Forget what you learned in law school. Roll the video, if you can stomach it. Astonishing! Now on to Presidential politics....

Illustration by Kevin Kallaugher for The Economist

Time Magazine has Hillary Clinton (40%) ahead of Barack Obama (19%) by 21 points. Is that meaningful? Another poll had her deadlast with only 4%, and much has been made in the blogosphere about her lack of support out here (putting it mildly) in the non-traditional media. See here and here. McCain and Giuliani are closer, with 30% and 26%, respectively. (via New York Post) I don't think this is good news. If Hillary sweeps the primaries and McCain isn't damaged by a significant right-wing assault by Romney, McCain vs. Hillary will, I fear, return a Republican to the White House. Hillary's candidacy is a disaster, because a pro-Iraq War Democratic nominee who spends the campaign backpedaling is no candidate at all.

Wait a second! More-Troops-McCain is considering whether to support U.S. troop pullback? Let us count the ways Cheney seems to live in a different reality.... He thinks we have achieved "enormous successes in Iraq" He thinks critics and Congression oversight/opposition gives aid and comfort to the enemy?

With his presidential hopes tied to an administration whose Iraq policy he supports but cannot control, John McCain for the first time blamed Vice President Cheney for what McCain calls the "witch's brew" of a "terribly mishandled" war in which U.S. forces are on the verge of defeat. McCain also for the first time opened the door to the possibility of a U.S. troop pullback to the borders of Iraq should the president's planned troop surge fail. (The Politico.)

THE QUOTE:

"To have Vice President Cheney suggest that we have had a series of enormous successes in Iraq is delusional," said Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill. (Guardian)

Now for some real entertainment read David Kuo on Evangelicals and the Iraq War. Winds are starting to blow against Bush; will they blow against Romney and McCain on Iraq, too? Talk about unintended consequences. The Scotter Libby trial has revealed White House strategy to cope with the accusation that the American people were misled in the run up to the Iraq invasion. Strategy? It has to do with Sunday morning TV, apparently. Specifically, and regrettably for him, Tim Russert is revealed as Cheney-friendly. But aren't most TV infotainment personalities sycophants? I have not seen an interview yet that really takes this administration to task. Stephanopolous, Russert, Wallace, Blitzer, and obviously GOP Fox TV. The only one who speaks his mind is Lou Dobbs, and he's a one-note Charlie. Even he doesn't show us head to head interviews with the Department of Homeland Security Secretary Chertoff tearing him to shreds. But you know he wants to. Or does he? So does this hurt Russert or increase his ratings? Or force him to be less Cheney-friendly?