Come for the politics, stay for the snark.
In the “first nationally representative survey of teachers concerning the teaching of evolution,” the authors show that one in eight high school biology teachers present creationism as a scientifically valid alternative to Darwinian evolution. While this number does not reflect public demand–38% of Americans would prefer that creationism to be taught instead of evolution–it does represent a disconnect between legal rulings, scientific consensus, and classroom education.
Via Pharyngula
The long-awaited FBI report on Detainee Interrogations has been released, and can be found here (.pdf). The NY Times provides a summary:
The report describes major and repeated clashes between F.B.I. agents and their counterparts over the rough methods being used on detainees in Guantánamo Bay, Afghanistan and Iraq — some of which, according to the inspector general, may have violated the Defense Department’s own policies at the time.
It also provides new insight into the intense debates at senior levels of the Justice Department, the Defense Department and the National Security Council over what should and should not be allowed — a debate in which the Defense Department prevailed.
The inspector general found that in a few instances, F.B.I. agents participated in interrogations using pressure tactics that would not have been permitted inside the United States. But the “vast majority” of agents followed the bureau’s legal guidelines and “separated themselves” from harsh treatment.
I have not read the report yet, so I can not verify the accuracy of the NY Times summation. More later on as I get a chance to read it, and I am sure Jack Balkin, Greenwald and others (hopefully Lithwick will discuss it) will have some analysis.
Mark Levin at the Corner:
Missed Story [Mark R. Levin]
How many people showed up for Obama’s rally in Kentucky? Oh, he didn’t campaign there?
Answer: 8,000
Your average drive-by ranting commenter at this crappy little website has better research skills than the National Review. Not that this should surprise anyone.
WSJ with some reporting from inside the Clinton campaign:
Inside her campaign, Sen. Clinton isn’t asking for advice, forcing advisers to hold off discussions on what she wants from the process if she loses — from dealing with campaign debt, to her role in an Obama bid for the White House. “The campaign has broken down to those who drink the Kool-Aid that Hillary can still win, and those who don’t, and are considering their options,” one operative said.
Campaign chairman Terry McAuliffe says he has assured Sen. Clinton that she will have funds to compete through June 3, adding that he will worry about any campaign debt after that. “We’re still getting tens of thousands of contributors online, who love Hillary’s fight,” Mr. McAuliffe said.
Sen. Clinton’s campaign is racking up large debts, though. The campaign disclosed $12.6 million in debt at the end of March, not including a personal loan of $5 million from Sen. Clinton herself. One week ago, officials said the candidate had lent her campaign an additional $6.4 million and put total debt at $20 million.
Were the April fund-raising numbers released and I missed it? Or is the Obama campaign holding on to their numbers in case there is a bad news day they need to massage (something they have done very well, so far- the Edwards endorsement after WV was a perfect example).
Speaking of which, for those of you who are so inclined:
Does anyone know the intricacies of campaign financing? At what point would it be better to hold off from donating so that you can spend your surplus cash on donations that can be used in the general?
Obama and the almost 400 other Senators and Congressmen who voted for the bloated, outrageous, wasteful farm bill were wrong, and John McCain got it right. Hell, for that matter, Bush is right to veto it.
*** Update ***
Brooks never claimed Obama voted for the bill, but supported it. I was wrong to imply he voted for it.
Ben Smith brings us this quote from Hillary:
“It’s been deeply offensive to millions of women,” Clinton said. “I believe this campaign has been a groundbreaker in a lot of ways. But it certainly has been challenging given some of the attitudes in the press, and I regret that, because I think it’s been really not worthy of the seriousness of the campaign and the historical nature of the two candidacies we have here.”
Later, when asked if she thinks this campaign has been racist, she says she does not. And she circles back to the sexism. “The manifestation of some of the sexism that has gone on in this campaign is somehow more respectable, or at least more accepted, and . . . there should be equal rejection of the sexism and the racism when it raises its ugly head,” she said. “It does seem as though the press at least is not as bothered by the incredible vitriol that has been engendered by the comments by people who are nothing but misogynists.” ‘
Without comment:
***
Look, there is no doubt Hillary has been subjected to sexism during this campaign, but if you want to know why Hillary really lost, you have to look no farther than this quote from her. Her entire campaign has been one gigantic attempt to redefine reality to how she wants to see it, ignoring the things that upset her and that don’t fit the new new narrative of the day as passed on by Howard Wolfson and Mark Penn. Hillary did not lose because she is a woman- she lost because they ran a crappy campaign. From the comments last night:
Hillary came in to this contest with a bunch of cash, the lead in super delegates, and the polls saying that she was going to steamroll the competition without problem. She had the Clinton name, donors with deep wallets, and a husband who was a popular former President who could also advise her and give her the inside scoop on campaigning.
She had it all, and she squandered it all away. Her and her campaign thought she had it sewed up, and they spent their campaign cash like there was no tomorrow. Huge salaries, huge parking bills, nice hotels for everyone and all the trimmings. After all, after sweeping up on Super Tuesday, the cash would be rolling in hand over fist. So why worry when her win was inevitable? She came in to the primary season as a powerhouse, she was going to clear the table and sweep up the winnings.
One problem. One candidate was deadly serious about winning, and he put together a team of people who he could count on to do the best they can for him. People who believe in what they are doing, and who know that if they want to win then they have to have a plan to get out there and earn it. So while Hillary was making the press rounds and drinking up all of the attention, Obama and his team rolled up their sleeves, planned and got to work.
This race is like the story about the tortoise and the hare. The hare knew the race was as sure as won, but the tortoise ignored the hare and quietly plodded along, keeping the goal line in sight the whole time. The hare got lost along the way, and now the tortoise is almost across the finish line.
How many versions of Hillary have there been this campaign? Right now we are on the gun-toting/whiskey-drinking model, but there have been numerous other incarnations of the candidate this election. You can’t blame that kind of message incompetence, that kind of demographic slicing and dicing, that transparent phoniness on sexism. You just don’t.
And more to the point- is there ANYONE, and I mean ANYONE, who thinks that we would have even ever seen this populist version of Hillary, trouncing around Appalachia in pick-up trucks, getting to her roots with the white man, swilling whiskey and munching on pizza, if she had not lost on Super Tuesday and if she had sealed up the election in February? Is there ANYONE who thinks Hillary would give a shit about the Florida and Michigan delegates if she had the nomination sealed up?
Of course not, and you all know it. No one reading this can honestly state that the Annie Oakley revival tour we are watching right now would have happened, because we all know it would not have. Terry McAuliffe himself stated they had a “27 state plan,” and all these other states would just have been after-thoughts had Clinton not blown it in February. Her campaign would be back in DC, plotting out there 50+1 plan for the fall, doing oppo research on McCain, all while having catered food brought to their luxury hotel rooms and with Mark Penn drawing a couple more million a month while still logging billable hours for Burston-Marsteller.
It is this kind of nonsense, this kind of willful suspension of reality, that has been the trademark of the Clinton campaign since Day One. Yes, Sen. Clinton, there has been sexism in this race. But it isn’t why you lost, and it wasn’t the only “ism” on display.
*** Update ***
BTW- I can’t be the only one who thinks this Richard Cohen piece is a dazzling display of beltway incoherence, as well as being factually inaccurate.
Significantly trailing Sen. Barack Obama in delegates, Sen. Hillary Clinton made a last-ditch effort to settle the hotly contested presidential race Monday, when she loudly shouted a proposal that the candidate who gets the next vote wins the Democratic nomination. “All sides have battled long and hard, and now it is time to take up a fair and impartial method for deciding this: next vote takes all,” Clinton said, adding that she was crossing her fingers behind her back to ensure that the electoral process is allowed to take its course. “Although I am open to discussing the feasibility of implementing a best-two-out-of-three policy, it has become clear the only way to settle this historic campaign is whoever can run to that door first—go!” Members of the Obama campaign disputed the results of the footrace, pointing out that the Illinois senator had long ago called for ace of black magic times infinity with no backsies.
Sure, it’s The Onion, but would you really be surprised?