MONDAY,  JANUARY 11,  2010

MORE DOTS THAT WEREN'T CONNECTED – AT 6:20 P.M. ET:  In our recent focus on the Christmas-day bomber, we diverted our eyes from the Fort Hood case, in which a terrorist attack actually succeeded.  Some 13 Americans died, and there would have been more had it not been for the heroism of security people. 

Now we learn that there were ample warnings about Major Hasan, the Fort Hood shooter and budding jihadist:

WASHINGTON – In late December 2004, one of the officers overseeing Army Maj. Nidal Hasan's medical training praised him in an official evaluation as a qualified and caring doctor who would be an asset in any post.

But less than a week later, a committee at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center that oversees student performance met behind closed doors to discuss serious concerns about Hasan's questionable behavior, poor judgment and lack of drive.

Disconnects such this were a familiar pattern throughout Hasan's lengthy medical education in the Washington area, according to information gathered during an internal Pentagon review of the shooting rampage at Fort Hood, Texas, and obtained by The Associated Press.

The review has not been publicly released, but the emerging picture is one of supervisors who failed to heed their own warnings about an officer ill-suited to be an Army psychiatrist, according to the information.

And...

As Hasan's training progressed, his strident views on Islam became more pronounced as did worries about his competence as a medical professional. Yet his superiors continued to give him positive performance evaluations that kept him moving through the ranks and led to his eventual assignment at Fort Hood...

...What remains unclear is why Hasan would be advanced in spite of all the shortcomings. That is likely to be the subject of a more detailed accounting by the Defense Department.

COMMENT:  We should not accept any report, or any so-called "accounting," unless the subject of political correctness is dealt with forthrightly and completely.

The key question:  Were Army promotion boards so intimidated by the atmosphere of political correctness that's been imposed on the armed forces that they were afraid to flag Hasan and even recommend that he be detached from the service?

Any decent report will answer that question.

January 11, 2010   Permalink 

IS HEALTH CARE IN TROUBLE? – AT 5:49 P.M. ET:  Retiring Senator Chris Dodd, maybe now feeling the freedom to tell the truth, thinks so.  From NBC:

Health care reform is "hanging on by a thread," and one or two votes could determine the outcome of the heavily-debated bill, Democratic Sen. Chris Dodd told CNBC Monday.

"Everyone feels, I guess, to some degree who have been for this, that they would have liked something different, and that's not uncommon when you're considering an issue of this magnitude," Dodd said.

Some progressives, for example, are disappointed that the Senate bill, unlike the House version, does not include a public option, he said. Senators Joe Lieberman of Connecticut and Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas are two people who voted for the bill in its original form and are now carefully watching what changes are being made.

COMMENT:  Is suspect there's also another factor.  Politicians read polls, and the polls show the American people increasingly against the health "reform" bill currently being finalized in Congress.  There may well be many Democrats who wish they'd never tackled this, or had tackled this more competently.  They see the iceberg ahead, and wonder if it's too late to turn the ship.

January 11, 2010   Permalink

SARAH GETTING FOXY – AT 5:37 P.M. ET:  Sarah Palin is joining Fox News.  From Andrew Malcolm at the L.A. Times's "Top of the Ticket":

One-time TV journalist Sarah Palin, who dabbled successfully in politics for a while, has decided to return to her media roots.

Fox News confirms this afternoon that the 45-year-old former mayor, city council member, state oil and gas regulator, unsuccessful lieutenant government candidate, Alaska reform governor, unsuccessful Republican vice presidential nominee and most recently successful book author, has signed a contract with the top-rated cable news channel, Fox News, as a commentator across a number of programs.

The mother of five, including a special needs infant, will also host a show on inspiring American stories. While other networks struggle over the unfunny scheduling of late-night comics, it's another commercial coup for Roger Ailes, who's turned the youngish network the Democratic White House loves to hate into a real moneymaker.

COMMENT:  This will be fascinating.  As Andrew Malcolm says, she will have to demonstrate intellectual heft and a knowledge of a number of issues.

I would not be shocked if she not only does well, but also devotes some of her time to interviewing, hauling in the big "gets," who would be delighted to share her audience.  Also, don't be surprised if she does some of her commentary from other countries, giving her a kind of instant international image and appeal.

But remember, she will also be a huge target.  Look for the first stories about disgruntled staff members, off-camera gaffes and Sarah, true or not, acting like a diva.  They're inevitable. 

I can't wait to see her ratings as compared with, say, those of Chris Matthews.  Well, maybe that's too easy.

January 11, 2010   Permalink

TERMINALLY WEIRD – AT 10:05 A.M. ET:  This is pretty revolting, so brace yourself.  But it's about Hollywood, so maybe it won't be that shocking:

TCA -- Director Oliver Stone's upcoming Showtime documentary miniseries "Secret History of America" promises to put mass murderers such as Stalin and Hitler "in context."

"Stalin, Hitler, Mao, McCarthy -- these people have been vilified pretty thoroughly by history," Stone told reporters at the Television Critics Association's semi-annual press tour in Pasadena.

Look, I'm not making this up.  Oliver Stone, one of the most irresponsible directors around, a man who has misinformed a generation of kids who go to movies, is doing a miniseries on the "history" of America.  And I'm so looking forward to Hitler in context.

Hitler is an easy scapegoat throughout history and its been used cheaply. He's the product of a series of actions. It's cause and effect ... People in America don't know the connection between WWI and WWII ... I've been able to walk in Stalin's shoes and Hitler's shoes to understand their point of view. We're going to educate our minds and liberalize them and broaden them.

Make sure you turn on the child blocking system on your TV.

Go into the funding of the Nazi party. How many American corporations were involved, from GM through IBM. Hitler is just a man who could have easily been assassinated." 

Ollie, it's true, but this is very old stuff.  Is there any informed American who doesn't know that some Americans colluded with Hitler?  And they included the head of the U.S. Olympic Committee. 

Subjects in "History" include President Harry Truman’s decision to drop the atomic bomb on Japan and the origins of the Cold War with the Soviet Union.

I think all of us can predict exactly where this is going.

And here comes the real nutso part:

Stone also warned that the same military industrial complex forces that he's explored in movies such as "JFK" and in "Secret History," are now corrupting Barack Obama.

Oh yeah, right.  Obama is in bed with Lockheed Martin.  Everyone knows that. 

"You can understand why Obama is following in Bush's footsteps in Afghanistan," Stone said."Obama is very much trapped, we believe, in that system. And so that's what we're going to try and show you -- the way it works." 

I'm sure you're an expert, Ollie.  You learn a great deal about the industrial-military complex going to Hollywood parties. 

I'm sure the three viewers of this series will cheer.

January 11,  2010   Permalink

SUPERB CRITIQUE OF OBAMA'S FOREIGN POLICY – AT 9:14 A.M. ET:  The great Ed Lasky of American Thinker alerts us to one of the best critiques recently written on Obama's faltering foreign policy.  It's by Eliot Cohen of Johns Hopkins, published in The Wall Street Journal:

If the first year of President Barack Obama's foreign policy were a law firm in Charles Dickens's London, it would have a name like Bumble, Stumble and Skid.

This won't be posted on the White House bulletin board.

It began with apologies to the Muslim world that went nowhere, a doomed attempt to beat Israel into line, utopian pleas to abolish nuclear weapons, unreciprocated concessions to Russia, and a curt note to the British to take back the bust of Winston Churchill that had graced the Oval Office. It continued with principled offers of serious negotiation to an Iranian regime too busy torturing, raping and killing demonstrators, and building new underground nuclear facilities, to take them up. Subsequently Beijing smothered domestic coverage of a presidential visit but did give the world the spectacle of the American commander in chief getting a talking-to about fiscal responsibility from a Communist chieftain.

Even a good decision was botched:

The decision to reinforce our military in Afghanistan came after an excruciating dither that undermined the confidence of our allies. Mr. Obama's loose talk of withdrawal beginning in 18 months then undid much of the good in his decision to send troops.

And...

One hopes that his advisers, and the president himself, recognize the weight of the query reportedly posed last April by the most formidable contemporary leader of a free country, Nicolas Sarkozy: "Est-il faible?" (Is he weak?). If a year from now world leaders think the answer is "yes," the U.S. will be in deep trouble.

And the answer, so far, is "yes."

In at least one way, Mr. Obama resembles his predecessor: He has enormous self-confidence. But where George W. Bush's certainty stemmed from moral conviction, Mr. Obama's arises from a sense of intellectual superiority.

Yeah, and people are starting to notice.

Part of un-Bushism as foreign policy has been a self-inflicted muteness by this most articulate of politicians on the topic of democracy, freedom and human rights. American foreign policy has always been a long and difficult dialogue between realpolitik and our values, our pursuit of our own interests, and our deliberate efforts to spread freedom abroad. Saying that the U.S. will "bear witness" to abuses and brutality around the world is, in effect, to say that we will send flowers to funerals. Mr. Obama needs to say something considerably more serious.

Very well said.  The remarkable fact is that George W. Bush was more idealistic, and more in tune with American values, than is Obama, the "idealistic" candidate.

It's a large agenda, but then, Mr. Obama likes to give speeches. And it still leaves plenty—articulating the need for and meaning of American primacy, for example—for 2011.

COMMENT:  Very well said, without rancor or insult.  Obama apparently believed that a few well chosen words from him could change the world.  But the world hasn't bought.  Words can have impact, but they have to be special words, like "We hold these truths to be self evident..."  This president hasn't come close to that magic.

January 11, 2010   Permalink

OH PLEASE – AT 8:23 A.M. ET:  Leave it to Dick Lugar, ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, to make mush of almost anything, and to define traditional, lax, go-along Republicanism.  It's hard to believe this one:

Jan. 9 (Bloomberg) -- Richard Lugar, the top Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, called President Barack Obama’s handling of recent terrorism threats “strong,” disputing former Vice President Dick Cheney’s criticism.

“It’s unfair,” Lugar said in an interview for Bloomberg Television’s “Political Capital with Al Hunt,” airing this weekend. “I think the president is focused.”

Cheney, who frequently has led Republican attacks on the Democratic president since leaving office a year ago, told Politico on Dec. 29 that Obama “is trying to pretend we are not at war” with a “low-key response” to the Dec. 25 attempt to ignite a bomb aboard a flight to Detroit.

To the contrary, Obama has demonstrated “firmness” and “decisiveness,” Lugar, who represents Indiana, said. “That’s been the antidote to the criticism.”

Lugar, a perfectly honorable guy in other respects, is one of those senators who wants to appear the statesman, the international figure, the man above the masses.  But Cheney is right, and Lugar is wrong, and Lugar has diminished himself. 

Another one who's right is John McCain, who continues to distinguish himself on national-security issues, and has shown what the term "loyal opposition" is all about.  McCain nails Obama on terrorism, and does the truth-telling that Lugar refuses to do:

Sen. John McCain said Sunday that President Obama's tougher talk about fighting terrorism after the attempted Christmas airline bombing does not match his decision to try the bomber in civilian court.

"That person should be tried as an enemy combatant, he's a terrorist," Mr. McCain said. "And if we are at war, then we certainly should not be trying that individual in a court other than a military trial."

He said Mr. Obama should not allow terror suspect Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, a Nigerian, to get "lawyered up" for his day in court instead of handing him to intelligence officials to extract vital information.

"To have a person be able to get lawyered up when we need that information very badly, I think betrays or contradicts the president's view that we are at war," Mr. McCain said on CNN's "State of the Union."

And that is why John McCain should have been president.  Many of us were ridiculed for favoring McCain over the demigod Obama.  Considering Obama's record so far, we have nothing to be ashamed about.

January 11, 2010   Permalink

SCIENCE NEWS – AT 8:17 A.M. ET:  We are a public service site, and wanted to alert you to this headline from London's Telegraph:

Earth 'to be wiped out' by supernova explosion

Please tell your friends.  And, by the way, there are good seats available through Ticketmaster.

January 11, 2010   Permalink

ROMNEY?  ROMNEY? – AT 7:42 A.M. ET:  I've been intrigued by the boomlet for Mitt Romney currently underway in the Republican Party.  It hasn't gotten much media attention, which may tell you more about the candidate than he'd like you to know.  But it's there.

A poll of Republican activists placed Romney right at the top for 2012 – the man most likely to get the GOP nomination for president.  Now, what does that say?  It says that Republicans are acting like Republicans again, with many of them perfectly prepared to nominate "the next guy in line."  In 1996, Bob Dole, one of the worst candidates in the history of democracy, stretching back to Athens, got the nod because he was next in line.  We forget that Ronald Reagan's candidacy in 1980 actually upset many establishment Republicans because he hadn't taken a ticket and wasn't standing in line.

So now Romney is the man of the hour, or minute.  Make that "second."  Now, I think Romney is a fine guy.  Decent record.  Nice family.  No apparent scandals.  In fact, he probably would make a perfectly acceptable president, and a substantial improvement over the student government head we have now.  The problem is getting there, and for Mitt Romney that's a huge problem.  He ran before.  His campaign excited two people, and he was one of them. 

The issue with Romney harks back to Thomas E. Dewey, the Republican standard bearer in 1944 and 1948.  In 1948 the Dewey campaign was dogged by a single line.  Dewey was a stiff-necked fellow with a thin mustache.  Observing this, one pundit called him "the man on the wedding cake."  He never lived it down.  When you look at Romney you feel he's a man who can be devastated by one line.  He is, first of all, too pretty to be president.  After a while he begins to look like a model from the Brooks Brothers sale catalogue.  If you bend him, he breaks.  I don't know what he can do to change that image, but maybe appearing in public with a hair out of place would help.  However, you just wait for that one "man on the wedding cake" line to define him, and you know that someone will come up with it, and that it will hurt...very badly.

The late broadcaster, David Brinkley, told the story of applying for a job to Arthur Krock, the distinguished columnist for The New York Times.  Krock's reply was that the writing sample that Brinkley had included with his application was good enough to keep the job, but not good enough to get it.  That is the barrier facing Mitt Romney.  He's good enough to be president, but not good enough to run for president.  And that is why Republicans should be careful, unless Romney improves dramatically, about once again picking the next guy in line.

January 11,  2010   Permalink 

SUNDAY,  JANUARY 10,  2010

OH DEAR, OH DEAR, HOW ARE WE GOING TO TELL AL? – AT 7:50 P.M. ET:  Just when the government told you to throw away that overcoat...  From London's Daily Mail:

The bitter winter afflicting much of the Northern Hemisphere is only the start of a global trend towards cooler weather that is likely to last for 20 or 30 years, say some of the world’s most eminent climate scientists.

Their predictions – based on an analysis of natural cycles in water temperatures in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans – challenge some of the global warming orthodoxy’s most deeply cherished beliefs, such as the claim that the North Pole will be free of ice in summer by 2013.

According to the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Colorado, Arctic summer sea ice has increased by 409,000 square miles, or 26 per cent, since 2007 – and even the most committed global warming activists do not dispute this.

It doesn't matter!  It doesn't matter!  You will never be invited to a good party if you go along with this right-wing, fascist BUSHIAN cooling stuff.

The scientists’ predictions also undermine the standard climate computer models, which assert that the warming of the Earth since 1900 has been driven solely by man-made greenhouse gas emissions and will continue as long as carbon dioxide levels rise.

There is heresy being committed.  Heresy, I say.

They say that their research shows that much of the warming was caused by oceanic cycles when they were in a ‘warm mode’ as opposed to the present ‘cold mode’.

Everybody knows that the oceans are controlled by Exxon.

Among the most prominent of the scientists is Professor Mojib Latif, a leading member of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which has been pushing the issue of man-made global warming on to the international political agenda since it was formed 22 years ago...

...Last night he told The Mail on Sunday: ‘A significant share of the warming we saw from 1980 to 2000 and at earlier periods in the 20th Century was due to these cycles – perhaps as much as 50 per cent.

'They have now gone into reverse, so winters like this one will become much more likely. Summers will also probably be cooler, and all this may well last two decades or longer.

‘The extreme retreats that we have seen in glaciers and sea ice will come to a halt. For the time being, global warming has paused, and there may well be some cooling.’

COMMENT:  Al Gore has not commented.  But he's hired two armed guards to protect his Oscar for "An Inconvenient Truth" against vandalism.

Get out the thermal underwear. 

January 10, 2010   Permalink

THE MOST IMPORTANT STORY IN HISTORY – AT 7:14 P.M. ET:  We wanted to make sure you knew this, so you can plan the rest of your life: 

“The Jay Leno Show” will exit prime time on Feb. 11, NBC confirmed on Sunday. But the network does not yet know what its future late-night lineup will look like.

Jeff Gaspin, the chairman of NBC Universal Television Entertainment, told reporters at a press event that conversations were continuing with Conan O’Brien, the host of “The Tonight Show,” about a proposal to push his program back half an hour to 12:05 a.m. The move would make room for a truncated version of “The Jay Leno Show” at 11:35 p.m.

Mr. Gaspin said conversations with Mr. Leno, Mr. O’Brien and the “Late Night” host Jimmy Fallon would resume on Monday. “My goal right now is to keep Jay, Conan and Jimmy as part of our late-night lineup. As much as I’d like to tell you we have a done deal, we know that’s not true,” Mr. Gaspin said, according to The Hollywood Reporter.

“Talks are still ongoing,” Mr. Gaspin added.

Ah, leave it to the current NBC management to mess up The Tonight Show.  Okay, I'm nostalgic, but, when I was working on that show, a bit of time ago, we didn't even know who the NBC management was.  The network had its president of the week, he'd visit, smile, and be gone. 

Ah Carson, where are you now that we need you?

You can be sure that NBC would give all just to hear one more "Heeere's Johnny!"

January 10, 2010   Permalink

WELL, AS WE WERE SAYING – AT 6:51 P.M. ET:  Our first item this morning reported a new Public Policy Polling survey showing GOP challenger Scott Brown a point ahead of Dem darling Martha Coakley in the Massachusetts Senate race, which will end in a special election a week from Tuesday.

Now, though, comes the party-pooping Boston Globe, owned by the much bigger party-pooping New York Times, with another poll showing a dramatically different result:

Democrat Martha Coakley, buoyed by her durable statewide popularity, enjoys a solid, 15-percentage-point lead over Republican rival Scott Brown as the race for US Senate enters the homestretch, according to a new Boston Globe poll of likely voters.

Half of voters surveyed said they would pick Coakley, the attorney general, if the election were held today, compared with 35 percent who would pick Brown. Nine percent were undecided, and a third candidate in the race, independent Joseph L. Kennedy, received 5 percent.

The Globe is one messenger I'd like to shoot.

I'm speculating here, but I'm guessing that both polls are wrong, and that the truth lies somewhere in-between.  Rasmussen recently had Coakley nine points ahead.  I'd imagine that's a bit closer to reality.  An examination of the methodology and dates shows that the poll showing a dead heat was taken a few days later than the Boston Globe survey, and had a larger sample than the Globe's. 

As we said this morning, a Brown victory is statistically unlikely in overwhelmingly Democratic Massachusetts.  But miracles can happen.  The election is still nine days away.

January 10, 2010   Permalink

HARRY REID IS IN TROUBLE, TRA-LA, TRA-LA – AT 12:04 P.M. ET:  Look, with that personality, Harry Reid is lucky to be considered alive.  But now, facing strong odds against reelection in Nevada this year, Reid is in further political trouble.  The Politico reports the damage:

Republican leaders called on Harry Reid to step down as Senate majority leader, Sunday, after the Nevada senator apologized for calling Barack Obama as a "light-skinned" African-American who lacked a "Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one."

"The reality of it is this, there is this standard where Democrats feel they can say these things and apologize as long as it comes from one of their own," Republican National Committee Chair Michael Steele said on “Fox News Sunday,” equating Reid’s comments with the racially charged ones that led to the ouster of Former Republican Leader Trent Lott. "And if it comes from somebody else, it’s racism."

Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) , the second ranking Republican in Senate, also pointed to a "double standard" in how Democrats have treated Reid as compared to Lott.

It's about time somebody said this. 

"If he should resign, then Harry Reid should," Kyl said on Fox. "If they apologize and you know what is in their heart, my feeling is they shouldn't but in this case he should."

D.C. Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D), though, warned Republicans Sunday against trying to make hay out of Harry Reid's comments.

“While Sen. Reid has been producing for African Americans, many of his critics were opposing him on these same issues,” Norton, a black woman who represents one of the most heavily African American cities in the country, said in a statement.

COMMENT:  The double standard is a disgrace.  Beyond Reid there is the case of Robert Byrd, the "revered" senator from West Virginia, once a member of the Ku Klux Klan, who has made racist comments periodically during his "distinguished" career in the Senate. 

The political rule is that only Republicans can be racists.  Democrats have "bad moments," or "express themselves awkwardly," or, well, you know the drill. 

And then there is he case of Bill Clinton, quoted in a new book about the 2008 campaign as saying to Ted Kennedy that Barack Obama would have been serving coffee to them not many years before.  The comment has not been confirmed by an independent source, but let's see how far the controversy goes. 

As far as Eleanor Holmes Norton is concerned, she's loyal only to herself.  She used to be a player in New York politics, moved to Washington, became the non-voting D.C. rep in Congress, and has melted away.

January 10, 2010   Permalink

ANOTHER SURRENDER – AT 11:15 A.M. ET:  Little by little, we are giving up our freedoms to the trendies of political correctness, especially where Islam is concerned.  From the New York Post:

The Metropolitan Museum of Art quietly pulled images of the Prophet Mohammed from its Islamic collection and may not include them in a renovated exhibition area slated to open in 2011, The Post has learned.

The museum said the controversial images -- objected to by conservative Muslims who say their religion forbids images of their holy founder -- were "under review."

Critics say the Met has a history of dodging criticism and likely wants to escape the kind of outcry that Danish cartoons of Mohammed caused in 2006.

I know of no similar sensitivity that the Met, a museum with vast national influence, has ever shown toward Christianity or Judaism. 

Three years ago, the Met changed its "Primitive Art Galleries" to the "Arts of Africa, Oceania and the Americas" for the sake of political correctness, said author Michael Gross, author of "Rogues' Gallery," a book about the Met.

Just recently, it decided its highly anticipated "Islamic Galleries" will be given an awkward new name ahead of the 2011 opening. Visitors will stroll around rooms dedicated to art from "Arab Lands, Turkey, Iran, Central Asia and Later South Asia," according to a museum press release.

COMMENT:  It wasn't too many weeks back when Yale University decided to publish a book about the Danish cartoon controversy, without printing the cartoons.  The claim is always that institutions want to show "respect."  The reality is fear.  Or, just as bad, the reality is that there are large contributions involved.  Money talks, and Muslim groups, especially fronted by Saudi Arabia, use large amounts of it to buy influence in the United States and Western Europe.

January 10, 2010   Permalink

AND THERE'S MORE BAD NEWS  FOR THE DEMS – AT 10:51 A.M. ET:  We reported that the president came out of the New Year holiday with a small bump upward in the Rasmussen poll, but that he'd started to slide again.  The slide continues.

Rasmussen reports this morning that Obama's overall approval stands at 45%, whereas 54% disapprove, the president's worst numbers since December 24th.

In Ras's presidential approval index, measuring the gap between those who strongly approve and those who strongly disapprove, the result is even more grim.  Only 25% strongly approve, but 43% strongly disapprove, a rating of -18, Mr. Obama's worst number since December 31st.

Clearly the administration's all-out attempt to portray itself as strong and capable in fighting terror has produced no gain.  What the president needs is a clear-cut victory in some area where the victory has strong appeal.  Passing an unpopular health "reform" bill won't cut it.

January 10, 2010   Permalink

THERE IS FEVER, THERE IS PAIN – AT 10:27 A.M. ET:  No, no, this can't be right.  Will the Kennedy family allow this?

But...it has been written.  Holy holy holy:

Don't look now, but Republican Scott Brown leads Democrat Martha Coakley by one point, 48 to 47 percent, in Public Policy Polling's new poll of the January 19 special Senate election in Massachusetts.

Brown is benefiting from depressed Democratic interest in the election and a huge lead among independents for his surprisingly strong standing. Those planning to vote in the special election only report having voted for Barack Obama in 2008 by a 16 point margin, in contrast to his actual 26 point victory in the state.

And those poll results are being reported elsewhere as well.  It is not a misprint.

The sound you hear is Massachusetts liberals quickly packing and rushing to ask for political asylum in Vermont. 

About a week ago the Rasmussen poll had Brown only nine behind.  He'd been 30 behind not long before that.

Is it possible?  Can a miracle occur a week from Tuesday?

Who knows?  There hasn't been a Republican elected to the Senate from Massachusetts in decades.  And this is the seat vacated by the death of Edward M. Kennedy.  It is the Ted Kennedy seat.

Massachusetts is a college state, and the academic "community" provides major voting support to the Democratic Party.  But, as reader Sam Indorante writes, the academic calendar may be working against the Dems this time:

Many of the traditional Dem lever pullers (academic elites and academic-elite wannabees, aka students) may be out of town for this election.

Colleges are on winter break.  Harvard doesn't return, as Sam points out, until January 25th.  Others probably return too late for the vote. 

The Dems are now alerted that Coakley is in trouble.  They'll turn on the heat.  Brown's election is still statistically unlikely, but he is surging.  Hope for the impossible.

January 10,  2010   Permalink