Obama calls Hillary "Bush-Cheney lite."

One more thing that tips me toward Clinton! Bush-Cheney lite sounds like just about what we need. Clinton declares the epithet "silly," but I think that secretly she knows the comparison helps her in some quarters.

And Obama came out with that in the context of trying to justify what was in fact a major gaffe at the debate:

In South Carolina and during a visit to New Hampshire earlier in the day, Obama compared Clinton to Bush because, he said, she has said she will not have unconditional meetings with foreign enemies.

He told the College Democrats that her approach showed "stubbornness" and in New Hampshire he referred to her as "Bush-Cheney lite."

"Stubbornness"? As opposed to what? Giddy impetuousness?

Clinton's retort:

"I've been called a lot of things in my life but I've never been called George Bush or Dick Cheney certainly," she said. "We have to ask what's ever happened to the politics of hope?"

Oh, come on. He's overflowing with hope! Hope that Venezuela, Cuba, Syria and Iran will play nice. Hope that saying Clinton is like Bush will cause voters to recoil in horror...

Radio alert.

I'm going to be on "Week in Review" at 8 AM, Central Time, today. This is the Wisconsin Public Radio show where we go over the week's news stories, and I count as the conservative. On the left will be Isthmus news editor Bill Lueders. You don't have to be from Wisconsin to call in with a question.

Go here to listen on-line live. Remember, we're on Central Time. If you go at 8 Eastern, you can hear about "The Simpsons" from Steven Keslowitz, author of "The World According to The Simpsons: What Our Favorite TV Family Says About Life, Love, and the Pursuit of the Perfect Donut" (Source Books). Both shows will later be streamable at the archive here.

ADDED: Stream it here.

AND: Here's Lueders' book "Cry Rape" -- and his website on it, which includes the underlying documents in the case the book is about.

UPDATE: Read far enough into the comments to see why I mistrust Lueders' judgment and fairness. I should emphasize that I haven't read his book, so please don't take my reference to it as a recommendation.

Did you notice the visual pun when this ran on CNN?

I didn't. Chris Dodd can't catch a break. This was hilarious.

Questions, questions...

Give me some questions... And I'll do a little vlog in an hour.

ADDED: Here it is. I went long so I had to edit out some of the longer answers. If I skipped yours, remember: It's not you, it's me. I end up sporting a look that's either Little Edie or Elvis in "Harum Scarum."



AND: What am I drinking and does it have broccoli and algae in it? Answer here. It doesn't have broccoli. AND: Oops. Actually, it does have broccoli! Broccoli and algae. Good lord!

AND: The "creaky voice" discussion goes back to this post.

AND: In case "Harum Scarum" means nothing to you:

A Court-packing plan?

Here's a NYT op-ed saying that Congress ought to consider a new Court-packing plan:

WHEN a majority of Supreme Court justices adopt a manifestly ideological agenda, it plunges the court into the vortex of American politics. If the Roberts court has entered voluntarily what Justice Felix Frankfurter once called the “political thicket,” it may require a political solution to set it straight.

"When"... "If"... "may".... The writer, Jean Edward Smith, author of a biography of FDR, is not exactly taking a position on what the Roberts Court is doing.

Still, there is nothing sacrosanct about having nine justices on the Supreme Court. Roosevelt’s 1937 chicanery has given court-packing a bad name, but it is a hallowed American political tradition participated in by Republicans and Democrats alike.

If the current five-man majority persists in thumbing its nose at popular values, the election of a Democratic president and Congress could provide a corrective. It requires only a majority vote in both houses to add a justice or two.

"[P]ersists in thumbing its nose at popular values"? Okay, now Smith seems to be taking a position, though there's no substance in his piece that backs this up, but even if it were backed up, it would be an idiotic point. He starts out fretting about a Court that enters the political sphere, and he ends up worrying about the Court failing to pick up the values of the political majority. So which is it?

Of course, I know: You want the Court to transcend politics but to transcend it in the direction that squares with your politics. I laugh at that.

Two more things:

1. Specify which cases are bothering you! If the "values" you prefer are so "popular," why can't Congress simply enact them as a matter of statutory law? I need to know what you're talking about before I can tell whether these new statutes would violate constitutional law. For example, if you're irked that the Court didn't strike down the "partial-birth abortion" statute, Congress doesn't have to restock the Court with Justices who will expansively construe abortion rights, it only needs to repeal its own statute!

2. The Constitution does create checks on the Supreme Court, and Congress can decide to use them. But such actions by Congress will themselves have a political effect. You need to look down the road and see if you like those effects too. It's not enough to say, wouldn't it be great to be able to suddenly appoint 2 new Supreme Court Justices at a point when we have a President who will nominate individuals we think will do things we like? You will need to explain why this solution is so important, and, when you that, you will probably end up in a debate that will portrays the Court as political. You may succeed in increasing the number of Justices at the expense of delegitimatizing the very Court you want to rely on. And when the next President comes in, he or she will have more power to choose Justices for openly political reasons.

"The guy writes about how his comrades mock disfigured women, slaughter dogs and wear baby skulls as hats..."

"... but he's upset that others have called his and his comrades' character into question?"

MORE: "He's a pretentious ass, and a lefty."

Is it illegal sex discrimination to hire only females to host "The View"?

Can producers of "The Price Is Right" decide their audience wants a male host? Is it wrong to insist on a male to play the role of Edna in "Hairspray"? Lawprof Ian Ayres thinks it is:

Title VII prohibits sex discrimination in employment unless the employer can establish what's called a BFOQ or "Bona Fide Occupational Qualification." The EEOC Guidelines do allow intentional sex discrimination in hiring an actor or actress where the sex-specific roles are necessary for the "purpose of authenticity or genuineness," see 29 C.F.R. § 1604.2(a)(2). But there is no way that the producers could establish that sex was a BFOQ for being host of "The Price is Right."

The same conclusion probably holds true for hosting "The View." The thought that only women could host a talk show would be difficult to square with existing case law. Probably a dozen different hosts have been employed by The View. They have all been female. There is little doubt that the producers of that show discriminate on the basis of sex in hiring.

Indeed, even John Travolta's portrayal of Edna in the movie Hairspray raises a non-trivial BFOQ question. Travolta, like all of his predecessors, is male. But it's hard to say that casting a man for the part is necessary for "authenticity or genuineness" -- especially when the whole point of his portrayal is that Travolta (unlike Divine) is playing it straight.

I know. The idea of lawsuits over such things seems ridiculous. But exactly why is it ridiculous?

Personally, I feel insulted by what the networks put on TV during the day. The whole line-up makes the statement: This is what we think women are. Or: This is what we think nonworking women are. Not that I wish I could sue. I'm just offended.