall?

***

So far, Ifill is not backing out, and I don't think she should. The campaigns agreed on the moderators, and the McCain campaign agreed on Ifill. I'm sure their desire for a black/female moderator led straight to Ifill. It's pathetic to whine now that they weren't specifically informed about this book, especially since it's not "Why I Love Barack Obama" or some piece of gushing fluff.

Ifill argues that the Black political structure formed during the Civil Rights movement is giving way to a generation of men and women who are the direct beneficiaries of the struggles of the 1960s. She offers incisive, detailed profiles of such prominent leaders as Newark Mayor Cory Booker, Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick, and U.S. Congressman Artur Davis of Alabama, and also covers up-and-coming figures from across the nation. Drawing on interviews with power brokers like Senator Obama, former Secretary of State Colin Powell, Vernon Jordan, the Reverend Jesse Jackson, and many others, as well as her own razor-sharp observations and analysis of such issues as generational conflict and the "black enough" conundrum, Ifill shows why this is a pivotal moment in American history.

It would be low -- and stupid -- at this point to impugn Ifill.

What do you think of Ifill and her book?
	Outrageous! She should be replaced.
	Not a big deal, and the McCain campaign should have known.
	Bad, but complaining or replacing her will only make it worse.
	Not that bad, but she should be replaced to preserve the appearance of neutrality.
pollcode.com free polls

In anticipation of Friday's debate, the NYT sizes up Obama and McCain.

John M. Broder on Obama:

Some of his chief strengths — his facility with words, his wry detachment, his reasoning skills, his youthful cool — have not always served him well and may pose significant vulnerabilities....

Mr. Obama has a tendency to overintellectualize and to lecture, befitting his training as a lawyer and law professor. He exudes disdain for the quips and sound bites that some deride as trivializing political debates but that have become a central part of scoring them. He tends to the earnest and humorless when audiences seem to crave passion and personality. He frequently rises above the mire of political combat when the battle calls for engagement.

He's just too good for these lowly debate-like exercises those feeble Middle Americans depend on to formulate their pathetic little opinions... sayeth the some who deride this awful trivia.

This was seen most starkly at last month’s forum at Saddleback Church, where... Obama gave long, discursive answers to questions on loaded topics like abortion and personal moral failings, while Mr. McCain stole the show with earthy anecdotes and humor.

“Obama clearly knows how to float like a butterfly,” said Alan Schroeder, who studies media and the presidency at Northeastern University, “but he needs to work on the sting-like-a-bee part.”

Because you know how deadly dull those discursive butterflies are. If only he could spice things up with a few strong one-liners? I disagree. I think Obama needs to make what is his natural style more coherent. He shouldn't flutter and then sting. He should speak in strong, well-structured sentences that are always comprehensible and devoid of "you know" and "uh" filler. Let Obama be Obama, but make it excellent Obamatude.

Katharine Q. Seelye has the matching piece on John McCain:

He has used fairly consistent techniques during his roughly 30 debates on the national stage: he is an aggressive competitor who scolds his opponents, grins when he scores and is handy with the rhetorical shiv....

He uses short, active verbs that project strength, and he can connect with audiences on a visceral level using down-to-earth language....

“McCain’s major weakness is looking wooden, and when he’s out of his comfort zone, his sound bites become weaker and his evasions of questions become more obvious,” said David Lanoue, a political scientist at the University of Alabama and an expert in presidential debates.

... [D]epending on his level of contempt for his opponent, he can drip with condescension, even as he sits calmly with his hands folded in front of him, smiling....

David S. Birdsell, who specializes in political communication and presidential debates at Baruch College, said Mr. McCain could be “irascible and pugnacious and clearly stoked by personal animosity.” It will be a challenge for him to keep that side in check, Mr. Birdsell said, especially toward Mr. Obama, who is 25 years Mr. McCain’s junior and who Mr. McCain believes has not paid his dues.

“Can McCain restrain himself?” Mr. Birdsell asked. “And will Obama have the ability to place the pinpricks at the right moment to elicit that negative, slashing, awkwardly grinning McCain?”

Pinpricks... bee stings... Will McCain get irascible?

It's funny. By these 2 descriptions, both men sound like they're at their worst when they display disdain, and both have a way of trying to smile their way into looking like nice guys in spite of that disdain. That might be quite amusing to watch, and there's a danger that America will tune in to be turned off by both of these men.

Anyway, the articles, taken together, make it seem as though McCain has a big advantage. He only needs to do his usual thing and not act like a jerk. Obama will need to struggle to prove his gravitas without boring us to tears.

Or am I falling prey to a nefarious NYT effort to structure expectations for the benefit of Obama? Does the NYT reach anyone who isn't already for Obama?

IN THE COMMENTS: The wonderful Bissage says:

America craves authenticity.

That’s why McCain and Obama should work fast to perfect the techniques of method acting.

Sure, there might be some off-putting red-faced veiny neck stuff going on.

And maybe some mumbling.

But America doesn’t want a President who will pantomime gravitas to us.

America wants a President who will feel his gravitas at us!

I added the links in service to Bissage's awesome allusiveness.

"But that's what makes Obama's association with Wright so significant. He's not from Alabama."

Mark Steyn on Barack Obama:

He's a biracial middle-class Kenyan-Kansan Hawaiian-born Indonesian-raised Columbia and Harvard graduate who chose to immerse himself in the most corrosive and paranoid end of a racial-grievance ghetto mentality that is nothing to do with him, his family or his upbringing. He doesn't have the same excuse as a Jackson, Sharpton or Farrakhan.

Why would he do such a thing? I wouldn't expose my kids to the four-letter ravings of Jeremiah Wright because I wouldn't want them to grow up loathing their country. I find it hard not to think less of a man who does.

Is the most obvious conclusion really that Barack Obama hates America? I should think it is much more likely that he wanted to feel connected to the historical experience of black people in America — exactly what he had missed growing up.

Steyn compares Obama to Condoleezza Rice — who "has childhood memories of a segregated south and racial violence" — as if the comparison makes Obama's choice more of a puzzle. But it's not if you think of him as a young man who had grown up so far away from an experience that other people saw in his face. It would make sense to plunge into exactly the experience he thought he had missed and to do so in a very openly accepting way, seeking to learn and feel. Looking at everything else we've seen of Barack Obama, I would assume he was listening and absorbing new information and, at the same time, maintaining his composure, morality, and judgment.

ADDED: Juan Williams says a lot.

"She had signed an agreement allowing her to appear in the movie, but she claims that she did not realise how much she would be ridiculed..."

Another in the long line of lawsuits I hope will fail.

Cathy Martin, an Alabama etiquette expert, agreed to let [Sacha Baron Cohen, AKA Borat] film a dinner sequence at her home...

In case you missed it the last time someone sued Cohen, here's the contract. Right up front, it says:

It is understood that the Producer hopes to reach a young adult audience by using entertaining content and formats.

Everyone wants to be in the movies, but somehow they fail to think about why anyone would want to see them in a movie.

The grand entrance to the state courthouse in Brooklyn.

Four arguments that this does not violate the Establishment Clause:

1. Old things carved in stone should be left alone.

2. It would take an outrageous, destructive act to get rid of it, and that would send a message of hostility toward religion.

3. It is aesthetically pleasing to elite tastes -- unlike that 2.6 ton block of granite Judge Roy Moore plunked in the courthouse lobby in Alabama.

4. Moses -- whom I initially perceived as ready to crack the little people over the head with the stone tablets -- is pointing at the ninth commandment. The ninth commandment is the prohibition against bearing false witness, and that's a solid rule for a courthouse.

On the other hand... it's not stuck around back where it looks like a fast food drive-up order box. You can't portray it as part of a collection of various monuments. It's right there by the door, conveying a strong message that this is the state's idea of what goes on here.

"A person should have the right to make their own decision to explore their sexual boundaries outside what some government official says is moral."

Should you really have to leave Alabama to get your sex toys? Or should we celebrate the federal system, where the states are allowed to be different? If you don't like it, why are you living in Alabama? But if you like it, you can enjoy the deep pleasures of living in a distinctive culture that is able to enact a collective expression of its disapproval of sex toys.

"Banning cupcakes is almost like an assault on the national identity."

Another school ban, another aggressive health measure. This time they came for the cupcakes. And parents and kids are really mad about it:

The cupcake-as-symbol-of-childhood is powerful: It's wrapped in the cultural definition of what it means to be a good mother, something that's a moving target in this society, said Kathryn Oths, an anthropologist at the University of Alabama who studies food and culture.

"I don't have children. But I guarantee that if I did, I'd make them cupcakes for their birthdays," she said. "It's just ingrained in us as the proper thing to do."

So when that cultural norm is threatened by cupcake bans, she argued, people feel compelled to rally to its defense.

"Think about it. Banning cupcakes is almost like an assault on the national identity," Oths said. "It comes at a time when there are fears of terrorism and the immigration brouhaha that they're 'watering down' our traditional American culture -- meaning middle-class white America -- that's slipping out of our grasp."

White? There's a racial angle to this?

Every day, we're told: More children are dangerously overweight. More children are diabetic. More children have life-threatening allergies to everything from peanuts to wheat to milk. More children sit around watching TV and playing video games. And, as many schools know, every classroom is divided between the cupcake-haves, the ones whose mothers dutifully lug in trays of them, and the cupcake-have-nots, whose mothers can't afford to or don't know that it's expected.

Epperson used to tutor a child from an immigrant family who was saving every penny she could find in order to buy her own cupcake mix. She wanted her mom to bring the treat so she could fit in. "That broke my heart," Epperson said.

Mothers? How about fathers?

You know what? I say ban the cupcakes.

Theme? America.

No, I'm not doing a theme day here on the blog, although as I set out this morning, I felt I'd left behind three posts that look like a theme: blogging/vlogging... blahhh! I'm not doing that. I keep telling myself not to blog about blogging too much.

But I had to make fun of those bloggers who gravitated to Clinton's lunch. It made me think of this video clip a reader sent me yesterday, with President Bush standing intimidatingly close to Matt Lauer and repeatedly making stabbing finger-pointing gestures at him. I like the way Lauer wasn't the slightest bit cowed. I want nervy bloggers who stand up to powerful politicos, not folks who gush about their charm and hospitality and how good they made their ideas sound.

But I lit out before I could dispel the impression that I had a theme day going, because I wanted to take the long way driving into work and listen to "Theme Time Radio With Bob Dylan." What was the theme? For the first time, there wasn't a precisely articulated theme like flowers or the devil or baseball. It was something about traveling all over the map. The first song was the city-naming song "I've Been Everywhere" -- which made me assume, incorrectly, that the most obvious city-naming song, "Route 66," would come up later. Sometimes Bob acted as if the theme was cities. There were songs about Chicago and Tulsa and Jackson and Knoxville. But not every song had a city name. There was "Jersey Girl" and "Hawaiian Cowboy" and "Stars Fell on Alabama." So what exactly was the theme? As the show was ending, under Dylan's closing remarks, we heard a mellow, evocative guitar rendering of "America, the Beautiful."

I think the theme was "America," but a decision was made to be subtle about it. Was anything said about 9/11? No, no, nothing at all. But I thought it was very interesting that Bob chose to play a song about the great Baltimore fire of 1904 and then took the time to quote what the mayor, Robert McLane, said at the time, when offers of help poured in: "As head of this municipality, I cannot help but feel gratified by the sympathy and the offers of practical assistance which have been tendered to us. To them I have in general terms replied, 'Baltimore will take care of its own, thank you.'" And: "To suppose that the spirit of our people will not rise to the occasion is to suppose that our people are not genuine Americans. We shall make the fire of 1904 a landmark not of decline but of progress."

Did he mean to imply something about New Orleans and New York City today? Was there a subtle political message to extract?

"American Idol" -- the results.

The final 2 will be revealed tonight.

Over 50 million votes....

Oh, my! It's a one hour results show. How will they pad it out?

Okay, the Ford commercial was the coolest thing that ever happened on the show. If my TiVo catches up to the present, I'm just going to go back and rewatch that. The three Idols were in full old-age makeup, singing "Young at Heart." Elliott was insanely old-mannish. And Kat, well, she was making fun of her propensity to display her posterior. It was very padded and she -- as an 80 year old woman -- bobbed it up and down, repeatedly, right in front of the camera. Taylor seemed to be much the same person he actually is. In fact, I'm thinking his gray hair is what gave them the idea for this awesome commercial.

The kids go back to their home towns. Taylor goes back to Birmingham, Alabama, where he briefly performs with his band, then brushes them off to go be in his own parade. The mayor, a black man, gives him the key to the city. Then we see him cheered by crowd after crowd, and everybody's white. We see him inside the governor's mansion (which is fabulous).

Back in the theater, Taylor sings the Doobie Brothers' "Taking It to the Streets." In the lines, "Take this message to my brother/You will find him everywhere/Wherever people live together/tied in poverty's despair" he shouts out "in America" after "Wherever people live together." Does that have some discernable political slant? Or is there a Doobie performance where they shout out "in America"? Anyway, it strikes me as quite political for "American Idol."

Katharine McPhee is from Hollywood. What? An Idol not from the south? It's hard to do the home town show from Hollywood... Ryan asks her about her parents, and she says, "To be honest, I don't talk to them that much." Ow. That's going to hurt with the voters! Now she sings "Think" and she's good on the "Freedom!" lines.

Finally, Elliott Yamin. He goes back to Richmond, Virginia. "Can y'all smell the sweet Virginia air?" he says from the limo. He has the nicest home town people. At one point, there's a closeup on his mom, his overwhelmed mom. Back in the theater, we see mom -- she's beaming -- Elliott -- he's crying -- and Paula -- tears are streaming out of her eyes and mucus out of her nose. He sings "Moody's Mood for Love." It's sweet. Restrained. We ache for Elliott. Must he go??

I speed over some crap with Clive Davis and get to the "reveal." Ryan displays the percentages: 33.06%, 33.26%, and 33.68%. Whose name is behind the o6? Ryan asks. "Let's see it now." Elliott Yamin. "The journey ends. But you have a lot to be proud of."

Elliott's last words: "I'm just a counter clerk in a pharmacy. I've been waiting my whole life for a shot like this."

Bye, Elliott. Dear, sweet Elliott.

"A strange combination of religion, karaoke, and pride."

Why Birmingham, Alabama is at the core of "American Idol."

"American Idol" is really "Southern Idol"... but why?

Some analysis from WaPo writer Neely Tucker. It's not that southerners watch the show more and vote more and vote for their own, Tucker argues.

"Idol" kids grew up in the postmodern era, long after the throes of the civil rights movement, long after interstates and Wal-Marts had made small towns in north Alabama look a whole lot like small towns in Michigan. The old days are gone. Listen to two iconic Southern recordings: Hank Williams's (Alabama) "Your Cheating Heart" and Robert Johnson's (Mississippi) "32-20 Blues." The first is twangy beyond description and the second is almost incomprehensible.

People don't talk like that anymore. But a softer Southern accent persists, as does the cultural memory of things long gone. There is still an emphasis on church and family, both entities that, in the course of Southern life, heavily influence music, particularly among the working class.

"There's still an awful lot of old-school singers who got their starts in church, and many mainstream country musicians still do a gospel album," said John Reed Shelton, professor emeritus of sociology at the University of North Carolina and one of the region's most respected observers. "Everybody tends to go to church, and Southern evangelical Protestantism, both black and white, emphasizes and rewards musical performance."

Plus, as Wilson, the Mississippi scholar, points out, the only way a lot of kids stuck in one-horse towns know that they can find life-changing fame and fortune is on the stage.

Good federalism?

States respond to the Supreme Court's eminent domain case, which left them a lot of leeway in seizing private property, by limiting the power of eminent domain as a matter of state law:

The reaction from the states was swift and heated. Within weeks of the court's decision, Texas, Alabama and Delaware passed bills by overwhelming bipartisan margins limiting the right of local governments to seize property and turn it over to private developers. Since then, lawmakers in three dozen other states have proposed similar restrictions and more are on the way, according to experts who track the issue.

Isn't this federalism at its best? People express outrage over the Court's narrow definition of a right, and the state legislatures supply the missing protection for the individual through state statutory law. But there's a bit of a political dysfunction. The state legislatures can appease their constituents and reap the political gains without paying to price of sacrificing their own power. The city governments must bear the burden:

The National League of Cities, which supports the use of eminent domain as what it calls a necessary tool of urban development, has identified the issue as the most crucial facing local governments this year. The league has called upon mayors and other local officials to lobby Congress and state legislators to try to stop the avalanche of bills to limit the power of government to take private property for presumed public good....

More neutral observers expressed concern that state officials, in their zeal to protect homeowners and small businesses, would handcuff local governments that are trying to revitalize dying cities and fill in blighted areas with projects that produce tax revenues and jobs.

"It's fair to say that many states are on the verge of seriously overreacting to the Kelo decision," said John D. Echeverria, executive director of the Georgetown Environmental Law and Policy Institute and an authority on land-use policy. "The danger is that some legislators are going to attempt to destroy what is a significant and sometimes painful but essential government power. The extremist position is a prescription for economic decline for many metropolitan areas around the county."

Should the constituents of the entire state determine the scope of a government power that is most significant in the cities? The majority within a city is going to have a different outlook. Presumably, when a city wants to undertake a project, the people in the city support it, so we shouldn't expect that circumscribed majority to be as enthusiastic about protecting property rights. And a city in need of development will probably have greater concentrations of liberal voters, who are less enthusiastic about property rights than the citizens of whole states.

"My biggest mistake was not recognizing by Saturday that Louisiana was dysfunctional."

Ousted FEMA director Michael D. Brown testifies before a House panel today and lays the blame on the governor and the mayor:

Brown told the committee, FEMA's approach worked in Mississippi and Alabama, whose governors are both Republicans.

Of the disastrous flooding that stranded thousands for days in New Orleans, he said, "The only variable was the state government officials involved."

The way FEMA works with state officials in disasters is "well established and works well," Brown said in emphatic tones in his opening statement, pointing his finger and shaking a clenched hand at lawmakers. "Unfortunately, this is the approach that FEMA had great difficulty in getting established in Louisiana."

... "I very strongly, personally regret that I was unable to persuade Governor Blanco and Mayor Nagin to sit down, get over their differences and work together. . . . I just couldn't pull that off."

"Not acceptable."

I'm glad to see President Bush is beginning to take a tougher stance about the problems with Katrina relief:

"A lot of people are working hard to help those who've been affected, and I want to thank the people for their efforts," Bush said before leaving the White House for a tour of the devastated areas in Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana. "The results are not acceptable."

Expressions of hope in the strength of the human spirit only go so far. At some point, they just sound out-of-touch and lame. I want to see better leadership from Bush and think perhaps he's gotten that message. Do more!