The optical illusion that is Mitt Romney.

Seeing Romney in person yesterday — from a distance of about 30 feet — I was struck by how tiny he looked. And yet, on line, his height is listed as 6'2". He looks tall in lots of pictures, like this one. Why did he seem so small in person? Is it an optical illusion? You'd think you'd get the most correct measure of a man when he's right there in the flesh.

I think Henry, in the comments last night, has the answer:

It's because he has a big head.

Yes! I did notice his head was huge. He was wearing a white shirt and blue jeans, not the business suit he always wore for the debates. A suit jacket enlarges the shoulders and the upper chest, making a very large-headed man seem to have more average proportions. But the head itself, unbalanced by a shoulder-padded suit jacket, fools the eye into seeing the body as small.

Here's fashion-and-politics expert Robin Givhan explaining — to me! — the magic of the man's suit:



And here we are later, talking about suits:



Anyway... I know you expect me to get to some deeper analysis about the mysterious feeling of fakeness that people seem to get from Romney. How could he seem less like what he really is when he's there in person? Or something about human beings whose mental dimension is way out of proportion to their fleshly realm below the neck. Something about sexuality, perhaps? Eh. I don't know. You can work on that in the comments. I have other posts to post this Monday morning. I'll just say that Romney was gorgeous in person. He was a perfect dreamboat. Absolutely handsome.

And I don't mean in any way to imply that 5'9" isn't a good height for a man. It's exactly the average height for an American man. It's the height of my husband. (And my ex-husband.) It's just perfect, in my view — very proportionate... though if you're a big-headed man, it might make your head look really huge.

But what do with think of big-headed men? Henry, the commenter who solved my Romney-looks-tiny puzzle, said:

Big head politicians do quite well. Teddy Roosevelt had a big head. William Howard Taft had a big body. There you go.

Looking back over all the men who have been President during my lifetime, I think they all had big heads. Tall, with big heads.

IN THE COMMENTS: Peter Hoh says:

Why did he seem so small in person? Is it an optical illusion?  

Maybe he's best viewed in a state in which the trees are the right height.

Aw, you know, I think he was adorable in that trees are the right height clip. And I understand exactly what he meant: When you go back to the place where you grew up, you see what is — for you, subjectively — normal.

After all of the criticism of Sarah Palin for using target imagery in some campaign literature...

... it's it interesting to see the National Journal writing like this:

As they form a circular firing squad, Romney stepped back. Rather than engage his GOP opponents, as he's done most of his campaign, he's focused almost entirely on his No. 1 target, President Obama.

Romney has received cover from the primary's unprecedented volatility (at least since 1964), which has sent a bushel of candidates to momentary stardom atop the Republican field only to be torn down weeks later. Attacks from rivals and media scrutiny have followed each of these momentary front-runners...

And it's not as though Romney, his past rooted in blue-state Massachusetts, didn't supply his opponents plenty of ammunition. They have the bullets; they're just not firing them.

IN THE COMMENTS: First, the amusing. Mocks the writing in the National Journal — "This almost veers into Bullwer-Lytton territory" — Henry says "Why not go all the way?" and pens a rewrite:

While one candidate after another disintegrated like a clay pigeon at an English hunting weekend, former Governor Romney, encircled with the barrage balloons of his plastic bonhomie, so easily avoided the strafing attacks of candidates Bachmann and Cain, not to mention the kamikaze crash of Governor Perry, that the artillery spotters of the media could only wonder if their radios were broken: the guns of Sevastopol fire into the sea; the assassins' bullet bounces off the ghost shirt of the Mormon underwear; even the bloody dagger of professional ridicule fails to find the heart and the smiling to-be-tyrant only exclaims, "Gosh Brute, lovely day, wot?"

Second, the serious. Scott M wrote:

I don't know anyone that was taken in by the calls for a new civility after the AZ shootings. It struck me as just so much more "I want to feel good about something so this is what I'm going to say and assume it fixes the world" bullshit.

SGT Ted — noting that my "civility bullshit" tag "speaks for itself" — responded:

It struck me that after the AZ shooting that leftists and Democrat Party leadership were just trying to hang it around Republicans necks, when the shooter was a "leftwing pothead" according to his friends.

SGT Ted, Paco Wové said:

You should check out the Althouse comment threads from that day, for example. It took less than 30 minutes for the blame-orgy to start.

I just went back and read that long — 292 comments long — thread, and it's just appalling. 12 minutes after I put up a simple post — "U.S. Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords shot, along with at least 11 others, at a political event in Tuscon" — the get-Sarah business started: "Sarah Palin had AZ's 8th district in her gun sights." That came from someone who was taking a distanced attitude about what other people will be saying —"It would be interesting to follow the conversation on teh Internets today...." But soon it was "Remember, the DHS warned us of the rising threat of violent extremism from the political right" and so on, including much push back from commenters who didn't think we should be talking like that.

President Obama and the rhetoric of shoes.

A couple days ago, speaking to the Congressional Black Caucus, President Obama said: "Take off your bedroom slippers, put on your marching shoes. Shake it off. Stop complaining. Stop grumbling. Stop crying. We are gonna press on. We've got work to do."



This shoe metaphor resonated for me. I know that that in 2007, candidate Obama told union workers that as President he would "put on a comfortable pair of shoes myself" and walk the picket line with them:



The reason I'm familiar with Obama's shoe rhetoric is that I saw references to it again and again during the Wisconsin protests. There were "Where's Obama?" signs with reference to shoes and even an effort to get people to mail shoes to Obama:



Let's think about the shoe as a political symbol. Where else have we seen that?

I ask that question out loud, and Meade says: Adlai Stevenson! Ah, yes. An iconic photograph:



And then I remember this one:



IN THE COMMENTS: Henry says, "Don't forget Nikita Krushchev." Still photo at the link. Here's video:



Molly recalls:

The word "sabotage" comes from a French protest of throwing shoes into a machine (mill?) so that it would break down.

The word comes from "sabot," which is a wooden shoe, but according to the Online Etymology Dictionary:

[T]he oft-repeated story that the modern meaning derives from strikers' supposed tactic of throwing old shoes into machinery is not supported by the etymology. Likely it was not meant as a literal image; the word was used in French in a variety of "bungling" senses, such as "to play a piece of music badly." 

This is Meade's photograph of the doors handcuffed closed at the Wisconsin Capitol the night of the Senate's vote on collective bargaining.

If you want to use this photograph, click through to the Flickr page and get the code for it. Don't present it as yours. This post was prompted by Henry, who said:

@Althouse -- I would repost the picture. Get it to the top. Help Google do its job.

For civility's sake, let's change "Don't Tread on Me"... Part 3.

Awesome Printer takes up my challenge to make the snake friendlier and adopts my rewrite of "Don't Tread on Me":



And Henry (the commenter) comes up with these variations:

At the Forbidden Reflection Café...

... will you ever know who you really are?

ADDED: Thanks to Instapundit for linking to this — and, as you'll see if you clink on the "will you ever know" link — to Pogo for making the connection to Magritte and to Henry (the commenter) for the photoshopping.

When will my reflection show who I am inside?

There's a heart that must be free to fly that burns with a need to know the reason why...



That's a picture taken a year ago, as Obama was about to take the inaugural oath. It was uploaded yesterday, along with a lot of other nostalgic photos, to the White Flickr site.

***

"Obama's first year: What went wrong."

IN THE COMMENTS: Pogo is reminded of this Magritte painting:



ADDED: Henry does the photoshopping:

"30 Things Every Woman Should Have Before She Turns 30."

Let's see... I really need the list of 60 Things Every Woman Should Have Before She Turns 60, but I'm still going to see if I've missed any of these 30, but the next 30 things — think about what they are — ought to be much more interesting.

IN THE COMMENTS: Henry wrote:

1. Poverty
2. Train travel
3. Radio stardom
4,5,6. Roles as Elizabeth I of England, Sarah Bernhardt and the last Tsarina of Russia
7. Her own apartment
8. An earthquake
9. An earthquake fundraiser
10. A politician
11. Scandal
12. A union presidency
13. A secret marriage
14. A church wedding
15. Trousers
16. A presidential campaign
17. A rainbow tour
18. The Cross of Isabel the Catholic
19. An audience with the pope
20. A Time magazine cover
21. Hairdos
22. Paris couture
23. Cartier jewelry
24. A charitable foundation
25. Lepers
26. Suffrage
27. Mob appeal
28. Cervical cancer
29. Secular sainthood
30. A musical

(The Eva Peron version)

Henry — our James Dean of a commenter — fixes the metaphor written by TIME's Sal Mineo, Joe Klein.

Back here — beginning with a Joe Klein quote in italics —Henry writes:

Indeed, the Republicans have the pedal to the metal--rushing us toward a tragedy far greater than the California health care forum finger-biting...

If Klein slowed down his typing he could have worked a little with that image.

As it is, I see a car plunging into a severed finger. Scary!

How about this instead:

Indeed, the Republicans have the pedal to the metal--rushing us toward a tragedy far greater than a crashed car. Someone's going to get their leather jacket caught on the door handle and die. It's me! It's my rhetorical cuff caught on the hyperbolic handle of the cliche car! Aaaagh!

Blight bulbs, part 2.

Henry says:

I've inadvertently stockpiled 7 compact fluorescents. That's two boxes minus one bulb.

I thought I would swap them in the basement fixtures as the old incandescents burned out. It took a year or so, but as soon as I screwed in the first one I realized my mistake.

At first I was sure I had purchased the wrong wattage. The turd-shaped bulb worked up a feeble bruise-colored flicker and paused, as if exhausted.

In a few minutes, though, as I went about my work, it came to life, casting violet shadows across the room from its forsaken corner. I walked over and stood under it. It didn't so much make light as well-defined edges. It was like walking into the afterimage of a instamatic flashbulb. Except that it's permanent.

Since the damn things last forever, I figure ten years from now I will use that corner of the basement to interview my daughter's boyfriends.

Another room in the Obama Museum.

We've been playing off a photograph of Obama looking at paintings in a museum. Henry the commenter, combined the original photo with Chip Ahoy's photoshopped Obama as Van Gogh, so the idea is Obama looking at paintings of himself.

Palladian was inspired by Andy Warhol's "Mao" paintings, which were hung on his "Mao" wallpaper at a 1974 exhibition in Paris, like this:



Here's the new concept:

Obama at the museum

Background.

Closeup:

Untitled.

(Via.)

IN THE COMMENTS: Henry said:

I thought it was Andrew Sullivan looking for topics.

Let's not laugh along with Jane Hamsher over Harry Reid's problems.

Quipping "INSTAPUNDIT: Bringing America together!," Glenn Reynolds highlights a couple conservative blogs that thank him for linking to a post by lefty firebrand Jane Hamsher.

GayPatriot said he'd been permanently avoiding reading Jane's blog (FireDogLake), and Glenn's post led him to something he "pretty much" agreed with. And Syd And Vaughn, another FireDogLake avoider, saluting Glenn for taking them to Jane's "very valid" post, declared "Kumbaya!"

So let's look at Jane's post — "I want to play poker with Harry Reid" — and see if it's true that lefties and righties can come together and laugh about Reid's pathetically played politics.

First, if you haven't already, read her whole post. Despite some awkward, cornball writing — "Reid looks like a cat in a room full of rocking chairs on Meet the Press" — it's generally very pithy and funny, and it sums up the embarrassing succession of bad moves Reid made. We can all have a shared laugh about that.

But, my fellow moderates and conservatives, focus on this:

A seventy-one year old dude who hasn't held office for 14 years, appointed by a crook, takes the Senate Majority Leader to the cleaners.

Reid is a red state senator, up for re-election in 2010 and under pressure from the right, who is already making noise about appeasing Republicans who aren't going to be appeased. He's a hazard to Obama's agenda, which is why leading Senate Democrats tried to ease him out as Majority Leader last year.

Hamsher is rooting for the left wing of the Democratic Party. She thinks Reid will keep the party centrally located and give Republicans some clout, so she's saying loud and clear: He's a terrible leader. Don't follow him.

So Jane's post doesn't make me say oh, ha ha, Harry Reid, what a fool. It makes me reconsider whether I want to continue knocking him around. I have been giving Reid a hard time mainly because I think law is important and the legal question is easy: Blagojevich is the governor, he has the appointment power, he appointed Burris, so Burris properly holds the Senate seat until 2010. Deal with it. Blagojevich's sliminess doesn't suspend the rule of law. Play by the rules.

I'm not going to change my strong opinion on that point, but I'm realizing that we need to keep a sharp eye on the people like Hamsher who are hot to push Congress to the left.

ADDED: Henry, the commenter, emails a Venn diagram:

The order of disorder.

The psychiatrists are at it again, defining mental "disorders."

“This is not cardiology or nephrology, where the basic diseases are well known,” said Edward Shorter, a leading historian of psychiatry whose latest book, “Before Prozac,” is critical of the manual. “In psychiatry no one knows the causes of anything, so classification can be driven by all sorts of factors” — political, social and financial.

“What you have in the end,” Mr. Shorter said, “is this process of sorting the deck of symptoms into syndromes, and the outcome all depends on how the cards fall.”...

Experts say that some of the most crucial debates are likely to include gender identity, diagnoses of illness involving children, and addictions like shopping and eating.

IN THE COMMENTS: Henry says:

The article reads like the jury of the 1864 French Salon deciding to let the landscape painters back in. The standard is grand historical disorders (megalomania is always good), but that is hardly fair to the duller lunatics. They too deserve a viewing.

So you let in a few en plein aire disorders and the next thing you know the academy is overrun with fauves.

"The usual Althousian misogynistic exceptionalism."

Ann Bartow agrees with something I said -- and quotes it in full -- after "extracting" it from this "much longer" post supposedly "larded with the usual Althousian misogynistic exceptionalism." She offers no reasons for why that description applies to the rest of my post. She just hurls the insult. So, to respond in kind, let me say: Lame! Pathetic! Unscrupulous!

IN THE COMMENTS: Some object to the insult to me, but Electric Citizen objects to the insult to lard:

Lard o'mercy.

Every baker knows that despite lard's heavy reputation (it is pig fat, after all), nothing makes a flakier or better-tasting pie crust. Lard also makes the lightest and tastiest fried chicken: buttermilk, secret spices and ancient cast-iron skillets are all well and good, but the key to fried chicken greatness is lard.

Michael H. is all:

Electric Citizen - One of my earliest childhood memories was of my father's mother, a German immigrant, making doughnuts in her kitchen. She would make the dough, let it rise, roll it out, and use two glasses to punch out doughnut shapes (one for the doughnut, a smaller on for the hole).

She'd drop the doughnuts into a vat of hot lard atop her old gas stove. After a few moments, she'd turn the half-cooked doughnuts over with wooden dowels, then a minute later spear the hot doughnuts and drop them onto a plate. She'd sprinkle them with sugar, and as soon as they had cooled just enough to be picked up by small fingers, my cousins and I would each grab one and run to the porch.

The aroma of the doughnuts cooking in hot lard, and the melt-in-my-mouth sweetness of the fresh doughnuts has been so indelible imprinted that I cannot to this day, some 60 years later, smell doughnuts without recalling fond memories of my grandmother.

(Of course, she couldn't blog, so she never realized her full potential as a woman).

And suddenly, everyone is reminiscing about grandmas and cooking with lard.

Well, not everyone. Plenty are still going after Bartow. (And -- how unfair! -- there are zero comments chez Bartow.)

Ruth Anne says Bartow has used the old device of "insulting upward," which will get you traffic, but -- boo hoo! -- still no comments. I wonder why.

Henry said:

Can we assume from Ann Bartow's statement that what she doesn't quote she finds offensive? If so, here's what offends her (all quotes and emphasis from Ann's original post):

1. "It's unlikely that female lawprofs have a special disadvantage."

2. "You have 'disproportionate child care responsibilities' and you're a law professor and that's not your choice? Do something about it!"

3. Agreement! At least until Ann writes: "Stop whining, blaming others, looking for protectors, and blog... if you want to."

The inverse of these comments is that female law professors are at a special disadvantage, they're stuck with the kids, and they can't do anything about it.

In short, fish really do need bicycles and society is to blame.

Jdeeripper said:

Bartow also failed to explain what the hell "misogynistic exceptionalism" means.

Althouse is as exceptionally misogynistic?

Althouse thinks she is an exceptional woman and not like the other inferior women?

Althouse thinks she is so exceptional that only other people can be misogynistic not her?

I think she made the comment because 1. she didn't read the post in full and 2. she is winking to the other feminists that she knows Althouse is a traitor but she still wants to link to a post she partly agrees with.

Lurker80 said:

I find it interesting that Bartow linked to the whole Feministing scandal from 2006 as evidence that you are in part responsible for attacks against feminists. Amazing. As if feminists are not allowed to criticize each other. (Unless it's about Palin, because of course she's not a "real" feminist.)

Her link does bring back memories, though. I first learned of your blog through the Feministing controversy back when I was trying to determine whether I was a feminist at all. I'm so grateful that I stumbled upon this blog and learned that feminism is a broader category than Feministing and BitchPhD would have you believe.

Wurly said:

Margaret Thatcher? Misogynistic exceptionalism.

Jeanne Kirkpatrick? Misogynistic exceptionalism.

Sarah Palin? Misogynistic exceptionalism.

Basically, its a woman who succeeds on a foundation other than victimhood. That, in modern feminism's mind is "exceptional". The example that the "exceptional" woman sets--that you can succeed on your own terms without claiming the identity of a victim--sets back the cause of feminism, and is therefore misogynistic, because only modern feminism can speak for women. That's why Ann fits the category. Watch out Ann, I hear next week's Newsweek has a column explaining why you aren't really a woman.

Joan said:

I think Bartow thinks it's fair to call Ann misogynistic (anti-women) because as so many have noted already, Ann doesn't play along with the women-as-victim story.

I confess, I had to look up exceptionalism, and now I'm really stumped as to what Bartow means, because exceptionalism means (if I'm getting this right) that normal rules don't apply because you're special, that is, exceptional.

I think it is grammatically incorrect to use a negative modifier like "misogynistic" with "exceptionalism", which implies special treatment due to superiority. It's a contradiction in terms, unless Bartow means to say that it is Ann herself who wields her exceptionalism to further her misogynistic goals.

I've been reading here since the early days, and have never found Ann misogynistic although she does occasionally over-react to blogospheric slights. Labeling her with exceptionalism is a gross exaggeration, if that was Bartow's intention.

Does that represent Bartow's best work? That alone could explain why there are few prominent women law prof bloggers. If you came across Bartow first, you'd think, "Ick, who wants to read this?" and never click on her blog again. To be a successful blogger, it's not enough to have opinions, you have to express them clearly and support them as well. It also helps a lot if you don't whine.

Pogo said...

Misogynistic exceptionalism expialidocious!

Even though the sound of it
Is something quite atrocious
If you don't whine loud enough
You'll be called ferocious
Misogynistic exceptionalism expialidocious!!

Um diddle diddle diddle um diddle ay
Um diddle diddle diddle um diddle ay

Because I was afraid to speak
When I was just a lass
My mother said I was too weak
And the ceiling it was glass
But then one day I learned a word
That saved my pretty ass
The biggest word I ever heard
And I stuff it in my bra:

Oooohhhh, Misogynistic exceptionalism expialidocious!!

UPDATE: Bartow finally got a comment, savaging me for writing "Women are ... prone to"... but oops... I didn't write that. Bartow omitted quotation marks or indenting to show that I quoted a phrase from the article I was writing about. Let's see if Bartow takes the trouble to correct her lone commenter. If not... pathetic, lame, unscrupulous.... And I want an apology for making it look like I wrote something I didn't write. And the person I was quoting was only laying down the conventional argument. Sigh.

Bernard-Henri Lévy says why Barack Obama will be President.

The French philosopher Bernard-Henri Lévy is writing about America again, getting things wrong, of course:

Then there is ... the American art of "junk politics," especially as practiced by the Republicans, and its unpredictable, often devastating effects. When will the below-the-belt stuff begin? On what Internet site will the first photomontages appear of Barack Obama tricked up as a radical Islamist? How many other pastors à la Jeremiah Wright will we see paraded out by "527s," groups on the fringes of the principal parties that are allowed, without bearing any moral or financial responsibility, to launch all kinds of slanderous campaigns?

Can you get things wrong with questions? Why, yes you can! Note the sleaziness of implying that Republicans will begin the "below-the-belt stuff" at some point, when we know that below-the-belt stuff has already happened and it came from that Democratic source known as the Hillary Clinton campaign.

And this notion of "other pastors à la Jeremiah Wright" implies that Wright was just some pastor unfairly associated with Obama and not the religious leader Obama chose and stuck with for 20 years. And 527s have no financial responsibility? They're responsible for paying for their own ads. Presumably, Lévy's referring to their independence from the legal restrictions that apply to the campaigns. And as for "moral responsibility" — we all have moral responsibility, and if there is actual "slander," there can be lawsuits to hold 527s responsible.

Anyway, Lévy identifies 3 reasons why he thinks Obama will win:

1. America has changed. ... America is no longer a Protestant, Anglo-Saxon country, European by tradition and white by vocation, that cannot seriously imagine a black man running for the presidency....

Not much of a reason why he will win. Obviously, Obama's success to this point establishes that Americans can "seriously imagine" him running. Lévy is so stingy about saying anything complimentary about Americans that he won't make his own point more strongly. He could say: a large proportion of Americans love the idea of a black President.

But Lévy pads out his first point with verbiage about the America that went "far right" after 9/11 and opposes abortion and Darwinism. Without establishing that people with such opinions are racist, Lévy simply decides that they are giving up. He tells us that he perceives their efforts as "the shock and desperate mobilization of an America that knows it is dying but is trying nonetheless to delay the moment when it realizes it must surrender." The Frenchman exhibits pride in his sharp, early perception of the need for surrender. That's rich.

Point #2:

2. Obama is not a typical African-American. Unlike, say, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton or Condoleezza Rice, he does not carry with him the heritage of slavery or the memory of segregation because he was born of a Kenyan father.

Note to Lévy: Men don't bear children. Your pretentious locution is generating ludicrous errors. (Note to commenters: Spare me references to the "pregnant man.")

The difference is enormous, because the mirror he holds up to America is no longer one that reflects those dark times, no longer one of unbearable ancestral culpability. Barack Obama can win because he is the first African-American to take, by the grace of his birth, a step away from the two sides of a deep divide--and the first who may now play the card--not of condemnation or damnation--but of seduction, and--as he says over and over--of reconciliation.

So point #1 is that we're not racists anymore, but point #2 is that we still kind of are. And these are 2 of the 3 reasons Obama will be President? Lévy could make point #2 more strongly, and why doesn't he? The point is that white Americans love the idea of transcending race, and Obama has cleverly exploited that hope. But, as Jesse Jackson reminded us the other day, that can be a tricky enterprise. So #2 could be a reason that Obama will win, or it could be a reason why he's come this far but will be tripped up in the end.

So there's one more reason left. This better be good:

3. He is good.

Ha ha. It is good!

What I mean is that he is not only the most charismatic but also the most gifted politician produced by the Democratic machine in a long time.

Charismatic and gifted? Has such an amazing combination ever been seen before? Good lord. Did you know that Obama is also tall and has impressive height? Simultaneously!

So, yeah, anyway, okay, Obama is charismatic and gifted. We know that. It's gotten him very far. He defeated Hillary. But is there no limit to what you can do with charisma?

IN THE COMMENTS: Simon says:

All of this is designed to set up the narrative that if Obama loses, it's because we're a racist country. Cut away the fluff, and that's the clear purpose of this an a million similar commentaries advancing the same idea. To say that Obama will win because we aren't racists any more is to claim - or at least set the stage for the claim - that if he lost, the opposite is true.

"On what Internet site will the first photomontages appear of Barack Obama tricked up as a radical Islamist?"

It's true that the Rethuglican noise machine does things like that. Remember the last Senate election in Connecticut, when Republicans depicted then-Democratic Senator Lieberman in blackface? Oh, wait... Hold on, that wasn't the Republican party, it was the left.

Ann said...
"[I]f there is actual 'slander,' there can be lawsuits to hold 527s responsible."

Indeed. There is a reason why Senator Kerry has never sued anyone over the so-called swift boat veterans' claims.

Exactly.

Revenant said:

Obama is not a typical African-American. Unlike, say, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton or Condoleezza Rice

If the guy wasn't a Frenchman unfamiliar with American society I'd be tempted to call him out for racism. Referring to Sharpton and Jackson as "typical African-Americans" is an insult to black people. For that matter, the term "typical African-American" is suspect to begin with.

What I mean is that he is not only the most charismatic but also the most gifted politician produced by the Democratic machine in a long time.

So has Bill Clinton officially lost his status as "charismatic and brilliant politician", or does Levy think it has been "a long time" since the 1990s?

Ha ha.

The Drill SGT said:

The difference is enormous, because the mirror he holds up to America is no longer one that reflects those dark times, no longer one of unbearable ancestral culpability. Barack Obama can win because he is the first African-American to take, by the grace of his birth, a step away from the two sides of a deep divide--and the first who may now play the card--not of condemnation or damnation--but of seduction, and--as he says over and over--of reconciliation.

Forgive me for thinking that Colin Powell could have had the Republican nomination for the asking and likely the WH if Alma Powell hadn't said no.

So Lévy managed, in short order, to forget Bill Clinton and Colin Powell.

Henry said:

I was wondering why anyone cares about this guy and found out that Wikipedia is not a fan:

Critics of Lévy are not limited to pie-throwers, however; French journalists Jade Lindgaard and Xavier de la Porte, in a biography of the philosopher, claimed that "In all his works and articles, there is not a single philosophical proposition." The book is contested, however, and Lévy sought legal action against the authors.

You can see why Lévy doesn't like America. It's harder to sue your critics here.

Oh, so then he does know about defamation lawsuits. He likes to bring them for mere insults. So that's why he thinks the 527 are not held accountable? In America, we get to insult each other with impunity. I can say John Kerry is not a war hero and there's not a damned thing he can do about it.

By the way, LOL at "Wikipedia is not a fan."

Former law student said:

Don't be so hard on his "born of a Kenyan" locution; note that the article was Translated from the French by Sara Sugihara.

Oh. Good point. So maybe he didn't say "surrender" either. This "translated from the French" business is frustrating to textualist bloggers like me. If that is supposed to be a defense, I will counter with a new attack: How can this man purport to instruct us on the subtleties of American political discourse if he doesn't write in English?

Area man believes inane theory.

Local newspaper defends inane letter publishing policy.

IN THE COMMENTS: Pogo summarizes:

So the Capital Times is concerned that Ann Althouse - who is "from their area"- ripped on (huh? What are they at CT, high schoolers?) Kevin Barrett who is also "from their area", so they "let people have their say"?

Baloney.

They are nutters, and support a fellow loon.

MORE IN THE COMMENTS: Quoting the letter at the link from the Capital Times opinion editor Judie Kleinmaier — "Are you suggesting that we should believe everything our government — the government of George Bush and Dick Cheney — tells us?" — Tibore writes:

(*Sigh*)... Judie, instead of making it all about "what the government tells us", how about you consider "what the evidence, science, and engineering" tells us? Then maybe you'd see why 9/11 conspiracy fantasy is so baseless.

Yet another person who'd probably say to me "Put aside the physics for a minute, consider what Bush..." yadda yadda... sheesh...

Palladian writes:

What will these people do when Bush and Cheney aren't running the government anymore, yet the "official" version of 9/11/01 doesn't change?

Henry responds:

That's spot on. The fact that Judie Kleinmaier thinks her argument is enhanced by qualifying who the "government" is reveals a profound level of ignorance about science and actual, unbiased, journalism...

ADDED: Area Woman Rips Area Opinion Editor.