Our original link-fest offering readers links to blog posts from websites of many different viewpoints — soon to enter its fourth year. Linked posts do NOT necessarily reflect the opinion of TMV or its writers.

YOU CAN TELL A LOT ABOUT RUSSIA’S PUTIN BY THE AWARDS HE GIVES: The ever thoughtful Mark Daniels looks at a recent award Russia’s Prez gave and suggests you find out more about Putin by it than by gazing into his eyes and soul. And Daniels sees something ominous. A MUST READ.

IS THERE A MCCAIN POLITICAL SURGE? David Adesnik of Oxblog (one of TMV’s favorite sites) writes:

At some point in October, the debate ended about whether there was a significanthttp://themoderatevoice.com/at-tmv/around-the-sphere/16151/around-the-sphere-blogging-roundup-nov-18-2007/?preview=true
Preview » drop in violence in Iraq. The numbers were clearly there and those arguing for a rapid withdrawal had to fall back on arguing that progress was either not sustainable or insufficient on the political front.

I wonder whether the debate about the McCain surge is reaching a similar turning point. Supporters like myself are hoping that the surge is more than a trend we are compelled to see because of our faith in our candidate. After all, there is a lot of buzz around his resurgence, although there was lots of buzz just a month or two ago about McCain being dead in the water. So is there evidence?

The latest poll from FoxNews is clearly good news for McCain. For the first time in many months he has second place all to himself, well behind Giuliani but clearly ahead of Thompson.

Read the entire post. Adesnik could be correct. McCain’s position seems to have improved. However, it still seems as if Giuliani is galloping to the nomination. And there are signs that his people will do “whatever it takes” to win (note reports that Giuliani people are behind a revived effort to change the winner-take-all allocation of electoral votes in California and allegations denied by his camp that Giuliani people may be linked to the bigoted push poll in New Hampshire about Mormon Mitt Romney).

So if Giuliani stumbles and Thompson continues to unexcite and Romney is too risky for some GOPers, McCain could be on the fast track. But right now it looks like the former New York mayor is in the lead.

OH TELL ME IT’S NOT TRUE! Fox’s Bill O’Reilly is caught in another contradiction..

YOUTUBE BOUNCES SOMEONE WHO PROBABLY DOESN’T GET TOO MANY INVITATIONS TO BAR MITZVAHS: They bounced the “Jew Watch” guy (so THAT’S who was peeking in my window when I took a shower!).

“WHAT’S YOUR FAVORITE SUBJECT?” “RECESS!” That old joke might fit President George W. Bush, who has had a field day with recess appointments. When the Congress is away, the President will play. But not THIS HOLIDAY.

THE FALSIE AWARDS: Yes, they’re for real…well maybe not…JUST READ THIS.

DOES BUSH THINK DENIAL IS A RIVER? Andrew Sullivan thinks so. Key quote:

One has to ask: is the president an idiot or just shameless? I truly can’t see a third option, except such clinical denial of reality that he should be removed from office for incapacity.

What did Bush say to provoke it? Read his post.

It’s more likely shamelessness than denial. The “motif” in this administration has been to say something that is at…variance …with the facts. Bush’s style was tipped in 2000 in South Carolina when he countered Arizona Senator John McCain’s challenge (when his operatives weren’t involved with a notoriously racist push poll) by standing in front of a huge poster that said “REFORMER WITH RESULTS” but it would only come out later the sad state Texas was in with these “reforms.” This is all part and parcel of a credibility gap as bad — or WORSE — than Richard Nixon’s or Lyndon Johnson’s.

Sullivan by the way wrote a truly superb piece on the meaning of Barack Obama’s candidacy in the Atlantic. His contention is that American politics has been poisoned by the Baby Boomer pro-Vietnam War/anti-Vietnam War wars. Bush & Karl Rove, he contends, threw gas on it rather than try to heal it. Hillary Clinton could accentuate it. Sullivan feels only Obama could defuse it. It’s a brilliant piece of analytical writing, whether you agree with him or not.

FOOTNOTE: I am a baby boomer. The great blogger Citizen Smash (who no longer blogs and has moved onto other things) had dinner with me a few times and we talked about this. He felt the Boomers had sandbagged American policy and debate. And I agree: America will benefit when boomers are no longer in policy-making positions and a new generation — presumably less fettered by ideological baggage and tiresome political polemics — can have more influence and stop fighting wars that raged when Mick Jagger’s face didn’t look like a prune.

THE IPCC HAS ISSUED ANOTHER CLIMATE CHANGE WAKE UP and Buck Naked Politics (an excellent blog) has the details. Here’s a small sample of its post:

But climate change itself is not the only thing we have to worry about. Its so-called “ripple effects” are even now leading to species extinction, a threat to biodiversity, and arguably an even more imminent threat to the continuation of our own species. Will human beings have to learn through the death or near death experience of their own species how incredibly intertwined our lives are with those of other species? According to this article, about half of animal and plant species may be extinct by the end of this century, and the rapid death of so many (largely due to environmental factors).

Read it all.

And, indeed, you can’t help but increasingly conclude that those who pooh-pooh global warming and dismiss environmentalists as “tree huggers” and alarmists do so partially (and perhaps largely) because the feel they must automatically oppose and battle people who disagree with them on other issues. It’s all part of the noisy and tiresome event resembling professional wrestling that now marks our political debate. Some think swaying outrageous things or angrily blasting a person or a group supposedly shows thought. Actually, it basically just shows polemical talent and opposition. Even an angry cat can hiss. There are serious points thoughtful people on both sides can raise but they often get drowned in the ideological bile.

IF HILLARY CLINTON WERE ELECTED, WOULD IT KILL WASHINGTON POST COLUMNIST DAVID BRODER? Jon Swift thinks so. Broder, long considered the quintessential centrist, insider Washington columnist, has come under increasing fire in recent years, particularly by progressives who feel he is anchored into a Washington establishment mind-set. And, to be sure, he does not seem to be a fan of the Clintons.

CNN IS UNDER FIRE FOR HOW IT MANAGED THE DEMOCRATIC DEBATE IN LAS VEGAS. Here’s part of the (read in full) post by Rick Moran:

As media scandals go, the flap over CNN’s use of Hillary-friendly Democratic questioners at last Thursday’s debate probably won’t rise to the level of full scale nuclear annihilation, where the network becomes so radioactive that it disappears from cable never to be seen again.

That might be what it deserves. And if life were fair, the next glimpse we got of Wolf Blitzer on television would be as a weatherman in Minot, North Dakota, wearing stupid hats and sponsoring contests for viewers on how much snow would fall for the month.

But life isn’t fair and multi-billion dollar corporations just don’t up and disappear no matter how seriously they transgress against the trust viewers place in their integrity as journalists. Hence, CNN will continue, albeit with a lot more scrutiny directed its way and a definite loss of credibility that it will have a hard time earning back.

To put it succinctly, CNN blew it. Everything about that Las Vegas debate – from the distribution of tickets, to the choice of moderators and commentators, to the absolute control of questions asked by audience members, to their agreement to pick Democratic operatives as “average voters” to ask questions – stinks of rank partisanship and boosterism for the Democratic front runner Hillary Clinton.

People can (and will) debate Moran’s view (some Democrats won’t agree with him) but one thing IS for certain. The news media more than ever is not only under scrutiny for the product it produces, but how it produces the product. More than than ever, reporters will be praised and slammed and glorified and demonized depending on how side A or B perceives their person was handled.

Part of CNN’s problem is that it was damned if it did, and damned if it didn’t. MSNBC had come under angry fire for how the debate in which Senator Hillary Clinton got into trouble was handled. So some (on the GOP side) waited to see if CNN was equally professional/biased (choose the word that fits your political agenda). Any perceived shift to a tougher or softer tone would spark debate. And it has.

On the other hand, intense scrutiny by the public — even a politically-polarized public — will force the media to really think about its choices and the need to perform in an even-handed and professional manner. Customers peering over a businessman’s shoulder leads to quality control.