Shields & Brooks, Decent to President Obama this Friday

Wow, for the first time in months I found the Friday night commentary of Shields & Brooks on the PBS NewsHour fair and reasonable toward President Obama. They weren’t so carping and snarky as usual.

One remarkable piece of information: Mark Shields reported that an Obama campaign staffer told him that following President Obama’s emotional remarks at Chicago campaign HQs, video of which I featured here last night, the president shook hands with and greeted all 700 staffers.

#FridayReads, Nov. 9–“The Dogs of Riga,” Henning Mankell

#FridayReads, Nov. 9–“The Dogs of Riga,” a Kurt Wallander novel by Henning Mankell. I find myself getting totally absorbed by Mankell’s sympathetic characters, intriguing criminal puzzles, and compelling narrative style.

When Books Take Center Stage in Current Events

Perhaps because my tutelage in the media world began as as a bookstore owner, it’s been a long time since I’ve been surprise when an author and his or her book lands in the center of a swirl of current events. The latest connection between the book world and current events is the revelation, as reported tonight by Richard Engel on NBC, that the woman with whom David Petraeus had the affair prompting his resignation today as DCIA is his biographer. Her name is Paula Broadwell and in January 2012 Penguin Press published her book  All IN: The Education of General David Petraeus. Last week, she published a piece drawn from the book, in the Daily Beast, as pointed out by Josh Marshall on Twitter.

The romantic link between Petraeus and his biographer, reported by Fred Kaplan of Slate among others, is pretty stunning. If a spy novelist presented me with that plot point in a thriller I’d question its plausibility. On the other hand, there’s something so human–but also predictably tawdry–about a writer being seduced, taken in, by her subject. Yet, there are times when it works differently, so perhaps this is the other way around.  Writers like Janet Malcolm are known for so closely examining their subjects that they are able to write intimate portraits of their biographical subjects, far more revealing than their willing subjects ever imagined or intended.

Please note post below, “NBC’s Richard Engel, on the Petraeus Resignation.” I will continue following the Petraeus story, and the frequent intersection of the book world and current events.

NBC’s Richard Engel, on the Petraeus Resignation

Regarding David Petraeus’s abrupt resignation as DCIA, NBC’s Richard Engel just reported on Hardball that the FBI is investigating, and possibly involved is a female biographer of the General, Paula Broadwell. He speculated that agents may be looking at whether Broadwell may have had improper access to classified material Petraeus failed to secure. Over at TPM, one reader with knowledge of national security law, writes to Josh Marshall that Petreaus’s security clearance would have been yanked immediately, and thus made impossible his status as Director. If or when I get a link to Engel’s reporting or this TV appearance, I’ll share it here.

H/T Martha Moran and Chris Kerr for bringing aspects of the Petraeus story to my attention, including this New Yorker blog post by Amy Davidson, linking Petraeus and Benghazi.

About That 2016 Romney Reelection Bid

According to this Washington Post story by Peter Wallsten, Republican poobahs are so out of touch that on Election Night,

“Party leaders said they already had planned to poll voters in battleground states starting Tuesday night in anticipation of a Mitt Romney victory—to immediately begin laying the groundwork for midterm congressional elections and a Romney 2016 reelection bid.”

I actually had to read that twice to make sure I got it right. After my double-take, it sank in that Repubs had already been planning for Mitt’s reelection! Wow–they were planning to review why they’d won, and had anticipated no other result. Even if they believed so adamantly in their certain victory–despite the objective absurdity of it–wasn’t this extremely imprudent? Isn’t it wise to hope for the best, while planning for an outcome that falls short? This is as clear an instance of epistemic closure as I’ve yet seen, even from this political party that has made hermetically-sealed stupidity their singular trademark. In the wake of what was to them an unexpected drubbing,

“Top Republican officials, stunned by the extent of their election losses Tuesday night, have [instead] begun an exhaustive review to figure out what went so wrong and how to fix it.”

But in signs of a stunningly uninsightful self-assessment to come,

Party officials said the review is aimed at studying their tactics and message, not at changing the philosophical underpinnings of the party. ‘This is no different than a patient going to see a doctor,’ said Sean Spicer, the Republican National Committee’s spokesman. ‘Your number one thing is to say, I’m not feeling well. Tell me what the problem is. Run some tests on me.’”

Well, a majority of the American people have already delivered their diagnosis, and it ain’t a pretty picture. Republicans need to revitalize their sclerotic circulatory system by allowing their organism to be transfused with new blood that will prompt new ideas and a new way of viewing the evolving American electorate.