USpolitical.com

All-Encompassingly has a great post with a video I made with them about the Obama’s dog Bo.  Obama wrote in the 1990s about eating dog meat in Indonesia as a cultural norm and adventurous part of his childhood. I await interest in the story to reach the levels that “Seamus atop Romney’s car” achieved.

In the meantime, we’re encouraging all those that love dogs to pray for Bo.

Volume I:

Volume II:

Volume III:

Volume IV:

The fact of the matter is, Obama ate dog.  And he, as an adult, wrote about it in his book.  Not as an animal rights issue, but as a culinary one.

Small only because of the Defcon 1 damage control:

President Obama
There’s no tougher job than being a mom. Anybody who would argue otherwise, I think, probably needs to rethink their statement.

Michelle Obama
Every mother works hard, and every woman deserves to be respected. –mo

Jim Messina
I could not disagree with Hilary Rosen any more strongly. Her comments were wrong and family should be off limits. She should apologize.

Debbie Wasserman Schultz
Disappointed in @hilaryr ‘s comments. As a mother of 3 there’s no doubt that raising children is work.

David Axelrod
Also Disappointed in Hilary Rosen’s comments about Ann Romney. They were inappropriate and offensive.

But still nuclear because of this kind of reaction:

UPDATE:

You can see why team Obama ran from this faster than most people even learned about it.

From the headlines and network analysis, you would get the impression that Mitt Romney didn’t have a very good night.  In reality, he won a majority of the contests, placing 1st in 6 of 10 states, 2nd in 3 and 3rd only in 1.

The narrative is that he somehow isn’t connecting with people, even though he now has more delegates than all the other candidates combined. And then some.  I think it is safe to say that Romney doesn’t have a “connection” problem, he has an “expectations” problem.  Expectations seem to have become Romney’s biggest challenge.

Some might argue that his inability to seal the nomination somehow represents a problem, irregardless of the fact that the current occupant of the White House was mired in a contested primary for months before becoming the nominee.

So when you take a step back and objectively look at what happened last night, Romney won the state that all eyes were on.  The rest of the races were essentially a wash.  Romney won everything he was expected to, with the exception of swapping North Dakota for Alaska, and Santorum won everything he was expected to.  And Gingrich of course won his home state of Georgia which really opens the path to the nomination for him because…..he has more delegates than Ron Paul or something.

A pattern has really emerged this cycle.  Romney is so far and away more polished, prepared, organized and funded than other candidates, that it isn’t that he can’t quite seal the deal with the voters, but instead he can’t seal the deal with the media that expects near perfection from him.  If he wins a state like Washington or Arizona by a huge margin, it is simple victory, unworthy of much attention.  If he barely wins his home state like Michigan, it is a near catastrophic miss.  And if he barely wins a swing state like Ohio, he apparently has fundamental problems with his campaign.

In every scenario presented, Romney wins, and yet, the reluctance to give him his due is palpable.  It is as though there is a new normal wherein Romney must pad with a sizable margin or else risk discredit for the victory.

If Romney wins the White House this November, expect the following possible headlines from these same political analysts and pundits distressed at how to explain Romney’s victory:

Thin Margin of Victory Raises Questions Over Mandate to Govern
Romney Won, But Unfavorables Still an Issue
Mitt’s Triumph Overshadowed by Narrow Win
Romney Wins, but do Voters Trust Him?

The media loves a horse race I suppose.

Santorum is riding a bit of a wave.  That much is obvious.  However, we’ve been here before.  Romney always seems to be just beyond the grasp of locking up the nomination, only to hit another snag and endure a week or more of someone being elevated to “contender” status.  If you look at the polling trends here, you will see a pattern that has only been broken once before.

Throughout the campaign, someone has consistently risen above Romney, only to plummet down again to allow another candidate to repeat the process.  Gingrich broke this trend by rising, falling, then rising again.  And now instead of Gingrich getting a second go at it, it is Santorum who was originally trending upward following the Iowa caucuses.
It seems that now that Santorum is the major national contender to Romney, one thing will most certainly happen.  He will be scrutinized more and more over the next couple of weeks, and everything that most people don’t know about him, will be revealed.

If you look at the polls coming out, Santorum is only polling a few points ahead of Romney nationally.  Unless he continues to trend upwards, he ought to be very concerned given the pattern into which he is now playing perhaps the final part.  Can he break the cycle and actually rise above Romney consistently over the coming weeks and months, or will he drop about as quickly as he rose?

I read an interesting post this morning that suggests to me that the more thorough vetting he never received earlier in the campaign is well underway.  And it doesn’t paint a rosy picture of him, or of the Tea Party that is helping fuel his rise.

Santorum has surged among Republican voters who as recently as 2010 claimed to oppose earmarks, big government, and over-regulation.

Rick Santorum passionately defends earmarks, even today. There has been no come-to-Jesus moment for the unrepentant former Senator and Congressman, who during his 16 years inside the Beltway racked up a $1 billion in earmarks. During that time, Santorum sided with Democrats to block cuts to federally-funded food stamps programs and to raise the minimum wage. He sought (and got) money for “green” projects in Pennsylvania and, among numerous other wasteful votes, voted for the Bridge to Nowhere.

Current words getting heavy usage include:

  “Fundamentally dishonest,” “establishment,” “factually” etc…

Also, in the boilerplate talking points, Gingrich has swapped some common phrases for others:

  In: Massachusetts Liberal
  Out: Massachusetts Moderate

  In: Wall Street Money
  Out: Millionaire Friends

  In: Bold Ideas
  Out: Reagan Conservative 

Ann Coulter: “To talk with Gingrich supporters is to enter a world where words have no meaning. They denounce Mitt Romney as a candidate being pushed on them by ‘the Establishment’ — with ‘the Establishment’ defined as anyone who supports Romney or doesn’t support Newt.”

Sarah Palin: “That is why we should all be concerned by the tactics employed by the establishment this week. We will not save our country by becoming like the left. And I question whether the GOP establishment would ever employ the same harsh tactics they used on Newt against Obama.”

Q.E.D.

Is this a great match up or what? People certainly do reflect those they surround themselves with.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

I particularly enjoy the moment around 6:40 when Kevin Madden suppresses a chuckle.

As liberal blogger and new media entrepreneur Josh Marshall says, “If you want to know why the GOP establishment is freaking out, check out this chart.”

You could say that Newt is not well liked.  Among conservatives much is made about Obama’s unpopularity.  Well, Newt would kill for Obama’s comparatively stratospheric popularity.

And this goes to the heart of what a lot of conservatives don’t understand.  Newt is like Ann Coulter.  Like Rush Limbaugh.  Not ideologically, but in the same sense that they are bomb-throwers.  You may agree with what they say, I happen to enjoy reading Coulter’s column every week.  But I would never confuse Ann Coulter with a viable presidential candidate.

As John Ziegler points out (and yes, I’m loathe to give him credit for being right):

The Myth of ‘Newt The Great Debater’

In a Republican primary, his haymakers draw cheers from the partisan crowd and the commentators marvel at what a crafty street brawler he is. In a general election debate, the crowd of “independents” will boo and the very same “news” people will suddenly he horrified by the bull who just smashed their china shop to bits.

We are not electing a debater.  We are electing a president.  Yet his superior debating skills form Newt’s core electability argument, both for being nominated and then how he would win the general election. He vaulted to the front of the polls in Iowa, then people got a better look and rejected him.  He didn’t compete in New Hampshire.  He was trailing badly in South Carolina, after another solid debate performance has zoomed to the front again.  It looks like he may well win South Carolina.

What happens going forward?  Will enough conservatives coalesce around Newt, not realizing that this would lead to a landslide loss in November?