Jon Stewart excoriates former New York Times reporter Judith Miller for "help(ing)" Tha Bush Mobb commit "the most devastating mistake in foreign policy that we've made in, like, 100 years." Her response: that "everyone got it wrong," not just her. Having never believed Tha Bush Mobb's absurd case for war with Iraq, I can honestly say that I didn't "get it wrong," and I know a lot of people, liberal and conservative, who also didn't get it wrong. Of course she means all of her elite friends got it wrong. And given how much suffering (i.e., none) they've endured for getting it wrong, you have to wonder if they "got it wrong" on purpose.
President Obama sits down with more than two dozen center-right House Democrats and assures them that if they vote his way on "free" trade "fast-tracking," he'll campaign for them. Why on Earth does Mr. Obama imagine that'll help these folks in a tough campaign? And why does this article only quote one of those House Reps, and is it coincidence that this particular House Rep is very pro-"free" trade and pro-"fast track"? We only have his word, after all, that Mr. Obama "answered every single question" and "rebutted every single critique, respectfully," since in public, Mr. Obama's "rebuttals" to valid "free" trade criticisms include questioning the honesty and integrity of the critic. The "liberal" media could at least get their stories straight.
The Straight Dope asks if negative campaigning works. Long story short: the science suggests that it does, but the science is also not particularly thorough, especially before, say, 2000. We do know that negative campaigning about "inconsistent voting, broken campaign promises, contributions from special interest groups, and dubious business practices" works a lot better than negative campaigning about your opponent's personal foibles (exhibit A: Bill Clinton).
Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders raises $1.5 million within 24 hours of announcing his candidacy for President. That worked out to a little over $40 per donor, which is encouraging, and also beat the marks Sens. Cruz, Paul, and Rubio set in their first 24 hours. Of course, Mr. Sanders won't have massive secretive SuperPACs behind him like those three will, but money ain't everything, and it's been a long time since liberals have had a candidate they'd run through a wall for. (I'm not sure I should count Howard Dean, since he wasn't all that liberal.)
Finally, Former Republican Lieutenant Governor nominee E.W. Jackson announces that anti-gay activists "will give our lives standing for the truth." I'd say who am I to tell you how to remove yourself from the gene pool?, but they'll take other people's lives in such a fight, a fact I suspect Mr. Jackson doesn't want you to ponder. Plus he wants extra credit for not actually acting like an ogre as he's being one, and he suggests that the only alternative to doing his will is chaos and disorder, which is what, class? A hostage situation. In other news, "ex-gay activist" Janet Boynes really needs to polish her stage presence -- if you can't remember your allies' names, you shouldn't be up at the podium. (Plus "we're not going back to slavery"? What does that even mean?)