I’m a huge eBook reader, and this particular post is about my obsession. If you’re uninterested, skip now.

I love eBooks. With my HTC Universal (a 3.72″, 640×480 full color screen) and a 1Gb SD card, I can carry around a library of several dozen books (plus music). I can read in bed with the lights out, which makes my wife happy. I carry a gear bag with me pretty much everywhere I go (a legacy from my year as a stay-at-home dad), so I can whip out the ol’ PDA anywhere when I’m at loose ends (waiting at the pediatrician’s office, for example), and I have a book to read. It’s great.

One thing that’s unfortunate, though, is the spotty coverage of titles. You can buy Heinlein’s Double Star and The Puppet Masters, but not Stranger in a Strange Land and The Moon is a Harsh Mistress. You can get some Steven King, but not The Stand. Plenty of best sellers like The DaVinci Code, but none of the Harry Potter books. It’s weird and irritating.

People blat on all the time about preserving our natural resources. They’re changing all the stop lights from incandescents to those weird, LED things, and I’ve noticed that they’ve started doing it to car tail lights as well. More and more people are using those butt-ugly curly fluorescents in a lot of places in their homes (and all hotels seem to be using them), even me. Recycling is penetrating even the Great Unwashed. But here’s a great way to save paper and print costs and ink and all the associated mess of the printing industry, and you can’t even get the Harry Potter books–the best-selling books on planet Earth, for the love of God–in eBook form. It makes me nuts.

(And you know that it has to do with lawyers. Not money–I doubt Jo Rowling needs more money–lawyers.)

Okay; whining completed.

Sorry; more Hillary.

Look, I don’t–and probably never will–understand why some people think that Hillary Clinton is electable as President.

I tell you three times, and what I tell you three times is true: I think she would make a fine President. Certainly better than the current bonehead.

But how anyone could see her negative approval rating of 45%–45%!–and think that she can get elected is beyond me.

And how anyone could consider the results of these head-to-head matchups with the current crop of Republicans–who are a bunch of losers, in my opinion–and think that she could get elected defies the imagination. Consider:

• In head to heads vs. Hillary, Giuliani leads Clinton by 10 percentage points; McCain leads Clinton by four percentage points; and Romney leads Clinton by two percentage points.
• In head to heads vs. Obama, Obama leads Giuliani by five percentage points, McCain by 12 points and Romney by 16 points.

In other words, Hillary loses to all the current Republican candidates, and Obama beats all the current Republican candidates. How much clearer can it be?

So it confuses me why folks out there think they should vote for her in the primaries. And it stuns me that the Clinton camp–which is made up of really smart people–thinks that they can get her elected. They have access to all this information and more. How can they delude themselves so badly? I just don’t get it.

I have been talking (probably too much) about the iPhone over on Gear Diary, because I am a gadget geek and it looks like a cool new gadget. But also because I think that “place shifting” is an important new trend. (Not that the national media–or indeed hardly anyone but my wife–cares what I think about new technology trends. And even she may just be being polite.)

This last Sunday, the Austin American-Statesman (free registration required) had an article on the iPhone and what it considered its competitors.

Here’s why I think the iPhone will be so huge, if we consider the iPhone the first of a long line of personal media players (PMPs) that allow you to do place shifting: the iPhone has a 3.5″, 480×320 pixel screen, and 4Gb (or 8Gb) of memory. All the “competitors” listed have screens that are about an inch smaller, have those itty keypads, and have less onboard memory (although several of them do have extra card slots, which is a plus that the iPhone–stupidly, in my view–doesn’t have).

Now, I’ve tried quite a few PMPs, phones with teeny keypads, and convergent devices, and I can say without hesitation that anything that gives you a chance to have keys that are approximately the same size as your fingers is a Good Thing (tm). I don’t know about you, but I get tired of trying to work those tiny Treo buttons, or tiny Blackberry buttons. Heck, I even have trouble with the buttons on my Motorola v180. I admit to some bias: a nerve injury years back means that I have no feeling in my left forefinger, and very little in my left thumb, so tiny keypads are a problem for me. But I still believe there are plenty of people out there who don’t like those wee bitty things.

But the bigger reason, I believe, that the iPhone is going to be a hit for place shifting your media content is the screen size. On a device that’s only a few inches in size, a screen that is 1″ larger is huge. That’s 50%. It would be like moving up from a 36″ to a 52″ television. I mean, that’s a big difference, wouldn’t you say?

It may very well be that when I get one of these things in my hand, I’m going to hate it. It may creak and groan from poor workmanship. It may be slow. The screen may smudge too easily because you have to use your fingers instead of a stylus. Trying to use it as a phone may make me nuts. Who can say. But I really do think that, as a PMP, it’s going to have a big impact.

But, you know, I’ve been wrong before.

Joe Klein has been, shall we say, a bit on edge about how he has been treated by the “liberal blogosphere” lately. (Others might say he has been whiny, pouting, and bitter. Your mileage may vary.) Recently, he did a podcast with Ana Marie Cox (formerly Wonkette) on the Time web site regarding Klein’s recent take-down of left-wing bloggers. While listening to it, I jotted down a few (!) notes. If you’re interested, read on. If not, skip right on over this entry; it’s quite long.

It’s “Ahna,” folks, not “Anne-uh.” Just for your information. (Lucky for me “Doug” is so easy to pronounce. Unless you’re a native non-English speaker, in which case the mutilations are almost always amusing. Native Spanish-speakers: “Dog.” Native French-speakers: “Doog.” Native Madarin-speakers: “Duck.”)

I don’t think he has a whiny voice, as opposed to some of the commentors on Swampland. You guys must have sensitive ears. Or maybe you need to spend more time with Yankees; we all sound like that. Heck, some of us sound worse. (I sure do.)

Klein draws a comparison between the noxious atmosphere brought into Washington by Newt Gingrich and the online community. Joe, ol’ buddy: the online community has always been like that. Go look at the USENET archives, and remember Sturgeon’s Law: 90 percent of everything is crud.

Why he’s only focusing his ire on the left-wing bloggers strikes me as odd. Hasn’t he surfed over to Blogs for Bush or Little Green Footballs or Free Republic? Lefties may argue with him, but those people talk about things that are, well, nuts.

He’s only been a blogger for 4-5 months and the heat in the kitchen is already getting to him. Itty poo.

Am I the only guy who is not overly-impressed by Juan Cole? Maybe it’s just that his seemingly constant anti-Israel idee fixe makes me nuts.

Klein complains about Glenn Greenwald’s column on Klein’s reportage. Of course, Greenwald is hardly the only person to complain, but the important thing here is, Klein is missing the point, which is that Klein is relying on anonymous sources to “report good news,” and then asking us to trust him. After six and a half years of bended-knee reportage during the Bush administration, after the Clinton impeachment fiasco and how the press kept harping on that even when the American public continued to give Clinton high favorability ratings, after how lame the press was during the Reagan years, after Judith Miller and her “anonymous sources,” Klein wants us to trust his “good news” from anonymous sources because, well, because he’s Joe Klein, and he wouldn’t steer us wrong!

Um, Joe: fool us once, shame on you, fool us 3000 times, and we’re a bunch of utter boneheads.

His protests that news of less violence in Anbar province is “bad news for the Bush Administration” simply because it wasn’t al Qaida-specific is, well, pretty weak. If you don’t believe that Bush can spin an article you write about lowered levels of violence in Iraq as “good news,” al Qaida or no al Qaida, you’re deluding yourself, Joe.

He complains that people should push policy positions, and that Kos only pushes “tactics.” But if his arguments in favor of the Democrats backing away from facing down Bush over the Iraq war funding isn’t classic tactics, I don’t know what is.

He notes that readers won’t have a full understanding of his story because he couldn’t give them all the background because of “space considerations.” Joe, you have a blog! Point to it, and give your readers the background there! (Ana Marie Cox points this out.) Joe insists that he doesn’t have to do this; we should just trust him.

Again, he misses the point about what Greenwald was saying. The “drop dead assumption” is not that all “mainstream media” reporters are going to cocktail parties; the “drop dead assumption” is that “anonymous-sourced” stories should be treated with extreme suspicion unless proven otherwise, especially those citing “administration sources.” And Klein should further realize that when we, the great unwashed, see Richard Wolffe attending white-tie dinners at the White House with the Queen, David Gregory dancing with Karl Rove, Tony Snow hobnobbing with reporters who all agree what great people they all are, and Tim Russert’s absurd performance on the stand at the Scooter Libby trial, he needs to realize the the level of trust “the peepul” have for reporters–particularly those quoting single “anonymous sources”, is beyond low.

Joe: I don’t care that you’ve been reporting for 38 years. The mainstream media reporting class in general has burned all their “trust us” cachet in the last 10 years, and you personally burned quite a bit of yours with your totally absurd objections when people accused you (correctly!) of being the “Anonymous” author of Primary Colors.

Sorry, dude; it’s a new world. Trust in the media is at an all-time low. You need to rebuild it. Whining about how ill-treated you are by the online community is not a good way to start.

Personally, I don’t think the thing about Klein’s reporting about the Jane Harman vote is a big deal. A lot of people are bent about it, but I agree with Klein; it’s a minor point.

On the flip side, just a few minutes after hammering Kos for talking about political tactics rather than policy substance, here he’s talking about tactics himself.

If he mentions one more time he’s been reporting for 38 years, I’m going to fly to D.C. and whack him over the head. I’ve been a technical writer for 20 years, but I don’t go around mentioning it half a dozen time in every conversation.

Ah, now we’re going to hear about a major mistake that “the left” is making about “the war.” He doesn’t trust the fact that the vast majority of Americans want to get out of Iraq; he doesn’t trust the polls.

Joe notes that 4 million people read Time magazine, but only 4% read Swampland or visit Time.com. (We’ll leave aside for a moment the debate about whether, if their web site was well-designed, those numbers might not rise.) Two points here: his snide implication clearly is, why should I care about the online community when my audience is those 4 million people? (Answer: the online community is growing, and the print community and its revenues are shrinking.) Second: if you had links from the print version to your blog, that percentage might grow, Joe.

Ana asks an excellent question: “Is this [Klein’s article] a fair portrayal of the left-wing blogosphere.” Given that Joe has only been online for 4-5 months, the answer is, obviously, “No.” Joe totally dodges the question. Instead, he compares the left-wing blogosphere to the lies that the Bush administration has been pedaling for the last 6.5 years. Thanks, Joe! What a sweet comparison!

Another “I’ve been doing this for 38 years” comment. Let’s see: tickets from Austin to Washington, round trip, are currently running about $300 . . .

He doesn’t read the comment thread on Swampland “a lot of times.” Perhaps after time goes by he will, like a lot of us who have been online for a while, develop a filtering system that allows him to plow through a bunch of comments really fast, filtering out that 90% of crud (other than the ones he wants to read for, you know, entertainment value). He’s clearly a newbie. Over time, his skin should thicken. We can only hope.

Like many old-time mainstream media types, he has “doubts and fears about whether Time magazine should be hosting this type of thing” [the Swampland comments section]. I have seen lots and lots of old MSM types say the same thing. Typical online newbie thing to say. I understand how overwhelming online forums are at first. Get over it, Joe. Like exposure to cold germs in Kindergarten, it’s something you get used to. Keep remembering: 90% of everything is crud.

Joe talks about “those who relentlessly attack the mainstream media.” Joe, it’s the right-wing folks who do that more often than the left. Much more. They have been targeting the media since the Reagan administration.

Joe suggests that Glenn Greenwald “call him up.” Hell, Joe doesn’t even has his email address listed at the bottom of his blog, let alone his phone number; how the heck is Greenwald supposed to “call him up?” I’ve tried to contact any number of high-profile columnists (George Will, Joe Klein, David Brooks, David Broder, Maureen Dowd, etc.), and they have never responded. I don’t think Klein should get in high dudgeon about Greenwald not “calling him up.” (As an aside, the only columnists who have ever responded to me are bloggers as well: Andrew Sullivan and Dan Froomkin, to name a couple. And I am inveterate letter-writer, believe me.)

Besides, I’d bet $5 Greenwald tries to call him up now.

Klein states that he’s not going to read the comments on this article, and that he doesn’t feel that he “threw down the gauntlet.” I can’t decide if he’s being disingenuous, or stupid. I’ll spell it out, in the unlikely event he reads this: writing an article like that is throwing down the gauntlet, Joe. So read the comments, and read the blogs. Otherwise, you’re just a coward.

He finishes up by saying, essentially, that until we clean up our act, he’s not going to address us rude folks again.

Ah, Joe, you’re such a newbie! You’re probably right; you probably should take a few months off from the rough and tumble of online commenting to grow a thicker skin. It’ll do you some good. Log on to google and comment on the film forum or something, to get some practice in, is my advice.

Next post, I promise we’re back to my regularly-scheduled blather.

Time to give everyone a break from my political blather for a little geek blather. (You can read more of my geek blather on Gear Diary. My latest article is on the iPhone.)

King Kaufmann of Salon.com has an interesting article that talks about place shifting, a concept similar to time shifting, but where you shift the place you are watching your program, rather than shifting the time.

These days, everyone and his brother knows about TiVo and time shifting and the joys of not being forced to watch a particular program at a particular time (not to mention being able to record a whole series of programs and watch them in a row, sans commercials). In my case, it means I can watch Keith Olbermann after the kids go to bed, and skip the ads for Hughes Network and NutriSystems.

But I think King touches on something that has been available in a very moderate way since the mid-90s, that Slingbox has been capitalizing on and that the iPhone (in my opinion–Sorry, John C. Dvorak, I think you’re full of wind!) will help get going in earnest: place shifting.

These days, place shifting is really the realm of the nerds and the hard-core. Yes, you can buy a slingbox and watch TV on your computer, but if you’re like me, you probably spend too much durn time in front of your computer already. And while yes, there are some portable media players (PMPs) available out there–heck, you can watch videos on the iPod these days–the screens are either too small, they have a hard disk and so are more delicate and persnickity than you would like in a portable device, or they have other drawbacks. (See my reviews on Gear Diary, if you are interested.) In addition, it’s a hassle to convert movies from the DVD into a format that you can use on a PMP.

I don’t know how successful the iPhone will be as a phone, but as a PMP, I think it’s going to have a huge impact. Being able to download your favorite movies and TV shows easily and watch them (commercial free!) whenever and wherever you want, like on the commuter train on the way to work? While you’re sitting poolside in the summer while the kids are frolicking? While you’re waiting at the airport–interminably–before they let you on board, or let you push back from the gate, or let you land from that endless holding pattern? I think this is huge. And the iPhone has 4Gb or 8Gb of flash storage–no hard drive–a beautiful, 3.5″ 480×320 pixel screen, and no doubt the typically ridiculous high-quality iPod-level sound quality.

Yes, I think there will be some interest in having your calendar and music available, being able to make phone calls easily, being able to web browse while you’re sitting in the waiting room. But I think it’s the place shifting function that will make this device a hot seller. And I think that, just like with the iPod, you will see other manufacturers come out with copycat devices–perhaps without full phone/calendar/wireless functionality–that compete in that arena. A Slingbox-specific device, perhaps? Sony develop a device that converts DVDs for viewing on their own version of a PMP that has 16Gb of capacity? It’s a big, untapped market, in my view.

I’m waiting eagerly to see what happens after June 29, honestly. I could be wrong, of course; it might just be wishful thinking from a guy who’s tired of doing it all by hand. But I don’t think so, I’m dying to find out.

As per usual, polls are showing that Hillary Clinton is a) leading the pack of Democratic primary candidates, and b) losing to the Republican front runners (who are, in the main in my opinion, a bunch of loons).

It has always baffled me that anyone can think that Hillary Clinton can be elected President, and this poll is just another example. I don’t think it has anything to do with the fact that she’s a woman, and I certainly don’t think it has anything to do with whether or not she’d be a good President–and personally, I think she’d be fine (and certainly better than the incompetent chowderhead currently occupying the Oval office)–I think it’s because too damn many people hate her.

Certainly politicians are good at deluding themselves–they probably wouldn’t be politicians otherwise–but Ms. Clinton’s ability to convince herself that she is electable has always struck me as profoundly self-delusional. I hope she goes back and looks at all the polls like this, and at the fund raising differences between her and candidates like Barack Obama (his has raised about the same amount of money, but his is coming from hundreds more small donations, indicating, to me at least, a much broader range of support), and realizes that she doesn’t stand a chance. And I hope that Democratic primary voters realize the same thing, or we could end up with a President Guiliani.

I suppose at this stage, and at my age, I should cease being surprised by the political grandstanding by politicians like Trent Lott–I grew up outside of Washington D.C. during the Watergate era, after all–but I guess I still retain enough hope and optimism to be disgusted by it.

In case you hadn’t heard, the Republicans in the Senate blocked the Senate from voting on a resolution–a non-binding resolution that would have forced absolutely nothing, mind you–of no-confidence in Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. Never mind that the majority of Americans have lost their confidence in Gonzales. Never mind that the majority of Congressmen and Senators have lost their confidence in Gonzales. Never mind that Gonzales himself has given clear evidence that he is incapable of running a post office branch in east B.F. Kansas, let alone an important government agency. Nosiree, it’s critical for the Republicans to blat on about “the dignity of the Senate.”

And then Gonzales, bless his lying heart, has the temerity to talk about “protecting our kids.” Listen up, Alberto ol’ boy: I’ll protect my own kids, thank you very much. A guy who can’t even remember the details of a meeting he had in December where they talked about firing U.S. Attorneys is talking about protecting my kids. Yeah, that sure makes me feel good.

Gonzales is going to hang on as long as possible, because if he resigns, Bush has to appoint someone else, and then what is going to happen? Bush sure won’t find someone so loyal that will get through the Senate, that’s for sure. So he’s sticking with this incompetent boob, come hell or high water.

And the Senate, which is supposed to be on “the peepul’s” side, just wants to posture. Thanks, gang.

With regard to the Scooter Libby situation, I have to admit to a profound amount of disgust for people like Fouad Ajami, Joe Klein, and anyone else who is arguing for leniency in this case. I have three reasons for this, only one of which is (mildly) partisan:

• If it weren’t for Scooter Libby’s perjury and obstruction of justice, who knows what we would have found out about this case? Would there have been criminal activity reaching into the office of the Vice President? The President? How high up would it have gone? Now we’ll never know, will we? Once again, a lower-ranking member of the Administration has taken a bullet for Bush/Cheney, and they have avoided paying for whatever it is they have done (and whatever it is they have done we may never find out about). Dick Cheney, in particular, who is all about avoiding scrutiny and accountability, has avoided it once again. The criminal justice system has been used to cover up nefarious doings; we should allow this to go unpunished?

• Let’s keep in mind the circumstances here: Judge Walton was appointed by Bush. Patrick Fitzgerald was appointed by John Ashcroft, Bush’s Attorney General. These are not exactly Democratic partisans here, people. When Clinton was being investigated, Kenneth Starr’s office leaked like the Titanic in the post-iceberg timeframe; what has ever come out of Fitzgerald’s office? No, the people who are whining about ill-treatment are those who would be whining if their ball team had just lost the World Series when all 7 games were played at home and they had gotten to choose their own umpires. I’m not exactly filled with remorse for a guy who lied to the FBI.

• Finally–and this is my partisan reason–why on Earth should the Vice President’s office be allowed to keep secrets when they are insisting that they have the right to know what library books I check out, what I buy with my credit cards, what movies I rent, and who I call on my phone? The Vice President is a public servant. It may honk Dick Cheney off, but he accepted the fact that he works for the American public when he took the job, and part of the deal is accountability. Sorry, Dick ol’ boy. And no fair throwing poor Scooter under the bus just to avoid scrutiny.

So that’s what I think. If Scooter Libby was Random Dork, he would have been sent to The Big House already. And all those folks who are whining that he’s being treated unfairly, let me clue you: the people being treated unfairly in this country are the ones who don’t have people like Henry Kissinger and Robert Bork writing them letters of commendation for them. It’s the people who had one beer too many and then stupidly drove home instead of getting a ride, and then drove to work on a suspended license and got caught. It’s the people who screwed up their governmental paperwork and got hammered by the IRS and now owe tens of thousands of dollars because they couldn’t afford an accountant. It’s the people who got in a messy divorce, had their ex-wife swear out a restraining order, and are now in jail because they just wanted to see their kids. Those people and other like them, are the ones I feel sorry for. Scooter Libby, who is covering up for a war criminal, not so much.

It’s not the primary season yet, but there are no fewer than 18 candidates (19, if you count Fred Thompson, and let’s face it, we should count him), so I can’t help but think of this as “primary season.” And I have a few random thoughts on primary season.

One thought is, I’m dead sick and tired of all the talk about electing men folks would be “comfortable having a beer with.” We can see where that’s gotten us in the last six and a half years–in a world of trouble. I don’t want to elect an “ordinary guy” who I can have a beer with; I want to elect an extraordinary guy (or woman) who I feel comfortable seeing the Queen of England having a white-tie dinner with. When we think back on Presidential greatness, we’re not thinking of the “ordinary guys,” we’re thinking of Lincoln and Washington and Roosevelt, who were extraordinary.

So all you people who are voting for someone because he seems “likable?” You’re idiots, and you helped get us into this mess. Next time, vote for someone you think will do a good job. You’re not electing your next housemate here, you’re electing the leader of the free world. Get a grip.

As the primaries are lurching into view, we’re seeing the usual round of stories about how unfair it is that the big states like California are trying to move their primary up so that it actually, heaven forfend, counts for something. Lots of stories about the evils of the “national primary,” and so on.

The logic here seems to be that everyone should get a chance to meet the candidates, that a long primary season gives people a chance to weed out the obvious losers, and that the problem with a “national primary” is that there won’t be a chance for everyone to have a chance to make their choice among a bunch of different candidates.

Punditocracy, let me clue you: I lived in California for 25 years, and by the time the primaries rolled around to us–the most populous, diverse state in the Union, mind you–there were no choices. The primaries were done. Do you really think that if California had the first primary in the nation rather than New Hampshire, Mondale would have been nominated in 1984? Or Dukakis–Dukakis!–in 1988? Please.

If you pundits want to blame someone, stop harshing on the people of California, and lay your blame where it belongs, on those stubborn Yankees in New Hampshire. Why on Earth does it make sense for a state with a population of just over 1 million, with a median income of over 57 grand a year–highest in the nation!–and a population that is overwhelming white–over 97%–to have so much influence on who is President for a diverse country of 300 million people? More influence than California? Or New York? Or Florida? That’s idiotic. It’s time for the pundits to stop blaming the residents of the other states for trying to gain some influence, and start turning their collective gimlet eye on New Hampshire and ask the obvious question: what the heck makes them so special?

And don’t even get me started on Iowa.

I don’t have anything personal against Iowa or New Hampshire. Honest. I have relatives in New Hampshire, and my Mom was born there. I just think it’s insane that politicians spend more time there than, say, Texas (population 21 million).

David Broder, the “dean” of the White House press corps, has been demonstrating his out-of-touchness for quite some time (his famed “Bush Bounce” column being an all-time low, of course), so I don’t know why he continues to surprise me, or indeed why I continue to pay attention. Perhaps I’m just a masochist. But I do pay attention. And yup, he’s done it again.

There are many things that I don’t understand about the Democrats and the current “debate” about the Iraq war and the funding thereof. The first thing I don’t understand is, why is the debate even going on? The argument seems, to me, absurdly simple. We won the war. Saddam is dead. There are no weapons of mass destruction. The Iraqis have elected their own government. The Iraqis want us out of there. The majority of Americans want us out of there. Why is there even a debate at all? Why is this complicated?

(To those who say, “But the situation could get worse if we leave!” I respond, yes, indeed, and the situation could also get worse if we stay. We’ve stayed longer, now, than it took us to defeat Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan combined, and the situation hasn’t gotten better. Hell, we haven’t even secured Baghdad after all this time. Why shouldn’t we leave and see if it doesn’t get better?)

But another thing that confuses me is why everyone continues to acquiesce in the dishonest and disingenuous debating tactic that the White House engaged in, which Broder is putting forth. Their argument goes like this: cut off the funding, and the troops won’t get food, or bullets, or gas for their HumVees, and it will be your fault, you evil, evil Democrats! They will run out ammo in the middle of a firefight!

What rubbish. And Broder, of course, is buying right into it. Equating cutting the funding and finally denying Bush his blank check with “deny[ing] arms and protective equipment for the troops” is of course utterly absurd. Would a general go into battle without arms and protective equipment? Would a lack of funds not create push-back on the Administration to actually consider a different plan other than their insane holding pattern (which they clearly intend to keep hanging on to until January, 2009)? It’s laughable. But Broder, most other pundits, and most politicians have bought into this insanity.

The second thing is Broder’s assertion about a “precipitous withdrawal,” an alarmist phrase guaranteed to make readers think that, hey, presto, the troops would magically disappear off the battlefield and reappear in their own living rooms. Broder’s lack of knowledge of military logistics is apparent in phrases like this (or he is being deliberately misleading); if Bush were to order a U.S. drawdown today, it would take several months, if not a full year, to remove all our forces and equipment from Iraq. I doubt sincerely that anyone would consider that “precipitous.”

Hopefully, the Democrats will look at the polls, both their own since they caved on the Iraq funding bill, and Bush’s (how much more lower does he have to go before they get some courage?), and they’ll show some ‘nads in September. But frankly, I’m expecting September to be the beginning of yet another Friedman unit.