Time for a Change

"He could probably have dealt with one rock star celebrity rival. But two? Forget about it."

Peggy Noonan is the latest to try to decipher the Obama puzzle:

"He is uncompromised by a past, it is true. He is also unburdened by a record, unworn by achievement, unwearied by long labors.

"What does he believe? What does he stand for? This is, after all, the central question. When it is pointed out that he has had almost--almost--two years in the U.S. Senate, and before that was an obscure state legislator in Illinois, his supporters compare him to Lincoln. But Lincoln had become a national voice on the great issue of the day, slavery. He rose with a reason. Sen. Obama's rise is not about a stand or an issue or a question; it is about Sen. Obama. People project their hopes on him, he says.

"He's exactly right. Just so we all know it's projection.

"He doesn't have an issue, he has a thousand issues, which is the same as having none, in the sense that a speech about everything is a speech about nothing . . .

"But again, what does he believe? From reading his book, I would say he believes in his destiny. He believes in his charisma. He has the confidence of the anointed. He has faith in the magic of the man who meets his moment."

He's met his media moment, to say the least.

The Boston Globe dissects Mitt Romney's move to the right and finds discrepancies.

Is John McCain acting out of principle on Iraq? American Prospect's Greg Sargent doesn't think so:

"You know, the more you unpack John McCain's call for an increase in troops to Iraq, the more cynical, self-contradictory, and self-serving it becomes.

"Check out what McCain said at his big press conference yesterday with Joe Li[e]berman, where McCain got to play at being Commander in Chief (he left the press conference in a helicopter!) and reiterated his call for more troops. From the [New York] Times:

" ' The American people are disappointed and frustrated with the Iraq war, but they want us to succeed if there is any way to do that,' Mr. McCain told a news conference. Unlike some American military commanders who have said any troop increase should be temporary, he said any increase should last 'until we can get the situation under control, or until it becomes clear that we can't.' "So, McCain says Americans support success in Iraq if there is 'any way' of achieving it. In other words, Americans would support an increase in troops if it came packaged with victory, as he's suggesting it can.

"Yet later in the same press conference, McCain acknowledges that he's advocating a plan supported by a tiny minority of Americans, and presents that as a sign of his own heroism:

" 'I take the position I'm taking with the full knowledge that only 15 to 18 percent of the American people agree with my position that we need more troops,' he said.

" Even Mr. McCain, a decorated Vietnam hero, acknowledged the perils of his approach. He described a troop increase as 'the least bad option' and said it could cost him his shot at the presidency . 'I happen to feel that I have to do what my many years of life involved in the military dictate to me,' he said. As if to emphasize his military credentials, he and other members of the delegation left Baghdad by helicopter after the news conference to fly to an embattled Marine base at Ramadi, 85 miles west of the capital, which is considered one of Iraq's deadliest places.'

"Get the ruse? McCain is offering Americans what they want -- victory -- yet somehow at the same time he's also bravely swimming against an overwhelming tide of majority opinion. In doing this McCain is so brave and selfless that he's willing to risk losing the biggest prize in politics -- the presidency. His position really is a thing of beauty, in a perverse and cynical way."

But why is that a ruse? Why not accept that McCain really believes this and is taking a political risk? Maybe his position is dumb and maybe it isn't, but it certainly doesn't appear to be safe.

The New Republic's Eve Fairbanks spies a more emotional side of Congress changing hands, such as outgoing Ways and Means chairman Bill Thomas weeping during his farewell speech:

"There are two ways to leave Washington after an electoral rout: graciously, with emphasis on your accomplishments; or mournfully and in great confusion, as Virgil describes the ruling elites abandoning Troy, wailing angrily and clutching at the doors of their lost palace. This generation of Republicans came here in 1994 claiming they would never be seduced by power; but, after twelve years in Washington, the wailing-and-clutching mood is the prevailing one. New York Representative John Sweeney, who watched his safe seat implode in the weeks leading up to November 7, has not even been able to show up for votes. According to his friend Representative Pete Sessions, he is in shock and has become physically ill from the experience of losing.

"It's hard not to get the impression that what the Republicans need as they leave the Hill is not fresh leadership or new ideas but a big, long hug."

Don't you sometimes wish you could delete your previous musings from cyberspace? Atrios finds this not-so-golden oldie from Jonah Goldberg:

"Let's make a bet. I predict that Iraq won't have a civil war, that it will have a viable constitution, and that a majority of Iraqis and Americans will, in two years time, agree that the war was worth it. I'll bet $1,000."

What finally prompted Rupert Murdoch's HarperCollins to dump O.J.-enabler Judith Regan? The L.A. Times says it was an offensive phone call, and her next big book project: a salacious "reimagining" of Mickey Mantle's life. Ugh. And the N.Y. Times says Murdoch ordered her ouster after learning that she made anti-Semitic comments in the call.

Finally, Wonkette has the goods on a uniquely Washington dynamic: the green room flirtation.