"I believe, just from examining the public sources, that the FBI offered Christopher Steele $50,000 if he could corroborate the dossier."

"He either couldn’t, didn’t, wouldn’t, and they didn’t pay him the money," said Fox News senior judicial analyst Andrew Napolitano.

"National Security Agency discloses in secret Capitol Hill briefing that thousands of analysts can listen to domestic phone calls."

"That authorization appears to extend to e-mail and text messages too."

ADDED: Just because they can doesn't mean they do. You only have to trust thousands of analysts. Janet Napolitano says:

"I think people have gotten the idea that there’s an Orwellian state out there that somehow we’re operating in. That’s far from the case"....

"[T]here are lots of protections built into the system,” Ms. Napolitano said, pointing to a privacy office embedded in her own department that is “constantly reviewing our policies and procedures.” She further stressed the court review system.

“No one should believe that we are simply going willy-nilly and using any kind of data that we can gather,” she said...

So it's not simply going willy-nilly and using any kind of data and it's far from Orwellian. That is, it's something less than the ultimate extreme. That's not reassuring at all. Even if I take Napolitano at her word: She's not saying much. It's just not utter and complete abuse.

And what are the protections? There's a "privacy office." You know, in "1984," if there were something called the "Privacy Office," its job would be to invade our privacy.  (Recall "The Ministry of Truth.")

Who could possibly feel protected by Napolitano's own privacy office "constantly reviewing our policies and procedures"? That sounds — even as she puts it — like it's about seeing what they can get away with. She brings up judicial review, but we know that those courts have no power/inclination to stop anything the government says it needs to do.

ADDED: They can see you naked. 

The White House, Washington... White House, Washington... WHITEHOUSE.

What's going on here?


(Photo by Stephen Crowley.)

The commenter EDH noticed this craziness in the photograph on the previous post:

As a photographer, maybe Althouse can explain why the NYT photo editor didn't crop that front-page, above-the-fold photo of Napolitano, but instead shared the frame to included a widescreen video monitor next to her displaying the single word "WHITEHOUSE" while she's standing behind a podium that says "The White House - Washington" and in front of a sign with a picture of the White House that says "White House - Washington"?

Is this supposed to symbolize the new "belt and suspenders" approach in action?

Here's the article the photo appears to illustrate:

Obama Details New Policies in Response to Terror Threat

By JEFF ZELENY and HELENE COOPER
WASHINGTON — President Obama on Thursday ordered intelligence agencies to take a series of steps to streamline how terrorism threats are pursued and analyzed, saying the government had to respond aggressively to the failures that allowed a Nigerian man to ignite an explosive mixture on a commercial jetliner on Christmas Day.

Obama, eh? Well, he's not in the picture. Is all that "White House" business supposed to equal Obama?

The president also directed the Homeland Security Department to speed the installation of $1 billion in advanced-technology equipment for the screening of passengers, including body scanners at American airports and to work with international airports to see that they upgrade their own equipment to protect passengers on flights headed to the United States.

Janet Napolitano is the head of that Department, of course. Oddly, her name doesn't even come up in the article. What is the NYT doing here? The text seems to hide her inside of the name of the department, and the photograph shunts her to the side, with an unnamed man (Deputy National Security Adviser John Brennan) backing her up, and White House signs buffeting her all around.

Compare Drudge's treatment of Napolitano, today (and yesterday):

Ah, poor Janet!

IN THE COMMENTS: Jim wrote:

I think the photograph is a not-so-subtle statement:

Janet Napolitano IS the White House.

Obama's game has been to let Obama appear to be "the adult in the room" by correcting and re-correcting Napolitano's repeated stupidity.

The editor here is saying: Hey Obama, we're not THAT stupid. She speaks for you, and we're a little sick of the game of you're playing. Napolitano speaks for you even when she says something stupid. We're not playing along any more.

When even the NYT editors make a point of telling Obama "You can no more disown Napolitano than you can disown your grandmother," you know you're in deep trouble...

Barack Nobamatano.

Another Drudgtaposition.

Drudge does commentary. You just have to figure out what he's trying to say with his juxtapositions — Drudgtapositions. Like this one today:

Why illustrate "Napolitano announces international airport security campaign" with a wall on which there are tiny side-by-side photographs of Obama and Napolitano? That means something. But what?

What is Drudge trying to say?
	Obama has failed to assume the dominant "decider" role.
	Obama impressively gives equality to the heads of departments.
	Things are organized and secure now.
	Obama and Napolitano are small and ineffectual.
	We are so screwed.
pollcode.com free polls

"Botox is becoming the new face of beauty and it’s unfortunate because it makes everybody look like Satan’s children."

Said Stevie Nicks, who had Botox and hated it: "For four long months, I looked like a different person. It almost brought down the whole production of the last tour. It was so bad, I would look into the mirror and burst into tears."

That's the appropriate reaction, and I wish more people would have it. By the way, do you think Botox might be the explanation for the strangely blank face Janet Napolitano presented to the world last Sunday?



At the time, I said: "That bland half-smile — that numb mask — those unblinking, wide eyes ... the visual is weirdly incongruent with the audio." That wouldn't explain the slurred speech, though, which I'm surprised didn't draw more commentary in a week when lots of people focused on the slurred speech of Senator Baucus.

In sum: Everybody stop with the Botox. As for slurred speech, it works for some.



If you aren't someone it works for... enunciate.

I must correct Barack Obama's grammar.

He said:

"A systemic failure has occurred and I consider that totally unacceptable. There was a mix of human and systemic failure that contributed to this potential catastrophic breach of security."

He meant "potentially catastrophic breach of security." Potential needs to be an adverb, because it modifies the adjective catastrophic. It shouldn't be an adjective, which makes it seem to modify the noun breach. It was a breach. If the bomb had gone off, it would have been catastrophic. That's where the potentiality lies.

***

Anyway, it's painful to see the scramble to get from Napolitano's "the system worked" to "totally unacceptable ... catastrophic breach."

And speaking of Napolitano's abysmal performance over the weekend... where's Hillary? Was she made Secretary of State for the purpose of hiding her away?

"The slightly charred and singed underpants..."

I'm sorry, this gives me way too much hope for the survival of his dick.

ADDED: Here's the 6 inches of explosives he had in his pants:

Napolitano said she had no evidence this "is part of anything larger."

So then she's seen his dick?

Napol(ogize)itano.

The Secretary of Homeland Security eats her words:

Ms. Napolitano said Monday on NBC’S “Today” that her remark the day before — “the system has worked really very, very smoothly over the course of the past several days” — had been taken out of context. “Our system did not work in this instance,” she said. “No one is happy or satisfied with that. An extensive review is under way.”

ADDED: Let's read the context. Candy Crowley is interviewing Napolitano on CNN's “State of the Union.” The first question is whether the attack was "part of a larger plot" or whether Abdulmutallab was "a lone wolf." Napolitano dumps her basic canned response — that people should trust the government and feel good about flying:

Well, right now, we have no indication that it’s part of anything larger, but obviously the investigation continues. And we have instituted more screening and what we call mitigation measures at airports. So I would advise you during this heavy holiday season just to arrive a bit early, and to know that we are going to be doing different things at different airports. So don’t expect to do the same thing at one airport when you transfer through to another airport.

But the traveling public -- this is my message for you, Candy. The traveling public is very, very safe in this air environment. And while we continue to investigate the source of this incident, I think the traveling public should be confident in what we are doing now.

Crowley forces her back to the original subject of the scope of the plot. She asks "has there been any evidence of the Al Qaida ties that this suspect has been claiming?" — which is slightly inane, since the suspect's claim of al Qaeda ties is evidence. But we know what she means. Napolitano says:

Right now, that is part of the criminal justice investigation that is ongoing...

The criminal justice investigation. That reveals a mindset. Is there a war on terrorism? Or does Napolitano think she's dealing with a crime problem?

... and I think it would be inappropriate to speculate as to whether or not he has such ties.

This is the criminal justice model.

What we are focused on is making sure that the air environment remains safe, that people are confident when they travel.

Now, she's back on her canned statement, the one that Crowley said she'd get to later, after focusing on where this incident fits in the war on terror. Napolitano is keen on repeating herself and slathering us with reassurance. It is here that she drops the quote everyone jumped on:

And one thing I’d like to point out is that the system worked. Everybody played an important role here. The passengers and crew of the flight took appropriate action. Within literally an hour to 90 minutes of the incident occurring, all 128 flights in the air had been notified to take some special measures in light of what had occurred on the Northwest Airlines flight. We instituted new measures on the ground and at screening areas, both here in the United States and in Europe, where this flight originated.

The context is reassurance, and the lambasted quote isn't even reassuring. She was unresponsive to the question asked, other than to try to repackage the incident as a routine criminal matter, and in an effort to repeat herself, she said something laughably stupid.

So the whole process of making sure that we respond properly, correctly and effectively went very smoothly.

The key word there is "respond." The notion is that it's fine to stand back and see what "crimes" occur and then show up and investigate.

Crowley presses on, saying "Well, it seems as though the reason this plane did not explode is that the explosion failed and then you had some quick passengers who jumped on him when he lit this fire. So let me ask you about how he could have gotten on the plane, with this substance, the PETN. I mean, we get on, you can’t have more than 3.4 ounces of toothpaste and you can’t have more than 3.4 ounces of anything in a little bag, and so I think people are thinking, so how does he get on with an explosive? How does that get past security?" Here's Napolitano again:

Well, we are asking the same questions, looking at what happened in Amsterdam as he transferred flights to a flight that was U.S.-bound. We have already been working with the airport and airline authorities there to see what kind of screening, screening equipment was used. We have no suggestion that he was improperly screened, but we want to go through and see. We’re always ...

No suggestion! Ridiculous! Crowley interrupts:

CROWLEY: I’m sorry, but if he was not improperly screened or properly screened, and yet you want Americans to feel safe on the planes, and so if it was properly screened and he got on anyway with that, it doesn’t feel that safe.

NAPOLITANO: Well, you know, it should.

Wha?????!!!!

This was one individual literally of thousands that fly and thousands of flights every year.

Oh, thanks. I just read that out loud, and my son Chris said: "That's like saying you shouldn't be worried about terrorism at all, because even if you were flying on 9/11, the likelihood of you being on one of the actual flights that were hijacked is very low."

What an awful performance. And check it out in video form:



Why is she slurring her words like that? Does she sound drugged or drunk to you? Or is that some sort of effort to sound like a tough guy? Now, watch it with the sound off. That bland half-smile — that numb mask — those unblinking, wide eyes ... the visual is weirdly incongruent with the audio.

10 Reasons Why the Christmas Day Pants Bomber Will Be Blogged Endlessly.

1. It was a completely serious terrorist attack intended to and capable of taking down a large jet above a major American city, so 9/11 is vividly back in our consciousness.

2. But no one — other than the bomber — was seriously hurt, so we can discount it or play with it and be flippant or political in ways that we would avoid if there were specific and numerous victims.

3. There are lurid details: A man set his own pants on fire and did who-knows-what to his genitalia.

4. It's happening with a new President, so there is much potential for turning around the usual political arguments and making accusations of hypocrisy.

5. Ass-covering officials are saying mockable things like "The system worked."

6. There's a hero to laud. Yay, heroes. Yay, Army of Davids, etc. etc.

7. It was Christmas!

8. Obama's in Hawaii.  He's trying to bask in the sun and the success — or seeming success — of the healthcare bill and now here's trouble. Attack him/defend him, etc. etc. 

9. We haven't figured out yet what to call the suspect — whose actual name (Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab or Abdulmutallab) is hard to remember or even to figure out how to spell. The Pants Bomber? I used that in my post title because I saw that no one was saying that yet, and I thought it would do well in Google searches. The Christmas Day Bomber? Abdul-mutilate-a-balls?

10. See? It's funny and it's terrible — all at once. And then you can get outraged at the people who laugh or laugh at the people who don't laugh or analyze the trajectories of outrageous humor and the criticism thereof. The possibilities are endless.

ADDED:

11. The guy was privileged, rich, and well-educated.

12. His father ratted on him. Intra-family conflict. Is this extra-great evidence — even his own father turned him in? Or are you thinking: Is the government going to stop you from flying if your parents call up and say you're a radical? Discuss!

13. If the plane had exploded where the detonation was attempted, what would the parts of the plane have hit? Was there an attempt to hit specific sites on the ground? Which ones? How close was the targeting?

14. Coverage. Is mainstream media covering the right things? Is it giving cover to the Obama administration?

15. Can we get somebody fired? Come on, try. Blogswarm!

The reaction to the Christmas Day attack should be exactly what it would have been if Abdulmutallab's device had not malfunctioned.

Instapundit writes:

HUFFINGTON POST: What’s wrong with this picture?

UPDATE: Marc Ambinder explains that it’s all a cunning plan. Ambinder’s a nice guy, but his nonstop spin has become embarrassing. I mean, when you’re getting more honest criticism from HuffPo....

That's very Instapunditly sharp and enigmatic, so let's dig into the details....

First, the HuffPo (Steve Marmel):

It's December 23 - I lug my tired butt to the airport, ready to leave for vacation. Carrying a bottle of very nice wine, I have to leave my place in the security line as I can't bring it as a carry-on, check it in a bag, get a special box, go through security again and hope I - and my fancy wine - arrive intact....

What kind of idiot imagines that "nice"/"fancy" wine is some exception to the well-known rule against carrying liquids onto the plane? You didn't lose your place in line. You stupidly got into line. I almost stopped reading. But, I see: His point is that he'd become oblivious to terrorism prior to the Christmas Day incident. People traveling after the attack had a properly post-9/11 edge. But...

Meanwhile, the president continues his vacation.

America lucked out this holiday season. It's as simple as that. Something terrible could have happened and It was the bravery of passengers, and the ineptitude of a would-be terrorist, that prevented it.

Did the passengers actually make a difference? The crew was there with fire extinguishers, and Abdulmutallab was stunned and badly burned when the passengers jumped him and dragged him down. It looks to me as though the defectiveness of the device was what saved that plane.

... It was luck.

Yes. Indeed.

And if you're like me - that scared the crap out of you. You probably wanted assurances. What will be done to prevent this? How are we reacting?

If you're like me, you're not looking for Attorney General Eric Holder, or Representative Pete King, to be telling you how it could have been worse or how it will be managed.

When the nation is attacked, I expect to be informed and hopefully calmed by the President of the United States.

So I ask, one more time - of this president who understands that how a message is delivered is just as important as what the message is - What is wrong with this picture?

The picture is of Obama in Hawaii. Sure, he can still say, We must stop the terror, but...



See the problem?

Yes, the president deserves a vacation....

But that vacation should have been over moments after the plane landed at noon on Christmas day, and everybody was starting to do the math that once again, al Qaeda tried to strike at this country.

And even if it were only for appearances - even if it were simply to make people know the commander-in-chief was in front of whatever buttons and levers are at his disposal to act and react to threats to this nation - the president should have been inconvenienced as well.

There are moments like these where it's important not to simply just do the work, or be told by others that the work is being done. We need to see it.

And that could have been done in Hawaii. Just not from the back nine.

Back to work, sir. Back to work.

I would go further, as I've said. I don't think the President should be out in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. It's too far away. And I don't care that a temporary White House can be set up anywhere. (By the way, I would like an itemization of the costs, in taxpayer dollars and in carbon emissions, of relocating the White House in Hawaii.)

Oh, hey... remember this?



What do you think Hillary is thinking about what's going on? That she would have been back in the White House. She wouldn't have left it to the Secretary of Homeland Security to do the talking on the Sunday shows. She wouldn't be all...



So get out of the tropical foliage, Barack, and fight terrorism. Even if it's all photo-ops for you, have some sense about what the photo op should be right now.

On to Marc Ambinder:

In his Farenheit 9/11, filmmaker Michael Moore juxtaposes images and words of a terrorist attack in Israel with President Bush's first words about the incident, spoken to a press pool on a golf course, with him leaning casually against a tree.

Ah, my association was the same as Ambinder's. Ambinder goes on to tell us that Obama has been golfing in Hawaii. And he went to the gym right after he was briefed about the attack. But Ambinder offers his usual pro-Obama spin:

There is a reason why Obama hasn't given a public statement. It's strategy....

[A]n in-person Obama statement isn't needed; Indeed, a message expressing command, control, outrage and anger might elevate the importance of the deed, would generate panic....

In a sense, he is projecting his calm on the American people....

So was Bush. It wasn't effective. Obama has had the opportunity to learn from Bush.

It's a tough and novel approach....

It's not novel, because Bush did it too. The only thing novel about it is doing it after Bush did it... ineffectively.

As I was writing this post, Instapundit put this up:

OUTCRY: “Napolitano should quit.” “I watched her on three shows and each time she was more annoying, maddening and absurd than the pevious appearance. It is her basic position that the ’system worked’ because the bureaucrats responded properly after the attack. That the attack was ‘foiled’ by a bad detonator and some civilian passengers is proof, she claims, that her agency is doing everything right. That is just about the dumbest thing she could say, on the merits and politically. I would wager that not one percent of Americans think the system is ‘working’ when terrorists successfully get bombs onto planes (and succeed in activating them).”

That's Jonah Goldberg.

UPDATE: More from an Obama voter: “Now, I know they are mopping up after a failure, and there is reason to want to portray the attack as coming out of the blue and unconnected to anything that should have been the subject of close monitoring, but — damn — I hope they are doing a better job than they look like they are doing. And if they don’t look like they’ve been doing a good job, then they aren’t even doing a good job of mopping up after their failure.”

Oh! Well, I agree with that. It's me. Thanks for the link, Glenn. Yeah, I voted for Obama. Am I sorry? I should be exactly the same amount of sorry I would be if Abdulmutallab's device had not malfunctioned. So, I must say: Yes, I'm sorry.

IN THE COMMENTS: Jason said:

I think everyone should watch that Hillary commercial all the way to the end. It seems different somehow.

Sorry for that too. Or not. LOL.

"Janet Napolitano, the Homeland Security secretary, said on Sunday that there was so far no evidence of a wider terrorist plot..."

Hmmm. But the administration also didn't see the warnings — relayed the suspect's own father — that Abdulmutallab was a threat. It's the administration's duty to see the "dots" and connect them. Now, I know they are mopping up after a failure, and there is reason to want to portray the attack as coming out of the blue and unconnected to anything that should have been the subject of close monitoring, but — damn — I hope they are doing a better job than they look like they are doing. And if they don't look like they've been doing a good job, then they aren't even doing a good job of mopping up after their failure.

Abdulmutallab should not have been on that plane!

IN THE COMMENTS: T J Sawyer said:

"The System Worked!"

Nappie, you're doing a heck of a job.

After Ginsburg? "A woman? It seems certain. It’s inconceivable that the Court could be all-male...."

Jeffrey Toobin thinks Obama might pick a non-judge — maybe Janet Napolitano or Jennifer Granholm. Of the judges, Toobin flags: Sonia Sotomayor, Diane Wood, and Elena Kagan.

Think it's in bad taste to launch into talk about replacing Ginsburg as soon as we hear of her cancer treatment?

What's in worse taste?
	Talk of replacing a Justice the instant we hear of her cancer treatment.
	An elderly Justice remaining on the Court when seriously ill.
pollcode.com free polls

While we're at it:

If the Ginsburg seat is vacated is it necessary to replace her with a woman?
	Absolutely. We cannot have an all-male Court.
	The President should use a sex-blind selection process.
	The President should give some consideration to the sex of the Justice, but not too much.
pollcode.com free polls

"Janet's perfect for that job. Because for that job, you have to have no life. Janet has no family, perfect."

What Gov. Ed Rendell said about Gov. Janet Napolitano.

Okay, now, how bad is this? Rendell's getting ripped for being a big old sexist, but does he deserve it?

He was caught speaking casually, using the jocose expression "no life," which may not be as insulting as it sounds to some people. I don't think he meant anything like: She's not much of a woman (or human being) because she has no husband or children/she must be emotionally unfulfilled/cold/stunted.

I hear this as: She will be able to give absolutely the entirety of her attention and energy to a job that truly requires it.

Now, this may upset some people who want to believe that everyone has to live a life in which work is leavened and enriched with time in the warm embrace of a family. What's worse is the idea that a job requires all of a person's attention, so that anyone with a family is disqualified. And of course, there's one terrible implication: That men can have a family and a highly demanding job, but women cannot.

Did Rendell's statement contain that terrible implication? Perhaps! I do get a little whiff of: Normally, you don't send a woman to do a man's job, but that doesn't apply to Janet Napolitano. It's not that she has "no life," but that she has no female life. She can run with the men. I hear a bit of that.

But perhaps Rendell meant to boost opinion of Napolitano, to rebuff accusations that her lack of a family would make the job too tough for her. Remember when Laura Bush said this about Condoleezza Rice?

"Dr. Rice, who I think would be a really good candidate (for President), is not interested. Probably because she is single, her parents are no longer living, she's an only child. You need a very supportive family and supportive friends to have this job."

It could be that Rendell knew the way not having a family is used against women and he wanted to get out in front of that criticism to help Napolitano. There's sexism in that, but it's not Rendell's sexism. He's proactively defending her from attacks. Now, I might concede that it's better feminism to behave as if sexism does not exist, and maybe Rendell's proactive defense against sexism unwittingly promotes it in some ways, but I'm inclined to give him a pass.

"Obama to Dispatch Female Surrogates" -- that NYT headline I flagged last night -- is now: "Obama Camp Turns to Clinton to Counter Palin."

I was struck, in the midst of my convention live-blogging, that the NYT had such an Obama-unfriendly headline. But now, they've friendlied it up. The original headline, "Obama to Dispatch Female Surrogates," put a picture in my head of Obama releasing an army of programmed fembots.



The new headline, "Obama Camp Turns to Clinton to Counter Palin," flips the image. It's not Obama, but the Obama camp -- a large, faceless group -- and now it's not a large, faceless group of women, but one particular woman, Hillary. Don't pin anything directly on Obama, and don't disrespect women by portraying them as nonindividuals.

And so suddenly, Hillary is the anti-Palin.

Hillary Is... the Palinator.



[ADDED: The image above, pointed to in the comments by Palladian, after I said: Kisses to the reader who Photoshops an image for that. Also, in the comments, was Ruth Anne's invitation: "And while you're photoshopping: Put a buff Sarah Connor body under the Sarah Palin face. No, wait. She's already done that herself."]

So now, let's read beyond the headlines:

Senator Barack Obama will increasingly lean on prominent Democratic women to undercut Gov. Sarah Palin and Senator John McCain, dispatching Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton to Florida on Monday and bolstering his plan to deploy female surrogates to battleground states, Obama advisers said Thursday....

With the McCain-Palin team courting undecided female voters, including some who backed Mrs. Clinton in the Democratic primaries, Obama aides said they were counting on not only Mrs. Clinton but also Democratic female governors to rebut Ms. Palin — and, by extension, Mr. McCain. Those governors include Janet Napolitano of Arizona and Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas.

Another poll:

Which headline was more accurate, and why did the NYT switch to the second headline?
	The first. Changed because it was unfriendly to Obama.
	The first. And websites change these things to add excitement or to balance with other headlines.
	The second. Changed for accuracy.
	The second. But websites just vary the headlines for excitement or balance.
pollcode.com free polls

Okay. I'm up for it tonight. I'm live-blogging Hillary Night at the Democratic Convention.

6:50 Central Time: My resolve jells.

7:15: I'm watching PBS tonight. C-SPAN last night. PBS has HD + longer coverage than the networks. (I don't have CNN HD.) The introductory material is about how last night somehow had to be soft-focus on Michelle and Teddy. But tonight, we'll have "red meat." Yes, I'm hoping for more excitement tonight.

7:24: A home-care worker is reading a script so robotically that it's kind of ironically human (and nice). Who would feel natural in that situation? Obama spent the day with her once, working at her job, to prove whatever that proves. The sound of talking in the hall almost drowns her out. Now, another working woman. This seems to be a parade of working women — in bright-colored suits that seem to be a tribute to Hillary's many suits.

7:28: That last woman had such a harsh voice. Now, with a deeper voice, it's Governor Janet Napolitano. The bright color for her bright-colored suit of the night is red. She's doing a nice job of laying into John McCain, but I feel these nagging feminist pains. Why is this woman — and why is Hillary — stuck on some special woman's night?

7:53: A man is talking. How is this happening? I rewind to see Jim MacNeil saying, "There's a Republican. Yes, a Republican." He's totally puzzled. It's the mayor of Fairbanks, Alaska, Jim Whitaker. Ooh, isn't he embarrassed to be relegated to Women's Night? He seems completely unfamiliar with his speech as he begins "We are Americans first" and pauses so you can tell he's thinking: American's first what? He goes on about energy. He explains why he's here: "to endorse Barack Obamas." That's not a typo. He says Barack Obamas.

8:04: Governor Kathleen Sebelius. John IMs, "I love her symphonies." Her bright-colored suit of the night is the reddest of all possible reds. She's out redding Napolitano. Against the bright blue background, it's like a psychedelic poster from 1968. It's searing my eyeballs. Yet her voice is so insanely flat. She speaks as if she's alone in a room memorizing the speech.The din of conversation in the hall is overwhelming. She's reciting words that were written to ravage John McCain, but with her delivery, it's quite comic. Well, there are actually punchlines all over the place, but I don't know if they'd make me laugh if she had a comic touch. It's funnier this way. But no one is listening.

8:16: Man, is this boring. Bring on the Hillary.

8:31: Lilly Ledbetter. She's surprised and "umbled." Great southern accent with a robotic but somehow impassioned delivery. She was the plaintiff in an important recent sex discrimination case, which she lost because she filed the lawsuit outside of the statutory limitations period. As she puts it, "Our Court sided with big business." But what she should say, to be honest, is: "Our Court declined to rewrite the statute to be fair to me." She goes on to blame the Senate for voting down the amendment that would make it possible to sue if you don't know about the discrimination when it first takes place, but then she says that Barack Obama as President will solve the problem: "As President, he has promised to appoint Justices who will enforce laws that protect everyday people." That doesn't really add up. But she's doing a good job of making us feel that the Democrats will protect the rights of working people.

8:41: The keynote speaker, the former governor of Virginia, Mark Warner. His theme is the future. Technology and economic development are important. He's trying to pump us up about that general idea. It's not at all clear that it has much to do with Obama. He says it doesn't matter if good ideas come from Democrats or Republicans. Now, he's boasting about the things he achieved as governor of Virginia, and it just makes me think about how Obama has no record at all of achievements like that.

9:15: Deval Patrick, the governor of Massachussetts. I'm getting nothing out of this. Reach for tomorrow... "Government is simply the name we use for the things we choose to do together." That's a quote from Barney Frank. Sorry. I detest sentimentality about government. I want more critical thinking and humility.

9:39: Here's the film about Hillary Clinton. It's mainly about the notion that women can achieve. She wanted to be an astronaut. She "dared to reach up." Her mother told her you can be anything you want. Lots of nice, smiley pictures, but it's generic pro-woman material. Let all women feel great. (But she lost!)

9:41: Chelsea Clinton looks gorgeous, with big hair and (finally!) a dark, skirted suit. She introduces her "hero" and her mother, Hillary Clinton. Hillary's dressed in bright orange. We see Bill, glowing and clapping and licking his lips and sticking his tongue out — in a somewhat reptilian way. Now, he's mouthing "I love you" over and over. Hillary is honored to be here, and the crowd goes wild.

10:00: Somewhere in there, Hillary said that she supports Barack Obama, but for the most part, it felt like another one of her campaign speeches. Anecdotes. Lists of problems, principles, and policies. We kept seeing closeups of Michelle Obama, who seemed to be closely monitoring the her husband's wily old opponent. And Hillary didn't do anything wrong, but did she help Barack Obama? She did say, addressing her supporters, "Were you in it just for me?" She answers that they must have supported her because they supported what she believed in and wanted to achieve. And therefore, we need to a Democrat in the White House. She says Obama's name a few times, but it seems to me as if it's just something that follows by reason of the desire to have a Democrat in the White House.

10: 30: And I'm not really sure exactly how she ended it, because I'm one of the viewers who used a DVR to record the show, and she spilled over into the next hour. They should have taken that into account.

Night 2 of the Convention: between Kennedy and Obama.

Daschle and Mosely Braun said nothing of interest as far as I noticed. Mosely Braun stressed out her voice and hurt my poor ears. Can't they turn up the sound levels and coach the speakers to speak to the people watching at home in their living rooms? This speaking to the huge auditorium is quite likely to get Kerry in trouble later this week, as his manner of speaking is insufferable when he's projecting into a large room. And we all know that speaking (and screaming) to a large, noisy crowd was fatal to Dean's candidacy.

Speaking of which: Here's Howard Dean. "I bet he screams as a joke," I say. At least, he'll make a joke about it. If he made a joke about his fatal scream or said anything at all amusing or interesting, I didn't notice.

Christie Vilsack is the next speaker, for some reason. Why is the wife of a governor one of the speakers? It can't just be that they needed more women. They had a whole gang of women Senators lined up on the stage last night. Christie is wearing a lovely, shiny, pink, polka-dotted jacket. That counts for something.

Governor Janet Napolitano. Health care, health care, health care. John Kerry knows healthy children grow up stronger! No way that dummy Bush could figure that out.