Of Ratings and Rantings

Time's Michael Weisskopf describes in moving detail how he lost his hand in Iraq.

Just when the "Jewish" controversy seems to be dying down, Salon finds three former college football teammates who say George Allen routinely used the N-word.

Allen strongly denies ever using the odious term. The New York Times , meanwhile, finds another acquaintance who says the same thing, and confirms the account of one of the football players:

"Two former acquaintances of Senator George Allen said Monday that he used racist slurs in the 1970's and 1980's, a development that compounded accusations of racial insensitivity that have dogged his re-election campaign in Virginia. Mr. Allen denied that he had ever used such words."

Tony Snow is helping raise money for the Republicans. If another White House secretary has ever done that, I can't recall it. But then, no other presidential spokesman has been a former talk show host.

Are the Republicans worried about the midterms? Slate's John Dickerson has a secret source:

"I was one of a small group of reporters who ate lunch with a Republican congressman. He was thoughtful and blunt about the problems that face his party in the coming election--which is why I can't name him. He has criticized the conduct of the war in Iraq in public and to the president in private. He believes that if there is not a change in strategy soon, Americans will not support a war strategy that he characterized as 'just stay and let American kids die.'

"This member says many of his GOP colleagues have a similar view and privately articulate sharp criticisms and suggestions for new action. But they're not going to say anything in public now. Why? They don't want to hurt the GOP's election chances by appearing to criticize the president. 'Reality has been suspended for a moment,' says the member. 'Republicans cannot speak out publicly on this issue right now.'"

Not that liberals are thrilled with their side. Arianna is up in arms over a Roll Call article that's "all about how Democrats have decided that the way to win in November is -- I kid you not -- to make the economy the central issue of the campaign.

"'We've got to go on the offensive,' explained a senior Democratic aide, 'and keep our eye on the ball -- and that's the economy.'

"'We're not going to win 15 seats on the war in Iraq,' said another Democratic staffer, insisting it is the economy that will, in the words of Roll Call, 'bring the party across the goal line.' Sen. Debbie Stabenow is quoted as saying the 2006 election 'is all about jobs.'

"And, in a memo sent to Democratic staffers, the party's Senate leadership claimed 'while Iraq may be high among the concerns of the American people, it is a distant reality in comparison to the day to day challenges many families face filing their gas tanks, paying for college, saving for retirement and securing a job.'

"A distant reality? Oh. My. God.

"In poll after poll, voters place Iraq well above the economy when asked which issue will most affect their vote this year. And when you combine concerns about the war with concerns about terrorism/national security, it's the economy that is 'a distant reality.'

"Yet Democrats keep returning to the same domestic-issues-uber-alles thinking that cost them the elections in 2002 and 2004. They can't really believe that people are more interested in raising the minimum wage, middle class tax relief, and college affordability than they are in who's going to keep them from being blown up, can they?"

Kos picks up on Ms. Huffington's argument:

"See, that's why I don't think we're going to win back the House or Senate. Because you can always trust Democrats to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

"For the record, we heard this in 2002. We heard it in 2004. I gave the argument the benefit of the doubt those years. I think I actually bought it in 2002. But apparently our vaunted leadership in DC is incapable of learning lessons."

Could Barack Obama really be a presidential candidate next time around? Dick Polman weighs the pluses and minuses:

"Upside: He's a fresh face, less than two years in the Senate at this point, and therefore unencumbered by the usual Washington baggage; his base is Chicago, a major Democratic fundraising hub; Illinois abuts Iowa, which means that, during the Iowa caucuses, he can flood the zone with volunteers; he can potentially galvanize the party's African-American voters, while potentially drawing some white 'values voters,' with his frank talk about the importance of religion in politics (last June, he rebuked 'liberals who dismiss religion in the public square as inherently irrational or intolerant, insisting on a caricature of religious Americans that paints them as fanatical'). He can do the red-meat rhetoric, but he doesn't get personal (on Sunday: 'I don't think that George Bush is a bad man'), which means that he's not likely to polarize our politics any further. And did I mention his charisma?

"Downside: Two years ago at this moment, the guy was a state senator in Springfield, Illinois. He has run only once in a statewide race, winning his '04 Senate seat in a landslide only because his first GOP opponent, Jack Ryan, had to quit the race after seamy details surfaced about his divorce; and because the replacement opponent, right-wing radio host Alan Keyes, has long been a national joke. It's also tough to think of a single time when he has taken a risky public stand against the Republicans on Capitol Hill; there was a brief tiff with John McCain over an ethics issue that nobody outside of Washington remembers. Indeed, he is so new to the national scene that some Democrats have no idea how he'd react if or when the Republicans feel compelled to try to dent his halo (either by cherry-picking his Senate votes, highlighting some inevitable Senate compromises, or simply Swift Boating him)."

In other words, he doesn't have much of a record to shoot at, but he doesn't have much of a record. I can't see him running this time around.