Single and Looking? Head Over to Post-Prop 8 West Hollywood

Bryan Safi's a riot!

California's Proposition 25 Would Have 'Majority Rule' on Budgets

I just finished up an essay for Pajamas Media on the top-ticket campaigns in California 2010. The piece should go live tomorrow or Monday, and I'll post it at that time. Meanwhile, I'm intrigued by Proposition 25, which would lower the legislative threshold for state budgets to a simple majority vote. The Howard Jarvis folks are squawking that the measure contains built-in hidden tax increases, and I agree that's not good. But we need some change around here. California's government sucks. I doubt either Jerry Brown or Meg Whitman will make things any better. I'm interested to see how thing develop at the grassroots. We need structural reforms, so this initiative might be a place to start.

In any case, at Stateline.org:

SACRAMENTO — California’s Democratic and Republican parties both held mock bake sales last month at the Capitol to protest each other’s “half-baked” budget ideas for plugging a $19 billion deficit for the year that began July 1 without a new plan.

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has installed a clock outside his office ticking off the days without a budget and the growing size of the deficit, suggested last week he might leave office in January without signing a budget at all.

While this year’s stalemate has provided colorful political theater, late budgets are practically the norm in California. Since 1980, the Legislature has met the June 15 constitutional deadline for sending a budget to the governor only five times. Only ten times has the brokering been done by the July 1 start of the fiscal year.

Many people in Sacramento have come to believe that California’s restrictive budget rules are a big part of the problem. California is one of only three states that requires a supermajority vote of the Legislature to pass a state budget (Arkansas and Rhode Island are the others). In November, voters will weigh in on Proposition 25, a ballot measure that would lower the vote threshold down from two-thirds, so that lawmakers could pass budgets with a simple majority.

Supporters say the change would help California to wrap up its budget process on time and reduce the strain on state workers and contractors who this time of year get to wondering whether they’ll continue to be paid. The current system has “strangled democracy and put the minority party in control of major decisions to manage the system,” says Dennis Smith, secretary-treasurer of the California Federation of Teachers, one of several unions responsible for getting the measure on the ballot. The League of Women Voters of California also endorses Proposition 25.

In addition to changing the budget vote threshold, the measure would dock lawmakers’ pay and daily living allowance for each day the budget is not approved. Supporters insist that the measure would not change California’s constitutional requirement that any new taxes or tax increases pass both houses of the Legislature with a two-thirds vote. But business groups and other opponents say that’s not the case.

A coalition of taxpayers and employers called Stop Hidden Taxes, sponsored by the California Chamber of Commerce and California Taxpayers’ Association, says Proposition 25 includes “hidden” ways to allow legislators to raise taxes as part of a budget bill with a simple majority vote. “It should come as no surprise that the special interests behind this measure would try to sneak a measure by voters that makes it easier for the state Legislature to raise taxes on Californians,” says Teresa Casazza, president of the California Taxpayers’ Association.

More at the link.

Schwarzenegger: 'Let My People Go'

Arnold delivers teh gays from slavery, at the Sacremento Bee, "Let gays begin marrying, Schwarzenegger urges" (via Memeorandum):

In an extraordinary court filing, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger asked Friday that gay marriages be allowed to resume immediately in California after a federal ruling that the state's voter-approved ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional.

The Republican governor filed his brief with U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn R. Walker before a Friday deadline to submit arguments on whether to continue a stay of Walker's decision against Proposition 8.

"The Administration believes the public interest is best served by permitting the Court's judgment to go into effect, thereby restoring the right of same-sex couples to marry in California," wrote Kenneth C. Mennemeier, an attorney representing Schwarzenegger, in the brief. "Doing so is consistent with California's long history of treating all people and their relationships with equal dignity and respect."

Christopher Hitchens Talks About Cancer

And God too (and he's not religious), on "Anderson Cooper 360":

Left/Islamist Alliance

Via STOP OBAMA 2012:

What Mosque 'Inside' the Pentagon?

For some reason leftists think they've pwned conservative opponents to the Ground Zero Mega Mosque. The title of Think Progress' post is misleading: "Reminder to critics who think a mosque is offensive to the legacy of 9/11: There’s already one at the Pentagon" (via Memeorandum):

In opposing the planned Islamic community center two blocks from Ground Zero in New York City, conservative stalwarts have picked up on right-wing extremists’ paranoid hysteria over the initiative.

Read the whole thing. Think Progress argues that there's a mosque "inside" the Pentagon and cites a Salon essay by Justin Elliot as the source, a post titled, "Why did no one object to the 'Pentagon mosque'?" The only problem is that there is no "mosque" at the Pentagon. Elliot cites Navy imam Chaplain Abuhena Saifulislam in an attempt to smear conservatives as unhinged hypocrites, and then Elliot got picked up by Daily Kos and then finally back over to Think Progress. Elliot's essay at Salon is also illustrated with imagery designed to ridicule some kind of irrational conservative "fears" of Islam:

This at minimum caricatures the views of Ground Zero Mosque opponents, and I'd be too generous to say Think Progress et al. are mostly just dishonest. Elliot links to an article at the Washington Times from 2007, "Pentagon observes Muslim holy month." Notice the key difference in language: The Pentagon "observes" Muslim holy month, which is Ramadan. Thus the context is the Defense Department policy of allowing sectarian services for Muslims at the Pentagon building. And that is a far cry from building a "conquest mosque" at the site where 184 people died on September 11th. The left's false analogy decontextualizes the concerns of those who perished at WTC, those who view the development of a new Islamic center as a victory monument to Islam. Such opposition is strengthened by the fact that Ground Zero Imam Abdul Rauf has ties to the Gaza flotilla and is an ideological spokesman for modern Islamic jihad.

On top of that, it's not like conservatives HAVEN'T objected to the actual construction of Muslim facilities at military installations. Imam Saifulislam, who as far as I can tell is the only Muslim cleric being cited by Salon and Think Progress, was at the center of controversy in 2006 when an "Islamic Prayer Center" was being established at the United States Marine Corps training center at Quantico, Virgina. See, "Taxpayers fund Islamic center: Prayer building on Marine base not really mosque, officials say." And note the key information at the passage:

An announcement that the U.S. Marine base at Quantico, Va., has refurbished a building to be used as a prayer room for Muslim soldiers and civilians on base is a "bad signal," one critic has concluded.

The Marines announced earlier this summer that one of the buildings on the base had been repainted so that Muslims would have a place to pray and hold religious services

The new "Islamic Prayer Center" is the first of its kind on a Marine base, and "serves to express the Marine Corps' recognition of diversity among service members and the commitment to provide continued support to all Marines regardless of race, religion, ethnicity or gender," the base announcement said.

However, Jihad Watch director Robert Spencer said he wonders why the Marines do not seem concerned such facilities might to used to generate anti-American sympathies.

"It's going to go up as part of a testament to American multiculturalism and so on without any indication of the possibility that this could be a source of what we're fighting against," he said. "It just sends a bad signal."

At the dedication ceremony, Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England praised the estimated 4,000 Muslims in the U.S. military. Joining him were leaders of the Council on American Islamic Relations.

CAIR describes itself as America's largest Muslim civil liberties group and boasts 32 offices, chapters and affiliates nationwide and in Canada. Its mission, it says, is to enhance the understanding of Islam, encourage dialogue, protect civil liberties, empower American Muslims and build coalitions that promote justice and mutual understanding.

However, CAIR is a spin-off of the Islamic Association for Palestine, identified by two former FBI counterterrorism chiefs as a "front group" for the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas. Several CAIR leaders have been convicted on terror-related charges.

"It is sadly ironic and lost on most that the plan to dedicate the prayer center and build a new mosque was approved by military leaders occupying a building that was attacked on 9/11 – the Pentagon – where more than 100 of its occupants were killed on that day," was the conclusion of those at Homelandsecurityus.com, a private security organization.

Justin Elliot and Think Progress might want to revise their posts. Robert Spencer (along with Pamela Geller) is among the leading opponents of the New York Mega Mosque. Thus, not only is there not a "mosque" at the Pentagon, but an earlier initiative to establish a fully designated "Islamic Prayer Center" met with the same kind of opposition that we're now seeing with the Cordoba Center. I'd add as well that the same folks who protest the erection of Islamic victory mosques have stressed repeatedly their respect for freedom of religion. Imam Saifulislam's Pentagon prayer services allow Muslim service-members to worship their faith as fully protected members of America's pluralist religious order. The U.S. did not prohibit Islam after 9/11. And our armies in the field are working with Muslim populations in Afghanistan, Iraq and around the world to defeat militant jihadis who kill indiscriminately, regardless of faith.

Mega Mosque opponents are asking Muslim religious leaders to exercise their rights responsibly. No one is attempting to take away those rights.

The essays at Salon, Daily Kos, and Think Progress are simply additional examples of the anti-intellectual smear tactics disguised as "debate" that are found routinely on the left. Just watch. More people will die from this kind of conservative-bashing. Talk about political opportunism. It's pretty sick.

RELATED: At America.gov, "Bangladeshi American Is First Muslim Chaplain in Marine Corps: Abuhena Saifulislam counsels troops from all backgrounds and faiths."

Added: Linked at JustOneMinute, "Geez, It's Almost As If 'The Right' Is Not Reflexively Anti-Muslim."

The Lady Gaga/Katy Perry Boobular Arms Race

From Luke Lewis, "Does Katy Perry really have to strip off to get on the cover of Rolling Stone?"

Lewis says no but I say yes, that is, if Katy Perry wants to compete in the strategic arms race with Lady Gaga. Nudity is mainstream nowadays. The latest cover of Vanity Fair features Gaga nude. Katy Perry was recently featured semi-nude on the cover of Esquire. The first conclusion of course is that this sells magazines — with the prominence of virtually no-holds-barred web publishing, dead-tree magazines are going nuclear to keep up. As for Gaga and Perry, it's a strategic (boobular) arms race, and there's a theory for that:

The nuclear arms race was a competition for supremacy in nuclear warfare between the United States, the Soviet Union, and their respective allies during the Cold War. During the Cold War, in addition to the American and Soviet nuclear stockpiles, other countries also developed nuclear weapons, though none engaged in warhead production on nearly the same scale as the two superpowers.

In the boobular arms race neither side has developed a strategy of deterrence, since the threat of mutual assured destruction has yet to appear inevitable at the top-tier of celebrity competition. But as this is an existential superpower rivalry between Gaga and Perry, second-tier stars are hoping for an arms (boobs) reduction treaty to bring the world back from the brink of boobular annihilation.

The superpowers have eschewed strategic restraint (see, "Katy Perry Strips Down for Rolling Stone: Photos From Her Sexy Cover Shoot"), and the danger of a boobular holocaust has forced the issue to the heights of transnational cooperative efforts for reductions in force and norms against boobular violence (see, the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women" and "Pornography Is a Civil Rights Issue".)

A Brief History of the Bikini

Via Diana Adams.

Which gives me a chance to post a Katy Perry bikini shot:

Hat Tip: R.S. McCain.

Churchill Ordered UFO Cover-Up?

At Astute Bloggers, "EISENHOWER AND CHURCHILL COVERED UP PHENOMENAL UFO SIGHTING DURING WW2." The link's to the BBC, "Churchill ordered UFO cover-up, National Archives show":

Nick Pope, who used to investigate UFO sightings for the MoD, said: "The interesting thing is that most of the UFO files from that period have been destroyed.

"But what happened is that a scientist whose grandfather was one of his [Churchill's] bodyguards, said look, Churchill and Eisenhower got together to cover up this phenomenal UFO sighting, that was witnessed by an RAF crew on their way back from a bombing raid.

"The reason apparently was because Churchill believed it would cause mass panic and it would shatter people's religious views."

Reports of sightings of UFOs peaked in 1996 in the UK - when science fiction drama The X Files was popular.

I was trying to think of a hefty wisecrack here, but see Brain Fung at Foreign Policy, "Either the tin hats were right all along, or Churchill was as crazy as the rest of 'em." (Via Memeorandum.)

'Green Lantern'

Green Lantern is scheduled for release in June 2011.

Blake Lively stars as Carol Ferris. No doubt she'll heat up the screen (as an aerospace executive at that):

Hat Tip: Tom Cruise.

65 Years After Atomic Bomb on Hiroshima

At Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, "65 years later, survivor of first atomic bomb still has vivid memories":

UPLAND - Sumi Umemoto has no memory of the destruction that descended on her hometown of Hiroshima 65 years ago today. She was just 4 months old, a baby girl born at the dawn of the nuclear age.

Although she never saw the mushroom cloud, she definitely heard about it when she was old enough to understand.

"It was a different kind of bombing," Umemoto said. "That mushroom cloud was something different, and everybody was so scared."

The nightmare lasted long after World War II ended, and Umemoto remembers the aftermath - her blood-stained walls, the post-war hunger and countless checkups by doctors studying the effects of radiation.

Umemoto, now an Upland resident, grew up in a home more than a mile from ground zero. But on the morning of Aug. 6, 1945, she was at her grandmother's house, about 20 miles away. Her father and cousin were home and both miraculously survived.
That day, Umemoto and her family became hibakushas, or survivors of the atomic bombings in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which took place three days later on Aug. 9.

Hibakushas are entitled to government compensation and health care in Japan. To this day, Umemoto meets with visiting Japanese doctors in Los Angeles' Little Tokyo for physicals on an occasional basis. Her cousin, who suffered severe burns after the bomb, was worried over the stigma of radiation exposure and never applied for hibakusha status.

World leaders, including the U.S. ambassador to Japan, will mark the anniversary in the port city where the American plane dropped a 9,700-pound bomb 65 years ago. The event, claiming some 140,000 lives in the months following the Hiroshima bombing and some 80,000 more after the Nagasaki bombing, led to the Japanese surrender on Aug. 15, 1945, thus ending the deadliest war in history. It forever changed Japan, bringing a pacifist identity to national discourse and its constitution.

More at the link.

Readers might recall my discussion last weekend of the case study method. (I had shown the opening scenes of "The Paper Chase" during summer school, including the part where Professor Kingsfield discusses the Socratic method). Well, for a time I organized my World Politics classes around case study analysis, and I used Carolyn Rhodes', Pivotal Decisions: Select Cases In Twentieth Century International Politics. One of the best chapters is "The Decision to Drop the Bomb on Japan." A lot of students were overwhelmed by the case studies, and I imagine that's because Rhodes' cases were extremely in-depth and rigorous, and thus required more advanced training than many entry-level students possessed. That said, there were some beefy discussions. I can remember at least one student --- and a couple of others to a lesser degree --- who basically broke down during the discussion of whether the U.S. should have used nuclear weapons to end the war. I mean, really, the discussions were almost traumatizing for some. So while the article above notes that the Japanese are perhaps the world's most pacifist people, especially with regards to nuclear weapons, some the post-'60s cohorts of neo-socialist youth have internalized tremendously strong feelings about this as well. Of course, I don't think such ideological sentiment leads to rigorous thinking, but at least those views are deeply held.

More on this at NYT (FWIW), Kenzaburo Oe, "Hiroshima and the Art of Outrage."

Mary Hart Leaving 'Entertainment Tonight' After 29 Seasons

I write about 1980s pop music quite a bit ... so, how about a television flashback as well?" Mary Hart's leaving "ET" after 29 seasons. (I used to be a fan):

After nearly three decades as host of "Entertainment Tonight," Mary Hart is calling it quits.

Hart announced Thursday that she plans to leave the show after the upcoming season, which launches Sept. 13. Her exact departure date has not yet been revealed.

Hart joined the syndicated showbiz newsmagazine in 1982.

“I've reached a point when I clearly realize it's time for a change," Hart said in a statement. "There are many things I want to do in my life and I'd better get on with them. It will certainly be with mixed sentiments that I say 'goodbye' at the end of the season, but it will definitely be with a sense of celebration…30 years of Entertainment Tonight, are you kidding me? That's an accomplishment and something I'm very proud of!”

Lara Spencer, Hart's lovely replacement at "ET", will be 70 years-old if she too does 29 seasons: "Exclusive: 'Insider's' Lara Spencer Will Replace Mary Hart on 'ET'."

Developments in the Gulf

At Seattle Post-Intelligencer, "BP prepares to finish up 'static kill' with cement":

And see, "Factbox." Plus, "Gulf Update: Some Oil Disappears, Static Kill Seems to Be Working."

Birtherism Lives? Only 42 Percent of Americans Believe Obama Is a Citizen

It's kinda funny, but it just occurred to me that the folks so insistent that President Obama is fully eligible to be president of the United States have themselves turned into a cult that mirrors those who they so often criticize: the "birthers." This is evident by reading through the comments at Steven Taylor's post, "Birtherism Lives." What interested me was Steven's appearance of absolute certainty of President Obama's eligibility for office, which even from my perspective hasn't been shown conclusively. At issue is the new poll from CNN showing that 6 in 10 have doubts about Obama's birth: "CNN Poll: Only 42% Of Americans Believe Obama is a Citizen, Only 23% Of Republicans." The survey was released on Obama's birthday. In response, MSNBC's Chris Matthews nearly had a heart attack, "Chris Matthews: Birthers Are Trying To “Assassinate” Obama “With Their Lies”."

It's all pretty funny to me. Since the left's attacks on the birth eligibility issue is pretty much like being attacked as RAAAAACIST! --- that is, it's simply a means of shutting down debate and dissent. The MSM plays it up, and all of a sudden you're lumped in with the 9/11 truthers if you question why no one's ever released the long form birth certificate, which was issued in August 1961 by the State of Hawaii. (The computer generated COLB is incomplete documentation, and includes no signatures from medical professionals witnessing the birth.)

In any case, for some related humor, see Jerome Corsi, "Oops! Obama Mama Passport 'Destroyed'":

Responding to a Freedom of Information Act request, the State Department has released passport records of Stanley Ann Dunham, President Obama's mother – but records for the years surrounding Obama's 1961 birth are missing.

The State Department claims a 1980s General Services Administration directive resulted in the destruction of many passport applications and other "nonvital" passport records, including Dunham's 1965 passport application and any other passports she may have applied for or held prior to 1965.

Destroyed, then, would also be any records shedding light on whether Dunham did or did not travel out of the country around the time of Barack Obama's birth.

The claim made in the Freedom of Information response letter that many passport records were destroyed during the 1980s comes despite a statement on the State Department website that Passport Services maintains U.S. passport records for passports issued from 1925 to the present.

The records released, however, contain interesting tidbits of new information about Obama's mother, including the odd listing of two different dates and locations for her marriage to Obama's Indonesian stepfather, Lolo Soetoro.

Image Credit: The Astute Bloggers, "Naughty Obama Mamma."

BONUS: I have a long response to Steven Taylor at Outside the Beltway. He claims there's irrefutable proof of Obama's birth eligibility. I have raised questions there that so far he's not answered.

Mary Jo Kilroy: Enemy of Israel

A new clip from the Emergency Committee for Israel:

PuffHo is not pleased.

Background from Jennifer Rubin, "Defending the Gaza 54." Also, at Timothy Birdnow, "Open borders with Gaza? 54 Democrats sign letter for it."

How Communists Exploit WikiLeaks

It's one thing when you have communist Amy Goodman of Democracy Now! interviewing convicted computer hacker and communist activist Julian Assange on the U.S. government's response to WikLeaks. It's quite another thing when mainstream newspaper editors also come down on the side of the WikiLeaks/communist alliance. But that's what's happening today at LAT, "WikiLeaks and a Journalism 'Shield Law'." Speaking of Senator Schumer's legislative effort to police criminal organizations like WikiLeaks, the Times notes:

Rather than trying to figure out who should be protected and who should not, Congress should focus on what it is trying to accomplish — namely, to preserve for citizens of this democracy the information they need to govern themselves, information that sometimes only becomes public if those who have it can supply it anonymously.

Spoken like a true hardline communist apparatchik.

If you travel around the horn of the Internet, you'll find a clear split between those patriots who recognize that WikiLeaks' criminal activities put lives at risk (military and civilian) and those anti-Americans who want to damage the United States at all costs.

This Ain't Hell has more, "Left Plots Exploitation of WikiLeaks Documents":

The Left didn’t waste any time getting together in New York City yesterday looking for ways to use the documents from the Wikileaks drop for their own nefarious purposes. Someone dropped a link to me Saturday about the conference. They highlighted the luminaries that they had invited to speak;

* Dahr Jamail, journalist, author of “Beyond the Green Zone”
* Cindy Sheehan, antiwar leader, author, Director, Peace of the Action
* Josh Stieber, Army veteran of Bravo Company 2-16
* Matthis Chiroux, Army veteran, Iraq war resister
* Mike Ferner, President, Veterans for Peace
* Ray McGovern, former CIA Agent, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity
* Jeff Paterson, Courgage to Resist, spokesperson for Bradley Manning Support Comm
* Elaine Brower, military mother, World Can’t Wait
* Debra Sweet, Director, World Can’t Wait

Debra Sweet calls them “a strong group of resisters and truth-tellers”. They resist common sense and none would know the truth if it bit their collective ass. Dahr Jamail has made a career of ignoring facts that get in his way, Cindy Sheehan you all know, Josh Stieber bears witness to the “Collateral Murder” video yet he was still behind the wire during the events of that day. Matthis, well he’s a celebrity here. TSO dealt with Jeff Paterson’s hyperbole last year. Elaine Brower, hiding behind her son’s service, calls other troops baby killers.

That's Debra Sweet of the communist World Can't Wait organization: "Webcast: Anti-War Leaders and Veterans Respond to the WikiLeaks Revelations."

This is the leftist coaltion we're dealing with. Or, this is the domestic/international enemy coalition stabbing our troops in the back. (And recall also that the New York Times has been right at the center of this entire criminal leaking enterprise. Treasonous and disgusting.)

Michaele Salahi of 'D.C. Housewives' on 'The View'

I'd almost forgotten about the Salahis. I guess Whoopi Goldberg touched Michaele on yesterday's episode of "The View'. Now it turns out the "Real Housewives of DC" star (and former White House gate-crasher) is claiming she was "abused." And attorney Lisa Bloom (Gloria Allred's daughter) is on the case. At CBS News, "Michaele Salahi's Lawyer: 'View' Appearance Degrading." Plus, at ET, "'The View' update: Whoopi says she used 'choice words' backstage but 'didn't hit' Michaele Salahi."

The key moment's at about 1:50 at the clip. Looks like Whoopi simply touched her:

Mosque is No Way to 'Build Bridges'

From Thomas Kidd, at USA Today:

On Tuesday, the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission voted, correctly, to deny landmark status to a fairly nondescript building that formerly housed a Burlington Coat Factory retailer. The only reason that the notion of landmark status had come forward (despite weak arguments about the building representing mid-19th century economic growth) was because a Muslim organization wants to build a mosque there, and the building stands near Ground Zero, the former site of the World Trade Center. Building the mosque near the epicenter of the 9/11 tragedy is in extremely bad taste, but the Constitution's protection of religious freedom should allow it to be built.

This case is a perfect example of the delicate nature of religious freedom. Religious freedom is most tenuous when the religious act in question is unpopular, and the building of this mosque is unpopular, to put it mildly. The proposed Islamic center shows an incredible lack of sensitivity on the part of the Cordoba Initiative, the group backing the mosque. One wonders whether Oz Sultan, spokesman for the group, can be serious when he says that the project will "build bridges" and that the Cordoba Initiative is "committed to promoting positive interaction between the Muslim world and the West." Could this group really be so out of touch, or is it intentionally trying to provoke a harsh reaction to prove some point? We don't know, but the overwhelming consensus of public opinion is that the idea of building this mosque on this property is deeply offensive. It insults the memory of those who died at the hands of jihadist terrorists.

More at the link.

Cartoon Credit: Sean Delonas.

In the Mail: The Obama Victory: How Media, Money, and Message Shaped the 2008 Election

Came to my home address, which is unusual. Available at Amazon.

And from the publisher's page:

Barack Obama's stunning victory in the 2008 presidential election will go down as one of the more pivotal in American history. Given America's legacy of racism, how could a relatively untested first-term senator with an African father defeat some of the giants of American politics?

In The Obama Victory , Kate Kenski, Bruce Hardy, and Kathleen Hall Jamieson draw upon the best voter data available, The National Annenberg Election Survey, as well as interviews with key advisors to each campaign, to illuminate how media, money, and messages shaped the 2008 election. They explain how both sides worked the media to reinforce or combat images of McCain as too old and Obama as not ready; how Obama used a very effective rough-and-tumble radio and cable campaign that was largely unnoticed by the mainstream media; how the Vice Presidential nominees impacted the campaign; how McCain's age and Obama's race affected the final vote, and much more.

Briskly written and filled with surprising insights, The Obama Victory goes beyond opinion to offer the most authoritative account available of precisely how and why Obama won the presidency.

'I Never Swallow'

This dude's a riot. Impeccable timing as well: "Obama does not endorse gay marriage. As a candidate for president, he consistently said marriage should be reserved for a man and a woman." Freakin' homophobe!