The Obama Swoon

"The mainstream media has run plenty of stories about the meltdown in Iraq and the administration's resultant flip flopping on timelines and blueprints and so forth. But I've seen very few pieces acknowledging that, in practice, this means the administration is adopting the Democratic position from last year. Why? Because that would mean that Democrats were actually right about a major national security issue and had a more serious response to it at an earlier date than the Republicans did. And that would cause everyone's brain to explode. After all, everyone knows that Democrats aren't serious about national security. Right?"

GOP pals of Peggy Noonan aren't exactly staying the course:

"This is two weeks ago, from a Bush appointee: 'I hope they lose the House.' And one week ago, from a veteran of two GOP White Houses: 'I hope they lose Congress.' Republicans this year don't say 'we' so much.

"What is behind this? A lot of things, but here's a central one: They want to fire Congress because they can't fire President Bush.

"Republican political veterans go easy on ideology, but they're tough on incompetence. They see Mr. Bush through the eyes of experience and maturity. They hate a lack of care. They see Mr. Bush as careless, and on more than Iraq--careless with old alliances, disrespectful of the opinion of mankind. 'He never listens,' an elected official who is a Bush supporter said with a shrug some months ago. Along the way the president's men and women confused the necessary and legitimate disciplining of a coalition with weird and excessive attempts to silence Republican critics. They have lived in a closed system. They now want to open it but don't know how. Listening is a habit; theirs has long been to suppress."

This from a pundit who took a leave in 2004 to work for W.'s reelection.

National Review's Media Blog has a good-looking item:

"The Washington Post . . . had this article on how Democrats had more attractive candidates than Republicans (literally), and how that might play to their advantage.

"The research is unambiguous that Ferrin is right: Attractive politicians have an edge over not-so-attractive ones. The phenomenon is resonating especially this year. By a combination of luck and design, Democrats seem to be fielding an uncommonly high number of uncommonly good-looking candidates . . .

"This got us at the Media Blog thinking -- and Googling. We found Diana Irey, John Murtha's challenger, and discovered that she is, by far, more attractive than all the Democratic candidates combined."

Check it out to see if you agree.