Exactly. It’s hard to imagine that if Obama’s crew was shopping around for a whistleblower, it couldn’t find a better one than a 29-year-old flake who would call attention to the fact that NSA is contracting much of the work out to people about whom it knows so little and that would flee to the embrace of China in an attempt to avoid prosecution.

Mazel tov!

At least Hasan will have a fool for a client.

As Shirley Booth said, “If it ain’t on the page, it ain’t on the stage.”

A) Schumer is so intelligent that he hired and mentored Anthony Weiner. Schumer’s just a persistent politician who owes his oh-so-gradual rise to being a Democrat in a one-party state. Being compared favorably to Harry Reid does not an intellect make.

B) Time will tell.

Despite his polish and obvious intelligence, I think Rubio’s something of a rookie new to the major league. An immigration swing and a miss will not doom his career. If the bill does not provide real border security and preclude those here illegally from tapping into the welfare state, then Rubio is well-positioned to kill it. If he does so, he’ll be the most influential legislator on an important subject that won’t go away. That will enhance his standing.

Republicans don’t have a branding problem. They have too little principle and are therefore unable or unwilling to make their case even to voters hungry for alternatives.

Let’s get real. No one knows the extent to which the IRS scandal will resonate with voters three years from now. We all hope that it does, but an improving economy could prove to be decisive or scandals yet to surface may overtake the IRS outrage in many voters’ minds. As William Goldman said of Hollywood, nobody knows anything.

Thanks for that!

The Watergate break-in was unnecessary. Nixon went on to win 49 states even after the cover-up was exposed.

It’s by no means clear that the Obama dissembling and subsequent cover-ups were unnecessary. The Obama administration certainly thought they were and they were probably right. He’s the only president in recent memory to get reelected with a smaller margin than he got the first time he ran. He once predicted that, unless he turned the economy around, he’d be “a one-term proposition.” He couldn’t risk running without pulling all the tricks out of the Chicago playbook.

Of course they had different life experiences, but both were unenviable in their own ways. It’s hard to imagine that Obama didn’t encounter difficult people, perhaps including some close to him. Maybe it has to do with Clinton’s wider circle of influences, which ranged from Blacks to segregationists. Obama’s “red diaper” upbringing didn’t expose him to a wide range of ideas and his Ivy League education and immersion in Chicago politics did little to broaden his thinking.

But there’s something so rigid and counterproductive about Obama that I’ve never seen in a national politician before.

Clinton, like Rain Man, may be a very good driver, but his self-regard takes a back seat to no one.

You may be right. Still, it’s hard to imagine a politician being successful who is so disconnected to reality.

I understand that Obama, like all politicians, wants to avoid saying things that can come back and bite him in the posterior. But if the mainstream media makes light of (or refuses to report) his serial hypocrisy, what price does he pay for it? I don’t think egotism alone explains it. Bill Clinton is every bit the narcissist and egotist Obama is, but he found it necessary and useful to at least act contrite from time to time. Why not Obama?

Is it simply a pose or does he actually believe his shock is not feigned?

He's so self-absorbed, I don't think he has a clue how this and many of his other statements sound to listeners who haven't imbibed his Kool-Aid. I'm sure his speechwriter figured Obama was addressing a very friendly audience, didn't give a thought to the ridicule the call for responsibility would invite from non-Morehouse listeners, and filled his teleprompter unwittingly with gratuitous blogger bait.