James 'We're About to Die Down Here' Carville Sucks Up Obama Slams in Time for Midterms

Well, when it gets to the point where Democrats WON'T run on their record, it's understandable that even harsh critics of the administration are sucking it up in hopes of minimizing the carnage.

Here's James Carville hilarious taking back his "folks are dying down here" rant from April, "Obama played his cards right on BP":

My mother, Ms. Nippy Carville, was a woman of many talents. Two in particular stand out. She was a superb cook (the author of a successful cookbook), and she was an excellent bridge player.

She always cautioned me that it was important that one "review the bidding" before the play. Now that it's becoming apparent that the efforts to cap the well at Deepwater Horizon are going to be successful, we should pause and pay homage to Ms. Nippy's advice by reviewing the bidding.

Any fair assessment would have to conclude that in spite of some people's criticism of the early response, (and by "some people" I mean Ms. Nippy's firstborn son James), one also must give credit to a much improved and vigorous response to the environmental catastrophe in the Gulf.

RTWT.

Haley Barbour's already claimed that Obama's done "more right than wrong" on the BP spill (highly questionable), so I guess that wasn't too hard for Carville.

Love the clip, in any case.

Melodi Dushane Video: Woman Punches McDonalds Worker Over McNuggets

According to Mediaite, "This Woman Really Likes McNuggets. A Lot." And my wife and I agree the funniest part is when the next driver in line pulls up and gets his order like clockwork:

The incident occurred early on New Years Eve Day but the dramatic security camera footage has only reached the internet yesterday where it can now be enjoyed by McNugget fans everywhere. While all of the punching and window smashing in the clip are fun, I really think my favorite part is the truck that pulls up after Dushane speeds off. While I’m assuming the guy probably stopped to help, I like to imagine that he just said, “Hey, you guys look busy but can I get my Sausage Biscuit now? I’m in a hurry.”

Also, "Crazy Security Footage Is Best McDonald's Viral Ad Ever."

The lady was drunk, by the way. Picture here: "Melodi Dushane Punches McDonalds Worker Over McNuggets."

Post-Anti-Americanism?

I'm sure Howard Fineman is a good guy (hardly a netroots freak), but seriously, he should read some of the scholarly literature on hegemony and U.S. power. Signs in Europe of a post-post-9/11 anti-Americanism simply signal that continent's ever increasing irrelevance in great power international politics. See, "Europe can’t even be bothered to hate America any more":

I got on a recently completed three-week trip to Italy, Greece, Turkey, and the Black Sea. America is no longer admired, imitated, or feared. We remain—for now—a safe haven for dollars (of which there are too many in the world). But we increasingly are seen less as a model or as an empire than as a cautionary tale of national neglect and decline.

Some Europeans can’t quite hide their schadenfruede. The British—whose publications and personalities are increasingly (and annoyingly) influential in the colony they lost 227 years ago—are global leaders in condescension (think Simon Cowell). But for America they add a special twist of bitter lemon to their analyses. It’s the triumph of the doddering older brother who no longer has to be grateful to his junior. Memories fade, and the Brits no longer feel they have to be kind out of homage to our having saved them from Hitler.

A couple of examples from the genre. Writing in the Guardian, Timothy Garton Ash sees a Third World shabbiness when he visits the United States. “Every time I come back to the United States,” the Oxford don writes, “the airports, the roads, the public spaces look more tattered, battered, old-fashioned. Modernity is no longer self-evidently here.”

Edward Luce, a brilliant and diligent reporter for the Financial Times, surveyed the American landscape and came up with a mournful portrait that echoes, in equal measure, Diane Arbus, Walker Evans, and Robert Altman. Citing incontrovertibly bleak statistics about the struggles of middle-class Americans, and the growing disparity between the really rich and everyone else, he concludes that the U.S. is losing its essential character: it is no longer the land of opportunity and upward mobility; no longer the place where the future will surely be better, and more prosperous, than the past ...

Oh God ... tha's all I can read.

Folks are better off reading Michael Mandelbaum, "The Downsizing of American Foreign Policy." And Mandelbaum's no declinist, by the way. Let's get this economy pumping (ahem, President Obama), and we'll get America back on top in world public opinion (hope and change ain't doin' the trick).

RELATED: "Do States Ally Against the Leading Global Power?"

Rand Paul News — 'Aqua Buddha' and Jack Conway

Mostly fluff, but interesting.

From Ben Smith, "Paul campaign attacks GQ reporter." The reporter in question is Jason Zengerle, who's also with The New Republic. Focus on that angle, not legal threats. Hang the JournoList albatross around GQ's neck. (More on this at Memeorandum.)

And related, "Democratic Operative Busted Smearing Rand Paul at Fancy Farm":

Too bad people cannot deal openly and honestly with real issues and argumentation. Actually, it’s a good thing: these kinds of antics actually show them for what they are: liars. Jack Conway and company will have to do better. Furthermore, this confirms what tea party goers have claimed elsewhere, as this Fox article reports.

Also at Mediaite, "Jack Conway Supporter Caught Disguising Himself As Racist Rand Paul Fan." And R.S. McCain, "Fake Republican, Real Hate: Democrat Tries Moby ‘Racist’ Smear on Rand Paul."

Victor Can 'Rot in Hell' While Ross 'Pulls Out Even When He Masturbates' — Just Samples of Yesterday's Leftist High Brow Blog Commentary...

Freaks. Yeah, but standard on the left.

Instaputz literally wishes death upon Victor Davis Hanson (for his comments on Hugh Hewitt's), and TBogg uses disgusting sexual slurs to attack Ross Douthat for his commentary on gay marriage.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised. Perhaps next we'll see Nobel Prize Winner Paul Krugman blog Representative Paul Ryan in blackface? (Jane Hamsher's never been honored in Oslo, so no doubt a Krugman turn at that kind demonology will lend leftists even greater credibility with the genre.)

RELATED: "The Smart vs. the Dumb." And, "Fire Paul Krugman. Now."

Celebrating Lifelong Heterosexual Monogamy as Unique and Indispensable

I've dealt with these arguments over and over again, but I must say Ross Douthat's piece yesterday was an extremely clever analytical outing. He makes the case that marriage not only is entirely unnatural, but has virtually collapsed as a social institution as well. The clincher is the last couple of paragraphs where he describes marriage is a civilizational ideal that's "unique" and "indispensible," and concludes:

That ideal is still worth honoring, and still worth striving to preserve. And preserving it ultimately requires some public acknowledgment that heterosexual unions and gay relationships are different: similar in emotional commitment, but distinct both in their challenges and their potential fruit.

I've read around the horn quite a bit, and Douthat was certainly successful in firing up the masses. With the exception of the Steve Chapman piece (excerpted with additional commentary at Protein Wisdom), it's mostly howling gay bloggers who're up in arms about it. Glenn Greenwald's piece appears to have little familiarity with actually law (or at least moral foundations of the law), but Andrew Sullivan in fact wrote a pretty good essay. Click on Memeorandum to sample some of the responses.

And I suppose it's a good thing that Sully and Rick Ellensburg et al. are pushing for marriage, considering how the gay hookup culture --- despite its murderous health and safety risks --- is still pretty much the rage, at Gawker:

Sonja Schmidt Reports on the Immigration Debate From Phoenix

Click the image to watch:

Meet the Women of Hezbollah

At The New Republic:

Since the 1980s, the Shia terrorist group Hezbollah has not been given to blunt public moralizing about the need for women to wear the veil. It originally made no secret of its desire to convert Lebanon into a Shia Islamic state—the organization’s 1985 manifesto called for the establishment of “Islamic government” and the conversion of Christians to Islam—but these efforts proved exceedingly unpopular, given Lebanon’s plurality of Christian and Sunni Muslim citizens. So when its leader, Abas Musawi, was assassinated in 1992, his successor Hassan Nasrallah refrained from offering explicit support for theocracy in Lebanon—and largely backed away from efforts to impose conservative religious traditions on Hezbollah's female constituents. But now, suddenly, the organization is again behaving in a way that evinces deep insecurity about the decorum of Shiite women.

Here's one example. Two months after Israel interdicted the Mavi Marmara, another aid flotilla is preparing to set sail toward the Hamas-controlled Palestinian territory of Gaza. This Lebanese fleet, slated to depart in the coming weeks, is led by the Miriam, a vessel manned solely by females. The idea behind this creative and progressive staffing is to raise the negative impact on Israel if it tries to enforce the blockade against a boat full of sympathetic ladies.

Yet it turns out that not all Lebanese women are welcome on the cruise. In June, the Kuwaiti daily As Siyassa reported that the curvaceous Lebanese diva Haifa Wehbe—perhaps the most famous woman in all of Lebanon—tried to sign on, but was rebuffed by Hezbollah. Why? Apparently Hezbollah was concerned that Wehbe’s “immodest” attire would “harm the reputation of all the women participating in the trip.”

More at the link.

I'm not seeing a caption, but that looks like Haifa Wehbe at the screencap. Either way, what a sweetie.

Gen. David Petraeus Plans Three-Week Media Blitz to Build Support for Afghan War

At Politico:

After seven silent weeks, Gen. David Petraeus begins aggressive messaging on Afghanistan: David Gregory announced yesterday that he will broadcast “Meet the Press” from Kabul next Sunday, with Petraeus’ first U.S. interview since he took command in Afghanistan. That will launch a spate of appearances that are being spread out over three weeks so Americans will be more likely to hear his message, even during the August doldrums. This week, Petraeus will begin communicating with the Afghan people. Then after “Meet,” the general will do the BBC later that week. The following week, Petraeus has sit-downs with “CBS Evening News” anchor Katie Couric, then Fox News’ Jennifer Griffin, who’s returning from breast-cancer treatment. At month’s end, George Stephanopoulos will take “Good Morning America” on the road to see the general. Major U.S. and European print and radio outlets will be sprinkled in. Then in the weeks that follow, the general plans to keep up a strong battle rhythm of engaging with the media and making his case.

Impeach Obama Van Patrolling Streets of Chicago

The new hope and change, via Founding Bloggers:

Prop 8 Ruling Barely Registers in California

My latest essay at Pajamas Media, "Candidates tiptoe around hot button issues while an amateurish flip-flop on immigration gets the GOP gubernatorial hopeful in trouble":

Check the Pajamas homepage for lots more great commentary and analysis.

Eye-Rollgate: Stay Classy, LSM — And Shannyn Moore!!

Eye-Sarah Palin responds to Eye-Rollgate:

I'd say Palin handled it pretty well, so no wonder the eye-roll's the thing. Freakin' lefties are jonesin' for something, anything, to keep the demonology alive.

See William Jacobson, "Palin Eye Roll Derangement Syndrome."

RELATED: Allahpundit suggests Shannyn Moore's a "Palin-hater." You think?

Obama-Rama at Jersey Shore — That's RAAAAACIST!!

I love the fact that you can almost take out Obama and Osama at the same time. But seriously, I'd say the leftist outrage is a bit much, since everything from guillotines to Bush assassination movies greeted the 43rd occupant of the White House. Well, at least it gives desperate lefties another chance to scream RAAAAACIST!!

RELATED: "Death Threats Against Bush at Protests Ignored for Years."

BONUS: "Hate-o-Crat Eliminationism: Leftists Move to 'Get Rid of Republicans Entirely'."

UPDATE: Also blogging, Doug Ross, "'Horrible' Jersey Shore Boardwalk Carnival Game Doesn't Depict Bush 43 Being Hung, Defecated Upon or Set Afire," and Left Coast Rebel, "(VIDEO) Obama-rama Boardwalk Fair Game at The Jersey Shore (Seaside Heights, New Jersey)."

And Blazing Cat Fur too! ... "Obama at the Jersey Shore."

Interview with Caroline Glick

At Accuracy in Media:

“On a psychological level, I think we’ve seen, over the past generation or more, 40 years or more, that Israel has been the victim of a campaign that grows stronger with each passing year to isolate it and to delegitimize it internationally, to try to argue that Israel has no right to exist and no right to defend itself. For the past decade or so, the United States has really been the last stalwart who has refused to engage in this kind of demonization of Israel. So from psychological perspective, Israel feels very dependent on the United States as its only ally in this political war that’s being fought against it, that’s being fought against the very notion of Jewish nationhood and of Jewish national rights in the land of Israel. And so the idea that the United States will abandon Israel—and the Obama administration almost continuously has this threat over Israel’s head, like a Sword of Damocles, saying, ‘If you don’t do what we demand that you do, then we’re going to stop vetoing anti-Israel resolutions in the U.N. Security Council, and a whole host of other areas where the United States has traditionally sided with Israel, in the U.N. and other international forums…’”

Lots more at the link, and a podcast too.

Why Does President Obama Refuse to Secure Our Borders?

Via NewsReal:

RELATED: "Arizona’s Fight – America’s Fight."

Human Rights Groups Slam WikiLeaks

At WSJ, "Rights Groups Join Criticism of WikiLeaks":

A group of human-rights organizations is pressing WikiLeaks to do a better job of redacting names from thousands of war documents it is publishing, joining the list of critics that claim the Web site's actions could jeopardize the safety of Afghans who aided the U.S. military.

The letter from five human-rights groups sparked a tense exchange in which WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange issued a tart challenge for the organizations to help with the massive task of removing names from thousands of documents, according to several of the organizations that signed the letter. The exchange shows how WikiLeaks and Mr. Assange risk being isolated from some of their most natural allies in the wake of the documents' publication.

The human-rights groups involved are Amnesty International; Campaign for Innocent Victims in Conflict, or CIVIC; Open Society Institute, or OSI, the charitable organization funded by George Soros; Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission; and the Kabul office of International Crisis Group, or ICG.

The groups emailed WikiLeaks to say they were concerned for the safety of Afghans identified as helping the U.S. military in documents obtained by WikiLeaks, according to several of the groups. WikiLeaks has already published 76,000 of the documents and plans to publish up to 15,000 more.

Some of the already published documents included names that critics including the Pentagon claim could lead to harm for Afghans seen as helping the U.S. war effort. The Pentagon last week demanded that WikiLeaks hand over all the classified Afghan war documents it has.

"We have seen the negative, sometimes deadly ramifications for those Afghans identified as working for or sympathizing with international forces," the human-rights groups wrote in their letter, according to a person familiar with it. "We strongly urge your volunteers and staff to analyze all documents to ensure that those containing identifying information are taken down or redacted."

In his response to the letter signed by the human-rights organizations, Mr. Assange asked what the groups were doing to analyze the documents already published, and asked whether Amnesty in particular would provide staff to help redact the names of Afghan civilians, according to people familiar with the letter.

An Amnesty official replied to say that while the group has limited resources, it wouldn't rule out the idea of helping, according to people familiar with the reply. The official suggested that Mr. Assange and the human-rights groups hold a conference call to discuss the matter.

Mr. Assange then replied: "I'm very busy and have no time to deal with people who prefer to do nothing but cover their asses. If Amnesty does nothing I shall issue a press release highlighting its refusal," according to people familiar with the exchange.

Later, WikiLeaks posted on its Twitter account: "Pentagon wants to bankrupt us by refusing to assist review. Media won't take responsibility. Amnesty won't. What to do?"

In an email Monday, WikiLeaks declined to comment on the exchange with the human rights groups.

Taliban representatives have said publicly that they are searching the documents and plan to punish people who have helped U.S. forces.

Freakin' Assange has blood on his hands. Folks should give him up to the Taliban.

Mia Farrow's Blood Diamond Testimony Contradicts Naomi Campbell

At LAT, "Farrow Contradicts Campbell on Diamond":

THE HAGUE — Actress Mia Farrow told a war crimes court on Monday that she had heard supermodel Naomi Campbell say she had been given a "huge diamond" by Charles Taylor when he was Liberia's president.

Campbell told the Special Court for Sierra Leone last week she had been given "dirty looking pebbles" after a 1997 dinner in South Africa, but did not know if they were diamonds from Taylor, on trial for war crimes and crimes against humanity.

In court on Monday, Farrow said the British model had joined a group of guests at breakfast after the charity dinner, hosted by South African president Nelson Mandela, and had started relating something that had happened overnight.

"She said in the night she had been awakened by men knocking at her door and they had been sent to her by Charles Taylor, and they had given her a huge diamond," Farrow said, adding that Campbell had been "quite excited" about it.

Farrow told the court Campbell had said she would give the diamond to the Nelson Mandela Children's Fund, adding that "it was a sort of an unforgettable moment".

Taylor is charged with 11 counts of instigating murder, rape, mutilation, sexual slavery and conscription of child soldiers during wars in Liberia and Sierra Leone in which more than 250,000 people were killed. He denies all the charges.

Defence lawyer Courtenay Griffiths questioned Farrow's recollection and also her impartiality, because of her active campaigning for justice for the victims of Africa's wars.

The former manager of Mandela's Children Fund charity, Jeremy Ratcliffe, has said he received a number of uncut diamonds from Campbell, and handed them to South African police on Thursday after Campbell's testimony.

Prosecutors are seeking to link the gems to Taylor to prove allegations, which he denies, that he received diamonds from rebels in Sierra Leone and used them to buy weapons.

Prosecutors showed Farrow Campbell's testimony from last week and a U.S. media interview in which she denied saying the diamonds were from Taylor, or denied getting diamonds at all.

RELATED: At Wall Street Journal, "Doth Naomi Campbell Protest Too Much?‎"

Michelle Malkin Gets Hate Tweets

Unreal, but to be expected from Barack Obama supporters. As I've said many time, Obama really needs to work on his inner city education agenda. These be some illiterate mo-"fukers", yo!

American Volunteers Devoted to Helping Others in Afghanistan

At LAT:

They were a disparate group of American altruists who had long cared for the poor and ailing, thrown together on a mission to provide medical help in the most daunting and needy of places.

Last week, the six Americans were among 10 volunteers shot to death in a remote swath of Afghanistan while returning from an aid mission, a tragic end to their years of risk-laden service in the war-ravaged and impoverished nation.

Tom Little [pictured above], for one, remained in Afghanistan through its brutal civil war in the 1990s, talking his way through checkpoints manned by various ethnic militias, and saving the lives of co-workers who might otherwise have been dragged from the car and killed.

Colorado dentist Thomas Grams often traveled with a bodyguard and told friends how he'd persuaded a tribal leader to bring his mother in for a dental exam by agreeing that she'd peel back as little of her burka as possible.

"He was just there out of kindness," Katy Shaw, a friend of Grams, said Sunday, her voice catching. "I can't get my arms around why someone would do that to a group of people trying to be helpful."

The Taliban has claimed responsibility for the ambush in a rugged, isolated valley, which also killed two Afghan men, a German woman and a British woman working with the International Assistance Mission. The Taliban accused the Christian group's volunteers of proselytizing and spying for Western military forces, which the charity vehemently denied.

The charity team, which had been providing eye care and other health services to villagers, had hiked over a steep mountain pass into neighboring Nuristan province, where insurgents had been battling Afghan and Western forces. Police theorized that the assailants might have followed them back from there.

Two other Afghan members of the group escaped the massacre: an interpreter who had left before the ambush and a driver who told police he recited verses from the Koran as he pleaded for his life. Afghan authorities are still questioning the driver about his account of the incident, and police said it would take two days for investigators to reach the scene of the killings.

The Western military condemned the attack as part of a pattern of insurgent behavior that exacerbated the suffering of Afghan civilians.

"This is something the Afghan population has to face," said Brig. Gen. Josef Blotz, a spokesman for NATO's International Security Assistance Force. "Because of these brutal, indiscriminate and absolutely deranged tactics and activities of the Taliban, international aid workers and nongovernmental organizations can't do their job, which is so necessary for this country" ....

Another victim, Cheryl Beckett [pictured above], 32, was a former senior class president in Ohio with a sharp sense of humor and a strong Christian faith, said her grandmother Jean Fink. Both characteristics helped the aid worker power through the last six years, with Beckett educating Afghan villagers in nutritional gardening and mother-child health, and herself in the local languages.

RELATED: "Afghan driver for slain aid volunteers being held by authorities." More at Blazing Cat Fur, along with the press release from the International Assistance Mission.

Judge Vaughn Walker Ruled That President Obama is a Bigot

It's true. Everybody's a bigot who doesn't surrender to the gay marriage ayatollahs, says George Mason University Law Professor Nelson Lund:

A federal judge in San Francisco ruled Wednesday that President Obama is a bigot. And not just the president. Joe Biden as well, and Hillary Rodham Clinton and Sandra Day O'Connor. And maybe you, too.

The judge didn't put it that way, of course. Technically, he ruled that an amendment to California's Constitution violated the U.S. Constitution by defining marriage as a union of one man and one woman. That amendment was approved by voters after a state court declared that a similar statute violated the state Constitution. The amendment then was challenged in federal court as a violation of the U.S. Constitution.

This was a strange ruling. The U.S. Supreme Court decided in 1971 that an identical challenge to the traditional definition of marriage was meritless. Nor has the Supreme Court ever suggested that its 1971 decision was wrong. Wednesday's ruling relied primarily on a constitutional doctrine that forbids laws having no conceivable rational purpose or no purpose except to oppress a politically unpopular minority group. After a lengthy trial, the judge found that the people of California must have adopted the traditional definition of marriage because of moral or religious contempt for homosexuals and their relationships.

It was a strange charge to make against the people of California. California has the most progressive domestic partnership law in the nation, which gives same-sex couples all the same substantive rights and privileges available to married couples. Why would the judge think that the only possible reason for favoring the traditional definition of marriage was bigotry? He reasoned that every other possible explanation for the voters' decision was so ridiculous that only anti-gay feelings were left.

Great essay. More from Ed Whelan at National Review.