Well, apparently David Petraeus didn’t influence anyone at Time Magazine. I suspect that he influenced a lot of people in Iraq. I bet that he’ll influence voters who elect John McCain this fall, too. In fact, to think that he’s without influence requires a willing suspension of disbelief.

The New York Times maintains its perfect record.

The New York Times maintains its perfect record.

The New York Times maintains its perfect record.

A couple years ago, I speculated on whether or not Bill Clinton could have been elected if there had been a blogosphere in 1992. I called him an MSM president.

Now Chuck Todd says that he has been done in by new media (specifically, Youtube):

Although Clinton caught a glimpse of the digital future when he was president and a little-known Internet gadfly named Matt Drudge broke the Monica Lewinsky story, he was never subjected to the kind of unblinking scrutiny of today’s media environment.

When Clinton was running for president, Todd said, he and his fellow candidates could misspeak — and even willfully obfuscate — with relative impunity.

“It was like a Jedi mind trick with him,” he added. “It would take a few days for the media to catch up [and] by then he had moved on.”

Well, it was a Jedi mind trick that never worked with me. Or in fact, not even a majority, since he could never win a majority. But he always had the press on his side, at least until their new love from Chicago came along.

[Via Virginia Postrel, who is, happily, currently cancer free]

We’re Democrats.

[Update a few minutes later]

This seems related.

Not only can Democrats not handle the truth, but when truth is told about them, the truth tellers are called liars. Even by Saint Barack:

When called out on something — say, misquoting McCain on the 100 years statement — Obama’s reflexive move is to insist the person doubting his credibility is lying. When Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopolous asked him tough questions, his followers screamed bloody murder.

The strategy is clear: when you say something negative about Obama, you will be accused of lying.

Well, at least they’re not threatening to chop off our heads.

Yet.

Which is stranger, that the editor of the Boston Herald has a picture of Che in his office (“for inspiration”) or that Howie Kurtz offers that fact without comment?

Is it because Kevin Convey considers the newspaper a “guerilla” operation against the Globe? Does he know who Che was, and what he did? What does he plan to do with his own vanquished enemies, assuming his success?

Since reading Jonah’s book, I’ve gotten new insight in the popularity of Che posters on campus and among the left. Fascists, after all, always admire men of action.