I am just back from the Kodak Theatre where preparations are underway for tonight’s debate and came back with some (I hope) amusing photos for Pajamas.

“Clinton Says She Can Control Her Husband”

… the King of All Narcisso-Hypocrites comes lumbering back on stage.

What’s amusing in one way and horrifying in another, but all-too-human in the final analysis, is how the moment a politician becomes popular and powerful – Bush, Clinton – a sizable percentage of the population starts to hate him. We’ve seen Clinton reviled. We’ve had years of Bush Derangement Syndrome. Welcome to McCain Derangement Syndrome – it’s happening before he’s even elected!

I heard two examples of it this evening – one from my friend Hugh Hewitt, whose rage against McCain today on Wolf Blitzer’s CNN show made the hair curl on my bald head and later, on the Larry Elder Show, I listened in as a woman caller excoriated McCain as no war hero even though she knew the Senator had spent five years in a North Vietnamese prison camp, was tortured, had his bones broken yet stayed with the other troops when offered a chance to leave, etc. Even Elder was appalled at the woman, though Larry is no McCain supporter.

I won’t psychoanalyze this rage for fear of just stirring more up. But I will make a couple of observations. One of the raps against McCain by traditional conservatives is that he opposes waterboarding and Gitmo. On the other hand, he was one of the earliest, strongest and most influential backers of The Surge. I think by any rational comparison the importance of The Surge vs. waterboarding and Gitmo isn’t remotely close. The Surge is responsible for the vastly improved situation in Iraq and for our consequentially improved situation globally. The other two are of marginal importance by comparison. McCain, it would seem to me, has his priorities right (not to mention more experience) on the most important issue of our time – the War on Terror.

One other thing: I have no particular dislike of Romney, other than I find him bland (a very personal reaction, which is not that important.) I followed his career as governor of Massachusetts and thought he did a pretty good job. But, to me, he seemed pretty much of a conventional liberal then, in fact vastly more liberal than I ever regarded John McCain, who I saw and see as more or less of a centrist. I recall Romney running to the left of Ted Kennedy on gay rights (an issue on which I am to the left of both).

Romney claims to have changed and “seen the light” on many issues. I have no idea whether this is true, but I am amazed by all these conservatives who totally and almost slavishly believe this is the real Romney yet equally assuredly distrust McCain when he repeatedly says he would build a security fence. It reminds me of that old shrink’s thing about the “need to be right,” how it always trips us up. I have seen it happen to me a lot. Anyway, I’m not sure McCain Derangement Syndrome has a cure. People love their anger. It’s a security blanket.

Bruce Bawer’s First They Came for the Gays is one of the best articles we have ever run on Pajamas Media. Do not miss it, if you haven’t already seen. I am deeply proud to have published it.

In the past week, the snowstorms have hit the provinces in central, eastern and southern China — places that are used to mild winters, not extreme wintry blasts.

“We’ve never seen such a cold weather lasting for such long a time,” said Tang Shan, a man in his 70s in Changsha, the capital of Hunan province. “The last time we had one here was over 50 years ago, and not this bad.”

Much as I am disgusted with the Clintons and the other “monarchs” detailed below, I am more fundamentally scared of Barack Obama because I don’t know what he stands for other than “hope,” “change” and other truisms. He has done a brilliant job of avoiding the nitty-gritty and now with this welter of big time endorsements and the wind at his back we are not likely to get any specificity soon. He is certainly a charming main. Why not rely on that and not rock the boat with ideas subject to debate or thoughts that might reveal lack of preparation or experience?

But, as we learn from Noah Pollak who has been doing some interesting digging at the contentions blog, we have serious reason to be wary of Mr. Obama’s foreign policy advisor Samantha Power, just as we have reason to be disturbed by the idolatrous support of the racist Louis Farrakhan by Obama’s minister.

My own suspicion… and at this point it is only that… is that Obama himself actually doesn’t know what he thinks in the foreign policy area. He speaks in generalities, claims he was against the Iraq War and then voted to fund it (like Hillary) – the usual hypocrisy that makes for moral and psychological confusion. So all is reduced to slogans or brainless competitions like who will pull out of Iraq faster when everyone knows that when confronted by the reality of decision making all will be different.

And, like most people when getting the approbation of the crowd, I imagine Obama is loathe to alienate it and finds himself agreeing with it as the line of least (temporary) resistance. But Obama’s particular crowd is partly a dangerous rabble that has not thought through the times in which we live on any serious level and responds in the most generic peacenik manner. As a single issue voter – the War on Terror – I am more than a little bit concerned.

Meanwhile, there is not much consolation on the Republican side. I just read an interesting article by Fred Barnes in the latest Weekly Standard – How Bush Decided on the Surge. Barnes has good contacts and I imagine much of the reporting here reflects Bush’s view on how this occurred. Here’s a telling paragraph:

After the bombing [in Samara], NSC officials were increasingly dubious. They weren’t alone. General Keane kept in contact with retired and active Army officers, including Petraeus, who believed the war could be won with more troops and a population protection, or counterinsurgency, strategy–but not with a small footprint. At the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) in Washington, a former West Point professor (and a current WEEKLY STANDARD contributing editor), Frederick Kagan, was putting together a detailed plan to secure Baghdad. But the loudest voice for a change in Iraq was Senator John McCain of Arizona. He and his sidekick, Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, traveled repeatedly to Iraq. McCain badgered Bush and Hadley with phone calls urging more troops and a different strategy. Together, McCain, Keane, Petraeus, the network of Army officers, and Kagan provided a supportive backdrop for adopting a new strategy.

According to this article at least, the loudest voice for change in Iraq was Senator McCain. And yet he is the man we see reviled again and again by conservative Republicans. Well, I guess they have different priorities from me. Can’t say I’m really surprised. Rigid party politics is boring to me – and regressive. But I am very sad.

Juno – (WATCHED – barely…. This is an Academy Award nominee? It’s not 1939 for sure. What 16-year old references “Soupy Sales” in dialog? As one reviewer noted, “What 66-year old??)

Unlike some people, I am not a super-strict constructionist. I have no idea what Jefferson and Adams, among others, would say about the issues confronting us today or whether they would want to amend the Constitution. But I do know this: We are a democracy. As I wrote yesterday in the comments section, it’s time to end the Divine Right of Kings in this country. That means no more Bushes, Clintons, Kennedys, Roosevelts, etc. I don’t even want to hear from Kennedys for their recommendations. Enough of this monarchical crap and these over-blown, over-important political families. We might as well bring back the Romanoffs.

The recent public display of arrogant, hot-headed Bill hopefully is starting to wake people up to this. Do we really want eight more years of the Clinton family saga, all their lies and self-deception? Suppose this turns out to be true? Do we really want to have to deal with that? And is there anyone out there who is honestly willing to bet it isn’t possible?

Even though The New York Times doesn’t seem to care and is willing to ignore this noblesse oblige in their slavish and banal endorsement of Hillary the other day, their own Frank Rich is beginning to smell a rat. He writes:

IN the wake of George W. Bush, even a miracle might not be enough for the Republicans to hold on to the White House in 2008. But what about two miracles? The new year’s twin resurrections of Bill Clinton and John McCain, should they not evaporate, at last give the G.O.P. a highly plausible route to victory.

Well, not if the National Review has anything to do with it. They seem hell bent on snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. On verra.

…for their excellent coverage this evening of the South Carolina Primary… That’s editors Aaron Hanscom and David Rusin and correspondents Bill “King Pundit” Bradley and Mr. Grey Goose himself… Stephen Green.