13 days after Hillary Clinton "ripped apart" the Democratic Party by not immediately and effusively apologizing for even running against Barack Obama and endorsing him and threatening violence against her supporters who do not vote for him, Al Gore has decided to endorse Barack Obama:

Al Gore says he is backing Barack Obama and will do whatever he can to help him get to the White House. . . . He's planning to appear with Obama at a rally in Detroit Monday night.

It is good to see Gore finally gave up his hope for a brokered convention with him emerging as the nominee. Oh wait, you mean Gore was not hoping for that? Well how do you explain his waiting until NOW to endorse Obama? You know the Media told us Gore is a big fat liar, and they always tell the truth . . .

By Big Tent Democrat, snarking for me only

Marcy Tiffany, an attorney and the wife of 9th Circuit Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, has written a long e-mail to blogger Patterico, explaining what was really on their family's computer network. (Background here.)

Combine a disgruntled litigant with a reporter focused on sensationalism and the public got a false story the rest of the media was only too happy to run with. I'm not surprised.

Count me as one firmly in Judge Kozinski's corner.

Former Hillary Clinton Campaign Manager Patti Solis Doyle has joined the Obama campaign.

She will be the Chief of Staff to Obama's as yet unnamed running mate.

Anyone want to read the tea leaves on that one?

Michelle Obama is getting an image-booster:

In addition, the campaign has hired Democratic strategist Stephanie Cutter to work as chief of staff for Michelle Obama. Her first order of business will be to buff and polish the image of the candidate's wife, who has been the target of sharp attacks in recent weeks.

More staff changes below:

Oliver Willis is right about this disgusting McCain supporter:

So a guy makes a sick joke about rape that was highlighted in a campaign ad, but the McCain camp still thought it was perfectly fine to take his money and have a fundraiser with him until the press comes a knockin’. . . Here’s an idea: Tell John McCain to give back the $300,000 he raised via a man who jokes about rape.

Absolutely. Perhaps now Willis can see this psycho ex-girlfriend stuff was not funny. That in fact it was sexist and offensive.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

Luke Russert interviewed by Matt Lauer.

What a fine young man. No wonder his dad was so proud of him.

To discuss what you like.

I do want to make a point that my concern (or the pejorative PC-ness) about sexism long predates what I saw in this campaign. See this 2005 post (one of a series) on Lawrence Summers' remarks on women in the sciences. I battled Andrew Sullivan's sexism then too.

BTW, I delete off topic comments in my non-Open thread posts. If you were wondering what happened to your brilliant comment.

This is an Open Thread.

From the same John Heileman article I reference below:

. . . For months now, my e-mail box has been full of messages from women across the country, explaining what Hillary’s run meant to them, why it was so important. The reasons vary depending on age and race and region, but the one element almost all my correspondents express in common is a furious resentment at the press for what they see as blatant misogyny in the coverage of Clinton. When I mention this to Hillary, she laughs and exclaims, “I’d love to get a look at your e-mail!” And then, more soberly, she goes on, “There’s a reason for the resentment. The level of dismissive and condescending comments, not just about me—what do I care?—but about the people who support me and in particular the women who support me, has been shocking. Shocking to women and to fair-minded men. But what has really been more disappointing to me is how few voices that have a platform have spoken out against it. And that’s really why you seen this enormous grassroots outrage. There is no outlet. It is rare that you have anybody on these shows or in a position of responsibility at major publications who really says, ‘Wait a minute! What are we talking about here? I have a wife! I have a daughter! I want the best for them.’ ”

[Emphasis supplied] More . .

John Heileman writes:

What strikes me as inarguable is that Hillary is today a more resonant, consequential, and potent figure than she has ever been before. No longer merely a political persona, she has been elevated to a rarefied plane in our cultural consciousness. With her back against the wall, she both found her groove and let loose her raging id, turning herself into a character at once awful and wonderful, confounding and inspiring—thus enlarging herself to the point where she became iconic. She is bigger now than any woman in the country. Certainly, she is bigger than her husband. And although in the end she may wind up being dwarfed by Obama, for the moment she is something he is not: fully, poignantly human.

(Emphasis supplied.) The highlighted statements strike me as curious. Her husband was the only Democrat to win reelection since FDR. Obama is the nominee of the Party. He can be President. If he mean in terms of political power NOW, he may be right. But he seemed to be speaking of something different. In any event, it is an interesting article.

2 years ago, we learned a good deal more about how untrustworthy the U.S. "ally" Pakistan can be, and how the Bush Administration has chosen to turn a blind eye about what Pakistan is up to. Today, the NYTimes drops another shoe:

Four years after Abdul Qadeer Khan, the leader of the world’s largest black market in nuclear technology, was put under house arrest and his operation declared shattered, international inspectors and Western officials are confronting a new mystery, this time over who may have received blueprints for a sophisticated and compact nuclear weapon found on his network’s computers. Working in secret for two years, investigators have tracked the digitized blueprints to Khan computers in Switzerland, Dubai, Malaysia and Thailand. The blueprints are rapidly reproducible for creating a weapon that is relatively small and easy to hide, making it potentially attractive to terrorists.

It sure would be nice to be able to interrogate A.Q. Khan about this:

According to a report (pdf) released today by the Pew Internet & American Life Project, "46% of Americans have used the internet, email or cell phone text messaging to get news about the campaign, share their views and mobilize others." The readers of this post are all in that 46 percent. John McCain is not.

For list lovers, the top three election-related internet activities are: [more ...]

The headline in the Metro section of today's New York Times only tells half the story:

Tasers Getting More Prominent Role in Crime Fighting in City

The title to this post reflects the other half.

NYPD officers now use their 500 Tasers in limited situations. Expanding Taser use is a perilous experiment. It isn't particularly comforting to know that only sergeants will have the authority to handle Tasers, in light of this:

Stun guns were introduced in New York in the early 1980s, when officers were confronting a higher number of disturbed people because of the rapid and widespread deinstitutionalization of mental health patients. The devices were not seen as a success. ... Several high-ranking officers and sergeants were transferred from the 106th Precinct in Queens after officers were charged with using stun guns on drug suspects during interrogations. [emphasis added]

The most important facts, at which the Times headline does not hint, come at the end of the linked article: [more ...]

Barack Obama and John McCain are in a statistical dead heat according to the Daily Gallup tracking poll. Why? Seems to me to be the high number of undecideds combined with those who won't vote for either.

Although the margin between Obama and McCain is now similar to what it was in the last few weeks of the Democratic primary race, the structure of the race looks slightly different than at any other time this year as a result of the relatively high percentage of voters -- 15% -- not favoring either major-party candidate. This includes 7% of voters who say they are undecided and 8% who say they will not vote for either candidate (including 1% who volunteer they will vote for another specific candidate).

....As a result, the percentages of Americans now supporting Obama and McCain are near the lowest seen for either candidate since Gallup Poll Daily tracking on the Obama-McCain matchup started in early March, and well below the high of 48% achieved by each at them at various times.