Are you challenging me to a dance contest? If so, look, I just have to tell you, you need to watch out -- because my Obama Mamba is X-Treme.

(That's right - X-Treme. It's so extreme, it makes me misspell words.)

In other words, you and your voles are gonna get served, South Park-style. Just letting you know. ;-P

CBS is saying Ohio for Obama. It's not over until it's over, but with Ohio, Obama is at 194. With California (55), Oregon (7), Washington (11), and Hawaii (4) -- all of which have gone Democrat the last four elections -- it will be a minimum of 271.

I hate to jump the gun, and I may still end up being "Dewey," but it's soooo close to being ballgame, baby.

Just as with evolution, where a certain fundie element relies on batshit crazy, verifiably false claims about the scientific merits, try to turn these false claims into a "controversy," and then argue that schools should teach it...

Here we have Paglia, arguing that there was insufficient coverage of an issue that was covered TO DEATH. What about the coverage of Ayers was insufficient? What, precisely, was not explained?

Here's how these conspiracy-nonsense people argue it:

Conspiratologist: "What we want to know is, how close was Obama's relationship with Ayers?!"

Response: "Not very close. They served on X, Y, and Z boards together, they knew each other, Ayers supported and raised money for Obama early in his political career, and they were basically friendly -- but Obama never supported or approved of Ayers's radical views and they couldn't really be called 'friends.'"

Conspiratologist: "That can't possibly be all of it. Tell me about the time they built a bomb together!"

Response: "...what?"

Conspiratologist: "Oh, you know, Ayers is a terrorist, Obama is a scary black liberal - you know that they must have built a bomb together at least once."

Response: "...no, seriously, they didn't. Are you high?"

Conspiratologist: "There you go, with your liberal hatred! Look, I want the press to report the whole story -- not just the part that's favorable to Obama! I read on a right-wing blog that someone's cousin knows Obama's brother, and that he saw Obama and Ayers building a bomb one time."

Response: "...they...they didn't build a bomb together. And there's nothing else to report. You now know everything there is to know. There's just not that much to know in the first place."

Conspiratologist: "There must be more! It's a cover-up! The liberal media should tell us the rest of the story!"

Response: "I just told you the whole...ok, nevermind...look, ok, look, you think there's more to this, so show me the evidence that there IS more. Anything."

Conspiratologist: "Of course there's more -- the media is a bunch of liberal hacks! They MUST be hiding something."

Response: "So your...I'm sorry, trying not to giggle...so your evidence that there is something more to the Ayers story is the fact that you've never seen any credible evidence that there is anything more?"

Conspiratologist: "Exactly! Liberal media!"

Response: "Wow..."

The birth certificate thing is even more ridiculous -- and I must say I lost every shred of respect for Paglia when she brought it up. The man's an American. Claiming that he's not is an ugly smear that should not be given the dignity of a response. Nonetheless, although he would have been within his rights to ignore it entirely, Obama released his birth certificate to cut off, once and for all, the argument that he is not really American.

But..."he must be hiding something."

Why?

"Because he must -- he only released his birth certificate, but not his long-form birth certificate. If he wants this story to go away, he should release a video of his birth, with a hula dancing nurse in the background and his mom wearing a lei. Otherwise, how can we really know if the birth certificate is real and he was actually born in Hawaii?! Tell the truth, liberal media! Demand to know whether Obama forged his own birth certificate!"

Seeing Paglia trot out this...well, I wish there were a more charitable characterization than "kindergarten-level conspiracy nonsense," but I don't think there is...it's sad.

I think I see this as a stickier issue than I think Glenn does. On one hand you have to enforce the rule of law.

On the other hand, though, even a false investigation can be a very effective political weapon. (The Republicans didn't have to convict Clinton -- they just had to impeach him.) Given that, there's a fear that enforcing laws against your predecessor will lead not to justice, but rather to a general devaluation of the law into a tool of political gamesmanship -- that what is actually "just enforcement" will look like "just politics."

How do you prevent confusing "justice" with "just Washington"? Well, if you can say clearly and convincingly that what Bush did was so wrong that it required investigation by any objective standard, then you may be able to convince everyone that it is justice and not a political hitjob. The problem? Well, if Bush had been caught having an affair with an intern, our American populace would have a clear objection. But violating the constitution, destroying civil rights, and using federal offices in illegal ways...oh, sure, that's worse than boinking some intern, but try telling that to the people. (Compare Ted Stevens (corruption) with Larry Craig (a bit of illegal gay sex) -- Stevens did more harm to more people, and to the rule of law itself, but he's the one who almost got reelected AFTER being convicted...)

The solution to that? Well, how about some sort of national force independent of either political party, whose sole job is to determine whether laws have been broken and recommend action? Sort of a GAO for law?

Or the Dems could grow a pair. Either way.