Q: The lady or the paper tiger? (or: Is Karl Rove rooting for Hillary Clinton?)

Rove: "Pay no attention to the viable candidate on the right"...?

A: At first, the idea presented in this L.A. Times piece from yesterday seems crazy: Clinton may be a target of Rove's reverse psychology. But is it so crazy, it just might work have already worked?

In the run-up to the 2004 Democratic National Convention, when it was not yet clear who George W. Bush's opponent would be that November, Rove and his aides had begun to fear that their most dangerous foe would be then-Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina.

With his Southern base, charismatic style and populist message, Edwards, they believed, could be a real threat to Bush's reelection.

But instead of attacking Edwards, Rove's team opened fire at John Kerry.

Their thinking went like this, Dowd explained: Democrats, in a knee-jerk reaction to GOP attacks, would rally around Kerry, whom Rove considered a comparatively weak opponent, and make him the party's nominee. Thus Bush would be spared from confronting Edwards, the candidate Republican strategists actually feared most.

Rove has plenty of reasons to prefer Clinton to Barack Obama. Even if Clinton beats whatever dope the GOP nominates, she'll still be a divisive figure her political opponents can marginalize, just as they did when she was First Lady. She's not going to be the Democrats' Ronald Reagan. Obama could change things significantly -- both in terms of pushing through policy and shifting rhetoric -- in ways Hillary can't and won't.

Everyone should be voting Obama. Have I mentioned this?

Q: Why does Harry Reid pay kajillions of dollars to idiot consultants when he could just subscribe to T.A.M.S.Y. for free?

A: Just saw the new WaPo/ABC poll, in which Pres. W. hits a new low (as expected).

Meanwhile, Harry Reid's all-night-sleepaway camp resulted in a massive, unprecedented surge of support for congressional Democrats. Oh, no, wait, it didn't at all.

Just 35 percent said they approve of the way congressional Democrats are handling the situation in Iraq, with 63 percent disapproving...

The latest poll was conducted July 18 to 21 among a random sample of 1,125 adults, just after Senate Democrats failed to pass legislation that would set a timetable for the start of troop withdrawals from the war zone...

Congress's approval rating has declined over the past three months because self-identified Democrats have soured in their assessment.

Wow, I can't believe Reid's plan didn't work. Oh, no, wait, I can, and have, and did:

T.A.M.S.Y., Jul 18: One reason — perhaps the biggest reason — Congress' approval ratings are so low is because Americans have the impression no one is getting anything done. Spending all night very dramatically not getting anything done, in the midst of a media frenzy, isn't going to help that.

Yes, it's thanks to brilliant predictions like that that my blog is now read by upwards of several people.

MORE FROM MY CRYSTAL BALL: Sometime in the near future, John Edwards is going to smile so wide, it will expose several of his teeth. I also expect him to reveal his father's profession to have involved some sort of work in a mine. MARK IT DOWN. Meanwhile, Barack Obama will continue to be black.

YO HARRY BABY: Subscribe to T.A.M.S.Y. already. It's totally free, plus you get a shoe phone.¹

---

¹ Shoe phone offer does not include shoe phone.

Q: It's 5:52AM — do you know where your political strategy went?

A: As one Democratic Senator (can't remember who. some lady. it's very early) explained to the media last night, "This is not a political stunt. This is reality." Unfortunately, that statement proved to be not very realistic.

No, Harry Reid's all-night bloviati-thon is unlikely to have been successful in convincing jackass Republicans, or jackass Liebermans, to force an end to the war — not unless sleep deprivation proves to be as successful a coercion tactic as the CIA claims. (I suspect Reid will have to up the ante next week, to stress positions and eventually waterboarding.)

But Reid can at least claim victory here in the sense that... well, you know... yeah, I can't think of anything.

One reason — perhaps the biggest reason — Congress' approval ratings are so low is because Americans have the impression no one is getting anything done. Spending all night very dramatically not getting anything done, in the midst of a media frenzy, isn't going to help that.

On the other hand, Jerry Lewis did a wonderful job again with the hosting duties.

MEANWHILE: While we waste time and money and lives in Iraq, the people we purport to be fighting, Al-Qaeda, are hosting a little sleepaway camp of their own in Pakistan. Good times.

Q: It's 5AM — do you know where my Senator is?

A: No, seriously, has anyone heard from Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown? I'm worried about the effects staying up all night might have on him. The man already sounds like Tom Waits. If his voice gets any more gravelly, he might start literally coughing up shards of slate.

In case you missed the news, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is proving that the Democrats mean business on the Iraq war by forcing everyone in the Senate to hang out and listen to boring speeches all night.

Actually, they weren't all boring. For instance, Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa employed some very compelling visual aids:

"Guys, c'mon, I spent like 45 minutes at Kinko's."

I recorded some of the night's other thrilling moments off of C-Span. Here are the highlights:



If Reid is not successful in the effort to end debate over Iraq, aides say he will indeed follow through on his threat to party Karamu fiesta forever.

Q: How tall is Nancy Pelosi?

People keep Googling this question and finding T.A.M.S.Y., but the post they land on doesn't even address new Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi's height. Meanwhile, the answer provided by Yahoo! users is preposterously insufficient.

So by popular demand, I went on a fact-finding mission to uncover Pelosi's actual height.


A: In the description of a YouTube video, author Milt Shook describes Pelosi as "about five feet tall." This isn't much of an answer -- but it's literally the only specific reference to Pelosi's height I could find anywhere on the Internet, and I looked for a while.

In an effort to pin down some hard facts, I called Pelosi's Congressional office in San Francisco. They can't be too busy today, right?

"I have kind of a strange question. How tall is Congresswomen Pelosi?" The young woman who answered the phone said she wasn't sure. "Could you ballpark it?" I asked.

"I know she's much shorter than me," she said, "but I don't know exactly how much shorter. I've never really thought about it."

"So how tall are you?"

"5'6." A-HA! A clue!

Possibly the only clue. The staffers in Pelosi's D.C. office were less helpful, and treated the question as though I were asking for nuclear secrets. The woman who answered the phone was unwilling to offer an estimate, although she did eventually transfer me over to Pelosi's press office.

"I've been asked this question several times," the flack told me, "but at this time, I'm not at liberty to give you an answer. If I find out, I can let you know."

"Thanks. Should I leave my number?"

"Your best bet is to call back. Even if you do leave a number, I probably won't call you." Oh snap. Maybe I shouldn't have mentioned I'm a blogger.

In other words, the mystery lives on. For now, I'm going with "around five feet tall."

---

DEAR READERS: If you happen to have any better information on Nancy Pelosi's stature, please leave it in the comments.

RELATED: Measure Nancy Pelosi's height with the Great Women wooden ruler (from the estate of Edith Wharton). You'll need around five of them.

Q: Don't kids say the darnedest things?

A: They sure do. Like, for instance, this one little boy, John Edwards, says he wants to be pwesident! Isn't that just adorable!?

---

If you want to know how excited I am for John Edwards' candidacy, I have two answers -- one for each of the two Americas.

In the first America, I am not at all excited, because Edwards is a reminder of the shallowness of the Democratic candidate pool (Barack not withstanding, obvs). In the second America, I am conflicted, because although I long to make fun of him, it seems unfair to ridicule such an innocent and adorable child.

Here's the video of John Edwards announcing his intentions to announce his intention of running for president. The news broke, appropriately, on Rocketboom, which is very popular with the kiddies¹.



To Edwards' credit, he does seem to have a better grasp of his own talking points than he did last campaign. For instance, he seems to know what several of the words mean (I mean, aside from when he says he wants to get engaged in genocide).

Once you get past his wide-eyed idealism, though, is there any there there?

Edwards might be saying all the right things (or, at least, saying what the kids want to hear) -- but the average digg.com user could cough up the same shpiel, as could Ned Lamont, as could I.

Take away the photogenic smile and the handlers arming him with sellable talking points; does Edwards have the cunning to get shit done in the Oval Office? Good thing we'll never find out, because the answer would likely disappoint you.

ANDBYTHEWAY: Edwards' online campaign headquarters is still OneAmericaCommittee.com. Which is kind of funny, because didn't the "two Americas" concept flop pretty badly last election? Does the Edwards camp really think rephrasing a bombed slogan is the best bet they have? Did they prepay for several hundred years rights to the URL in 2003, and can't afford to cut their losses?

It's things like this that make me confident that Edwards '08 ain't gonna fly. What worries me is the possibility of his adorable face being enough to snag the Dems' nomination. Please, God, no. To be continued.

---

¹ On a semi-related note, what the hell is going on with this Rocketboom interview? Do all of their breaking news briefs begin with 20 seconds of trying to figure out how the camera works? Are they trying to out-unprofessional Amanda Congdon? Is new media trying to out-retard old media? Is a smokin' rack the new large brain? Are dim-witted hotties the new intelligencia? Does this mean John Edwards is going to win? Am I crying hysterically right now?

Q: Why is it important to be careful what you wish for?

A: Because I seem to have killed or maimed a U.S. Senator. And possibly ruined the government.

Democratic Sen. Tim Johnson Falls Ill, Undergoes Surgery [WaPo]

Sen. Tim Johnson (D-S.D.) was in surgery last night after falling ill at the Capitol, introducing a note of uncertainty over control of the Senate just weeks before Democrats are to take over with a one-vote margin.

Wait, let's go back to recycled news! Recycled news is comfortable and familiar, like a childhood blanket!!! PLEASE GOD LET'S GO BACK TO RECYCLED NEWS!!!!!

EARLIER: I hate the comfort, familiarity of recycled news

Q: Why is Virginia still a pale shade of yellow?

Bob Ross: Is ready when you are, Virginia Board of Elections.

A: These jokers down South apparently think the Senate race is still up for grabs! How adorable.

Um, guys, I hate to break up the party, but you can put away your abacuses -- T.A.M.S.Y. already called Virginia for the Democrats like a million years ago. Not to mention I'm pretty sure we all decided ("we" being "me") that control of the Senate had been Montana's to decide. You think I go around Photoshopping news that doesn't exist? Macaca please.

(Christ, sometimes it's as if the entire nation isn't even reading my blog...)

Point being: It's long past time for the New York Times to put their money where their liberal bias is and paint that beyotch blue already.

Honestly, I haven't seen such irresponsible laziness since Tom Sawyer tricked me into whitewashing that fence. God, what an asshole.

Q: After months of speculation, debate and constant muckraking, the fate of American democracy now rests... on two dudes from Montana?

Q: Is T.A.M.S.Y. prepared to call the Senate race?

A: Yes. The media's not going to declare it 'til dawn, at the earliest, but the T.A.M.S.Y. spidey sense is never wrong.

Book it, bank it, bronze it, put it in your pipe and smoke it: Democrats win. Tyranny loses. History is made. Karl Rove cries. Sunshine, lollipops and rainbows. You heard it here first.

Q: Are the Democrats done in the race for supremacy in the Senate?

A: Yes, sadly. They fought a good fight, but with Harold Ford's disappointing defeat to Julia Corker's dad (see: sexy bisexual teen pictured above) in Tennessee, it looks like the Dems will fall just short of the 51 votes neede--OMG WAIT HOLD THE PHONE!!!

BREAKING NEWS FROM MISSOURI!

McCaskill leapfrogs Talent!

Plus, Tester pulls ahead of Burns in Montana! Webb retaining slight lead over Allen in Virginia! Ladies and gentlecrats, IT'S ON!

Keep the midnight oil a-burnin' with T.A.M.S.Y., folks. We've still got plenty of beer left.

Q: Why is Nancy Pelosi "Standing Tall"?

A: Probably has something to do with the three-inch heels.


She better be careful, though. If the balance of power shifts any further, she might topple over.

(FULL DISCLOSURE: This post is just a flimsy excuse to test out my new screen capture program. Holy crap, is it awesome.)

Q: IS IT MORNING IN VIRGINIA!?!

A: Oh Jesus, it's too close to tell! Looks like it's going to be A PHOTO FINISH!!!!



And with 99.5% of precincts reporting, it's James Webb by a nose hair! OMG WHAT A (potential) COMEBACK! I DON'T BELIEVE WHAT I JUST (potentially) SAW! THE GIANTS (maybe) WIN THE PENNANT!!!!!!

(Um, your turn, Tennessee!)

edit: added WaPo link.

Q: IS IT MORNING IN AMERICA!?!?

A: Just ask Fox News!



Oh God, the excitement!! I can barely handle it!!!!

(By the way, you've really got to hand it to Fox News. They know how to hammer it home when they want you to think the news is bad. Paired with that photo of a Satanic-looking Nancy Pelosi, celebratory claws outstretched, that headline suddenly looks frightening even to T.A.M.S.Y.)