Spin or real change?

When it comes to the US Presidential primaries, it’s difficult to separate perception from reality.  A month or two ago, people were talking about Obama (and Edwards, for that matter) in Iowa as a disconnect between Iowa and the national polls.  The idea of Hillary Clinton’s inevitability was well entrenched, at least in the press.  A month ago, people seemed to be saying that yes, Obama will win in Iowa, but it doesn’t matter all that much.

But then Obama won in Iowa, and the narrative changed.  Suddenly Obama was the front runner, and Clinton was in trouble.  Granted, the fact that Hillary ran third in Iowa, the fact that Obama won by 8 points, the fact that Obama got the first-time caucus-goers out – all of these things are important.  Or are they?  Keith kept playing devil’s advocate on the night of the Iowa caucuses, pointing out that, without independents, Obama’s victory was only a single point.  The Clinton campaign has been portrayed as being in “disarray”.  Josh Marshall (and others) have talked about how frustrated Hillary seemed in the last debate.

How much of this is real?  The latest polls suggest that real change is afoot.  Obama is surging in New Hampshire and nationally.  But how solid is this?  How real is this?  Have people made up their minds, or are they just saying what the press tells them they should be thinking?  And does it really matter, if that’s the way they end up voting?

Obama/Cheney ’08?

John Holbo at Crooked Timber has an interesting discussion about who will be the next Vice President.

One commenter makes a point that renders the Hillary possibility moot. “Of course, the big problem will be to convince Dick Cheney to resign from the post.” The interesting thing is that Cheney might be quite right not to resign.

Cheney has claimed that the VP isn’t part of the executive branch. Since elections apply to the executive branch, presumably they don’t apply to the VP.

There is a lot of stuff about balloting for VP in the Constitution. People even cared enough to amend that stuff, apparently. (No accounting for taste.) But this balloting must be only a feel-good, ceremonial add-on to the Executive selection process. … This is shown by the fact that, in practice, the VP balloting is pro forma. The candidate picks. But no one thinks the VP, once picked, continues to serve at the President’s pleasure. That would be absurd. Apparently it has always been the case that serving VP’s have volunteered to leave, with the Presidents they served alongside. There is no reason to expect this rather curious arrangement to persist. Obama/Cheney ‘08!

I’d laugh, but we are talking about Cheney…

So what is Dembski’s field?

Like many creationists, William Dembski is a multi-degree man.  In addition to his M.Div., Dembski has a PhD is philosophy and another in mathematics.  His supporters like to call him things like “a leading scientist” or “the Isaac Newton of information theory”, but Dembski is neither a scientist, nor does he have anything but the slimmest publication record in mathematics.  So what is Dembski’s field?   Kristine (of Amused Muse) hits the nail on the head:

Selling William Dembski’s books to people taken in by William Dembski is William Dembski’s field.