We have learned tonight from MissLaura's diary that the NYTimes originally posted a "news" story by Jeff Zeleny with a lead paragraph that insinuated that Iowa voters chose Obama for one of two reasons:

Whether it was because Iowans were searching for an agent of change or they wanted to send a message that a white state would elect a candidate regardless of race...

It didn't take long for Mr. Zeleny's editor to, um, edit this down to something a tad more vague and less racist:

Whether it was because they were eager to leave behind the bitter divides of the last two decades or because they wanted to send a message that a small white state could transcend the issue of race...

What is going on here y'all???

There's an AP Story out now about how Bush is comparing congressional Democrats with those who ignored or appeased the rise of Hitler and Lenin. The Hitler thing we've heard before: The prime minister of Great Britain then was Neville Chamberlain, who goes down in history as the guy who wouldn't talk tough with Hitler, famously returning from a 1938 meeting with Hitler to proclaim '"My good friends, for the second time in our history, a British Prime Minister has returned from Germany bringing peace with honour. I believe it is peace for our time."

Comparing Democrats with Chamberlain is odious enough, but it is the Lenin comparison that strikes me as original and odd. Lenin? Why not Stalin? Why not stop with Hitler? What does George Bush know about Lenin?