President Obama was given a pop culture test on The View this week. He knew Lindsay Lohan was in jail, but said he didn't know who Snooki was.

”Should Snooki run as mayor of Wasilla?” And he replied, “I’ve got to admit, I don’t know who Snooki is.”

But, at the White House Correspondents dinner, he knew who she was. In a quip about the new tax on tanning beds law, he said:

“This next provision (in the health care bill) is called the Jersey Shorah. It reads, ‘The following individuals shall be excluded from the indoor tanning tax within this bill: Snooki, JWOWW, The Situation and House minority leader John Boehner.”

Snooki meanwhile isn't thrilled about Obama either. On the season premiere of Jersey Shore Thursday night, she said she switched to spray tanning because of Obama and his tax. [More...]

Atrios:

Everything Liberal Activists Do Is Wrong And Destructive

That's the message I've been hearing from the Very Serious People ever since I started paying attention. I don't know the best way to get more liberal policies and more liberal people in office, but I also don't think the fortunes of Obama and Democrats depend much on how loudly I clap. More than that, if the volume of my clapping is that important then people should be spending a bit more time and money ensuring that I've got an adequate supply of hand lotion to keep my hands in peak clapping form.

(Emphasis supplied.) Show me the liberal hand lotion!

Speaking for me only

Here is a winning strategy, calling folks who are disappointed with the Democrats stupid:

The Stupidity of Liberal Apathy

Jonathan Cohn

This seems totally nuts, purely on the merits. Obama and the Democrats passed a major stimulus that cut taxes for the middle class and invested heavily in public works. They saved the auto industry, created a new regulatory framework for the financial industry, and enacted comprehensive health care reform. Compromises watered down each of these initiatives, to say nothing of the ideas (climate change!) that aren’t going to pass. And still this was the most productive liberal presidency in a generation or maybe two. But liberal ambivalence isn't just foolish substantively. It's also foolish strategically.

(Emphasis supplied.) You know what is foolish strategy? Calling people you are trying to persuade foolish. Leave aside for a moment Cohn's thesis that if you do not agree with him about the Dems, you are stupid. Think about the "strategery" of attacking people you are trying to persuade as stupid.

First rule for Dems, do not hire Jon Cohn as a political consultant. That whole "the beatings will continue until morale improves" thing does not work in democracies. See also Kevin Drum.

Speaking for me only

It was clever, took you into a world (a key element of success for every movie, often achieved in different ways - see, e.g. Avatar which got me with its revolutionary film technology) and held your interest. Did I care much about Leonardo DiCaprio's character? Not especially. But I was intrigued with Nolan's creation. And that makes it a success in my view. As Drum writes:

Not every film has to rely on making us identify with the characters. Sometimes a humanistic austerity is OK. And the visuals were arresting and the story was clever.

Was it the "greatest film ever?" Of course not. Heck, it was not Nolan's best film - that is Memento. But it was good. A film success in my view.

Speaking for me only

Booman:

[Progressive dissatisfaction with Democrats] is mainly a problem not of style but of an infantile need to be hugged and patted on the head on the part of a bunch of cry babies. But the cry babies are also an important constituency[. . .]

Yep. That's it. It's the crybaby thing. Sheesh. And coming from the all time Clinton hating crybaby, it is just rich.

Speaking for me only

Matt Yglesias writes [I exchanged e-mails with Matt in which he made it clear to me that he does not think of himself as apart from the progressive activist movement. He sees himself as also subject to the need to "feel good." Matt stated that this need cuts across all ideological lines and groups. This seems right to me (though I do believe that "feeling good" is largely tied to believing that the policies are good.) I'm glad he communicated with me about this.]:

[T]he Obama administration points to an impressive array of accomplishment. Their health-care bill is the most significant progressive achievement in more than 40 years. Financial regulation, the new START treaty, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, etc. are nothing to sneer at. But something the administration barely seems to recognize is that political activists do not live on policy accomplishments alone. Small donations, volunteer time, and even voting itself are undertaken primarily in exchange for psychological benefits. People engaged in the process want—need—to feel good about themselves for doing it.

(Emphasis supplied.) [More...]

Ann Althouse implies so:

"Those favoring, say, prosecutors and employers are said to be conservative, while those favoring criminal defendants and people claiming discrimination are said to be liberal." If you can get past that sticking point, you can code everything into an immense database, produce some amazing-looking charts, and reach conclusions like "Court Under Roberts Is Most Conservative in Decades."

(Emphasis supplied.) Strange. Althouse seems really upset that the Roberts Court was called the most conservative court in decades by the New York Times. I am not at all sure why. Of course the Roberts Court is the most conservative in decades. That is what Republicans wanted -- what President George Bush wanted and what the Republican Senate that confirmed Roberts and Alito wanted. And what all conservatives wanted. Why whine about the NYTimes reporting that Republicans achieved their stated goals?

I think the article is rather silly, in that it is like reporting that the sun came up today. The more interesting and important reporting should be about how the Roberts Court is the most activist in decades.

Speaking for me only

Breitbart feels bad that "they" made it about Shirley Sherrod and that "they" misconstrued what Sherrod said:

David Frum writes:

you’ll never guess who emerged as the villains of the story in this second-day conservative react. Not Andrew Breitbart, the distributor of a falsified tape. No, the villains were President Obama and the NAACP for believing Breitbart's falsehood. Breitbart went almost universally unmentioned.

Of course the irony of the right wing noise machine decrying the Obama Administration and the NAACP treating Breitbart seriously is rich (but who would expect otherwise? Their dishonesty has been manifest forever.) But the question remains, and not only for the Obama Administration and the NAACP - the question is for everyone - who would take Breitbart (and Drudge and Fox) seriously? They are all dishonest hacks. I certainly hope this ends Breitbart's reign of terror, but it never should have needed this event to discredit Breitbaert. He has always been a discredited figure.

Speaking for me only

Who should Aaron Sorkin pick to play John Edwards in the movie based on Andrew Young's book? Tom Cruise?

The prosecution has rested in the Blagojevich trial. Brother and co-defendant Rob may be the first witness Monday. Ex-Governor Rod is also expected to testify next week. The Judge is giving Blago a hard time about which tapes he will be allowed to play. The Chicago Tribune profiles the cooperators in the trial today here.

This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

Apple made its big announcement today. It's offering a free case or a full refund to purchasers of the iPhone 4.

An application form will go live on Apple's website next week, where iPhone 4 owners will be able to choose a free bumper case from a variety of vendors.

Here's a live blog of the conference and q and a. It says yesterday Apple updated iOS4 to 4.0.1, which addressed some of the problems with the antenna algorithm. And that Steve Jobs says the iPhone 4 does drop more calls than the 3GS but it's only one more call per hundred.

Apple has scheduled a press conference for Friday morning. There is speculation the company will announce a recall of the iPhone 4.

I can't see a recall. Not with the cost estimated around $1 billion. And unless they have new defect-free models available, who's going to bring their only phone into Apple and leave it there for repair? Are they going to give out loaners? [More...]