The third Lieberman/Lamont [and Schlesinger!] Senate debate took place last night, and it was as fireworky as ever. From the Hartford Courant:

Lieberman ignored the format and gave a three-minute opening statement in response to the opening question on Iraq.

"So much for no opening statement," said the moderator, ABC newsman George Stephanopoulos.

And it pretty much went downhill from there. After Lamont refused to back down from claims made in his commercials, Lieberman said: "If I were still attorney general of Connecticut, I would have sued you for unfair trade practices." Which prompted Lamont to "[get] to his feet and [take] a few quick steps to Lieberman." The Rumble in New London!

And in Republican highlights, also-ran Alan Schlesinger scolded the crowd - following a bizarre LaRouche-related incident that was actually one of the more predictable parts of the evening - by saying, "Show some respect to Sen. Lieberman and the audience. Now!" Having not seen the video, I can't really say for sure how funny that was. But in my experience, it's hard to say something that a reporter can transcribe as "Now!" without sounding like a jackass. So that was probably pretty good.

Makes you wish you lived in a state with a competitive Senate race, doesn't it?

Three blurbs that I meant to post yesterday (all thanks to the Hotline):

• In its endorsement of Bill Nelson for Florida's Senate seat, the Lakeland (Florida) Ledger wrote: "Katherine Harris' bid for the U.S. Senate bears more resemblance to a Monty Python skit than a campaign for high public office." Can't argue with that.
• The Los Angeles Times spent 1,500 words on Stephen Colbert's "Better Know a District" segment. Good times.
• The Washington Post asked 14 athletes and coaches for their advice to Congressional Republicans. Antawn Jamison encouraged the RNC to "stay positive"; John Riggins suggested they "get the hell out of town."

On Friday, the Washington Post reached into its archives and dusted off a biennial classic: Could Bill Clinton be vice president?

The answer, it seems, depends on who you ask. Most of the judges and law professors interviewed by the Post agreed that a strict reading of the Constitution wouldn't prevent a former two-term president from serving as the nation's Number Two. But the dissenting side has some heavy hitters:

Judge Richard A. Posner of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit said by e-mail that "read literally, the 22nd Amendment does not apply" and therefore Clinton could be vice president. "But one could argue that since the vice president is elected . . . should he take office he would be in effect elected president. Electing a vice president means electing a vice president and contingently electing him as president. That interpretation, though a little bold, would honor the intention behind the 22nd Amendment."

I know Posner's a hero to a lot of people (or at least, to a lot of law professors, which may or may not be the same thing), but I think he's wrong on this one. The wording of the 22nd Amendment¹ seems clear: Clinton can serve as president, he just can't be elected again. And the 12th Amendment's V.P.-limitation² doesn't contemplate election; only "eligibility." Clinton is ineligible to be elected to the office of president; he's not ineligible to serve.

The drafters of the 22nd Amendment were very smart folks. And even if they weren't, they had very smart attorneys. It's not as though they couldn't have foreseen this issue, and they chose to use the word "elected" anyway. Elected is elected. Posner's interpretation is too bold.

1 - "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice" (emphasis added, obviously) (though wouldn't it be funny if there were actually italics in the Constitution?).
2 - "No person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President."

Barrack Obama told Tim Russert this afternoon that he's giving some thought to White House '08:

"I don’t want to be coy about this — given the responses that I’ve been getting over the last several months, I have thought about the possibility, but I have not thought about it with the seriousness and depth that I think is required," Mr. Obama said. "My main focus right now is in ’06 and making sure that we retake the Congress. After November 7th, I’ll sit down and consider it."

I like Obama a lot, and in 2012 or 2016, you'll have a hard time keeping me away from the volunteer entrance at Obama HQ. But 2008? I just don't think it's a good idea.

I suppose that's partially because I'm such a big fan of John Edwards, who'd be forced to compete for a demographic that he's already largely won over (the "me" demographic). But right now, inexperience is an even bigger problem for Obama than it was for Edwards in 2004. With the exception of political journalists and the citizens of Illinois, there are, what, fourteen people in the country who had even heard the name Barrack Obama three years ago? Running too early could taint him permanantly, and it would be a terrible shame for someone as talented as Barrack Obama to have his wings clipped by an ill-timed campaign. So please, Senator: wait. See what happens. And give it a whack during the next go-'round.

(None of this applies, incidentally, to an '08 ticket with Obama at the bottom. That, I think, would be terrific. But I don't see it happening.)

Update: Bob Herbert agrees.

My feeling is that Senator Obama may well be the real deal. If I were advising him, I would tell him not to move too fast. With a few more years in the Senate, possibly with a powerful committee chairmanship if the Democrats take control, he could build a formidable record and develop the kind of toughness and savvy that are essential in the ugly and brutal combat of a presidential campaign.

Fire Joe Morgan points out an amusing happenstance: before the playoffs began, nineteen of ESPN's "experts" (their word, not mine) predicted the winner of the World Series, and not a single one of them picked a team that made it beyond the LCS (7 Twins, 6 Yankees, 3 A's, 2 Dodgers, and 1 Mets). Take that, Vegas!

The Washington Post has produced a series of short videos about a selection of key campaign issues for 2006: stem cell research, the minimum wage, the economy, immigration, gay marriage, and Iraq (those last two are still in the works). Nothing new, at least in what I've seen so far, but certainly interesting as a primer.

In the past few weeks, Dick Armey has taken shots at Tom Tancredo, James Dobson, and Tom DeLay. I don't know what he's running for, but whatever it is, I wish he'd do it more often.

This is my impression of every Mets fan who calls into a sports radio show in the next two months: "I don't [beep] understand. Was Beltran not [beep] watching when Floyd was up? Was he in the [beep] john? Huh? Did he not think Wainwright would ever use that pitch again? Because I don't care who you are, I don't care what kind of [beep] series you're having. You DON'T [BEEP] LOOK AT THAT PITCH ON 0-and-[BEEP]-2! With two outs in the bottom of the [beep] ninth! [Beep]! Let's go back to Little League, Carlos! Let's go back to Little League. Because that was [beep]. [Beep beep beep]."

The embarrassment to the RNC that is North Carolina Republican Vernon Robinson (a man already popular 'round these parts for his take-no-prisoners approach to political advertising) comes out swinging in his first debate with beleaguered incumbent Rep. Brad Miller:

Robinson, who has run a series of brash advertisements about Miller, charged that the Democratic congressman wants to import homosexuals to the United States and that Miller supported scientific studies that would pay teenage girls to watch pornography.

"Those are San Francisco values, not North Carolina values," said Robinson, repeating a common theme of his campaign.

Hard to argue with logic like that.

Mike Huckabee, on Imus yesterday (according to Wake-Up Call): "I don't know everything about foreign policy, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night." Hard not to like the guy, isn't it? Even if he is crazy.

John Tierney, always eager to make himself look like an asshole, argues that Wal-Mart - by beneficently purchasing the wares of underpaid factory workers - has done more to alleviate poverty than Muhammad Yunus and his Grameen Bank ever did. I'd hold it against him, but I think he was just trying to start a fistfight with Paul Krugman.

(To be fair to Tierney, that summary slightly bastardizes his argument. But to be correspondingly fair to me, Tierney bastardized economics before I bastardized Tierney.)

Name: Mike Grunwald and Jim VandeHei
Class: Mrs. Flannigan, English 4, Washington Post High School
Assignment: In the context of a news article (not an editorial piece), describe Dennis Hastert as vividly as possible in 50 words or less.

Hastert doesn't seem capable of intense anything; he has a conservative voting record but a moderate temperament. He looks like a cross between actor Wilford Brimley and Jabba the Hutt, and his unassuming Midwestern public demeanor makes for dull television.

"But we're sure he's a lovely person."