OK, I admit I don't get it. Really, this is not meant as snark.

I understand people who say that torture is sometimes needed. I am among them. I am unwilling to fully close the door on torture under certain circumstances. But I don't kid myself. Torture is bad. It lessens you as a human being. And torture hurts.

But I always thought anyone with two brain cells knew that waterboarding is torture. I always thought that those that claimed otherwise were simply posturing. Turns out I was wrong:

Senators Shelby and McCain have proposed that the government allow some major banks to fail. From the New York Times

Recently the conservative blogosphere got all indignant about Obama supposedly negotiating with Iraq.

Turns out it was all false.

Anybody who bothered to check the source for two seconds would have realized it was all nonsense but kudos to the Bush administration for putting at least one right-wing lie to rest.

Today's Paul Krugman column has a section that I found very interesting:

The whole McCain and the 100 years question appears to have struck a nerve with conservatives. I wonder if they feel this is one of those comments that can define a candidate?

Anyhow, it's clear Obama and any Democrats that say that McCain wants to stay in Iraq for another 100 years are perfectly right. He is unwilling to say how long he will stay and thinks we need to finish the job without any deadline so 100 years is actually being nice to McCain, chances are he wants to stay even longer.

I like Josh Marshall's proposal (thanks Blue Neponset!):

It seems House Democrats decided to ignore the lying from the Bush administration and its allies about how the expiration of the Protect America Act means that terrorists win and stood strong for once.

Will this last? I have my doubts. But it is a step forward.

Like Megan McArdle I haven't read Jonah Goldberg's book nor do I plan to. My initial view when I heard of this book was that Goldberg wanted to emulate Coulter's and Hannity's success selling books loved by conservatives. But it appears he wants more than that, he wants to be considered a serious thinker like Bloom and "The Closing of the American Mind".

Thoughts? Is Goldberg really taking his book that seriously?

I am reading the excellent Marginal Revolution and I come across this:

I have read versions of this argument many times, both in liberal as well as conservative blogs. But where's the proof of this?

Wow, can this really happen? For a long time I simply assumed that Clinton would become the nominee, or Edwards if she faltered. I just didn't think that Obama had enough support for the long haul.

Now come news that after Iowa Obama may be leading Hillary by ten in NH. If true, Hillary will have a very hard time getting the nomination.

Nationally, Obama has increased his spread over Mitt and Giuliani and this was before the Iowa caucuses.

From the Washington Post: