Quote of the day comes from Matt Yglesias, over at The Atlantic blog:

“If your goal is an enduring American military presence in Iraq, you need political dysfunction. If Iraq were to emerge as a stable country with a government responsive to its citizens’ wishes, they’d tell the Americans to take a hike. It’s sectarian tensions and instability that make the continued, unpopular presence of a huge number of American boots on the ground viable.”

A note from Jonah Goldberg @ “The Corner”:

“I’ll be at the Heritage Foundation tonight speaking (briefly) to the Prosperity Caucus at 6:30.”

Be sure to show up if you want to know how a talentless, clueless hack rises in the “conservative” ranks by toeing the Bush-neocon party line, and turns his familial connections—and a stained dress—into a lucrative career.

I see I’m not the only paleo rooting (albeit not voting) for Obama. Here‘s Andrew Bacevich in The American Conservative:

“So why consider Obama? For one reason only: because this liberal Democrat has promised to end the U.S. combat role in Iraq. Contained within that promise, if fulfilled, lies some modest prospect of a conservative revival.

“The neoconservatives understand this. If history renders a negative verdict on Iraq, that judgment will discredit the doctrine of preventive war. The “freedom agenda” will command as much authority as the domino theory. Advocates of “World War IV” will be treated with the derision they deserve. The claim that open-ended “global war” offers the proper antidote to Islamic radicalism will become subject to long overdue reconsideration.”

Bacevich continues: “Give the neocons this much: they appreciate the stakes.” Us paleos, as per usual, apparently do not. Which is why the former still retain control of the GOP, in spite of the complete failure of their political program of perpetual war and “presidential” monarchism.

I would note that a previoius TAC article, attacking Obama, was written by a “former” Trotskyite, Brendan O’Neill, whose “Revolutionary Communist Party” is the British equivalent of our own “former” Trots-turned-”Trotskycons.” ‘Nuff said!

From Andy Borowitz over at the Huffington Post:

“Buffeted by criticism of his controversial Christian pastor while continuing to quell rumors that he is a Muslim, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill) took a bold step today to settle questions about his religious faith once and for all.

“I am converting to Judaism, effective immediately,” Mr. Obama told reporters at a press conference in Scarsdale, New York, adding that he would change his middle name from ‘Hussein’ to ‘Murray.’ ...”

That will shut them up.

Although, on second thought, maybe not ...

Comment of the morning —Jonah Goldberg quips:

”The words ‘therapy,’ ‘sex addiction,’ ‘Oprah,’ and ‘redemption’ are in Elliot Spitzer’s future.”

A word that may not be in his future: “resignation.”

UPDATE: Partisan Democrats are already howling “political persecution!” and “Bush Justice Department!” What are the odds that, before long, the Steamroller will rev up his engines, and take on the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy that has unfairly and maliciously targeted his Alternative Lifestyle?

UPDATE II: Partisan Republicans know how to howl, too—“Impeach him!”

You really have to hand it to Hillary: is she really offering the Democratic frontrunner the vice-presidency? This goes way beyond mere arrogance: she really believes in the dynastic principle animating her campaign. Her sense of royal entitlement enables her to utter such absurdities with a straight face.

Salon’s Glenn Greenwald is asking why does Eliot Spitzer have to resign because he was caught patronizing a prostitute—does anyone really care? Yet Greenwals confesses that he has no personal sympathy for the guy, considering Spitzer’s zealous high-profile prosecution, while attorney general, of at least two major girls-for-hire operations.

I’m listening to Tucker Carlson assert his libertarianism—“Tucker,” says Chris Matthew, “I know you’re a libertarian, although there are always exceptions in particular questions”—as he asks: where’s the crime?

Yet, as Greenwald admits, Spitzer has been a high-profile prosecutor of “immorality” from the get-go: and that’s why he ought to be prosecuted, on libertarian grounds. The rule should be that only politicians who pose as guardians of “public morality” be brought up on charges—of coercive hypocrisy. Ordinary johns should be let go.

Richard, I don’t think Power speaks for anyone but herself: and, after all, she’s been fired, purged, let go. She’s history. And I don’t think that if, say, John McCain said he’s going to bomb bomb bomb Iran, and one of his “advisors”—an unpaid one at that—said, “Well, no, he can’t do that,” we’d take the advisor all that seriously.

There are plenty of other grounds on which to go after Obama—although why anybody would want to do this, given the horrific threat represented by Mad John McCain, I’ll never understand—but his stance on Iraq isn’t one of them.

Justin Logan, one of the Cato Institute’s more principled libertarian analysts, just about sums up the presidential race:

“As terrifying as each of the presidential candidates is in various ways, it’s going to be a relief when this long national nightmare is over. We deserve, at the very least, a new nightmare.”

I can see why a paleocon would not be predisposed to support Barack Obama, but, really, Daniel Larison’s remark that “I think a case can be made that a successful extrication from Iraq by Obama will open the floodgates for many more interventions, and costly ones at that” is ... baffling.

What, exactly, does this mean: that opponents of our interventionist foreign policy should oppose Obama precisely because he wants us out of Iraq? Or is it that he doesn’t really want to pull out, but is just using this as a rhetorical device (the Ron Paul position) to fool his followers?

And what, pray tell, would be more costly than invading Iraq and attempting a “democratic transformation” of the Middle East? Perhaps invading, say, China, or Russia—but that’s about it.