We’re still intrigued by the news that Cindy McCain once had a license plate that said, “MS BUD.”

Did her loyalty ever get this far?

Probably not.

Most likely, she drew the line after doing this.

Since Hillary Clinton has introduced the memory of Robert F. Kennedy into the presidential campaign, it’s only fitting that we Redskins fans remember him, too.

After all, we are the football fans we’ve been waiting for.

Anheuser-Busch launches the latest phase of its ‘Real Men of Genius’ TV commercials.  This one’s dedicated to MSNBC’s Chris Matthews, host of the Hardball with Chris Matthews Show.

Mr. Really, Really, Really Bad Dancer.

From the Cindy McCain story:

Much of Cindy McCain’s wealth traces to the Anheuser-Busch beer wholesaling company that her father started in 1955. She worked there for 20 years and took over in December 2000. At one point, her personalized license plates read “MS BUD.”

Sure, Cindy McCain is Ms. Bud.  But there’s no truth whatsover that she’s a member of the Budweiser Thirst Patrol.  None whatsover.  Or at least that’s what we assume.

Critics love “Recount” — Sunday night’s HBO movie about the 2000 Florida vote mess.

Tom Shales has an exceptionally glowing review in Sunday’s Washington Post: “… a smashing success on almost every level.”

When critics fawn like that, you have to wonder whether the movie plays it down the middle or shows favoritism.  Shales shows his cards: “The movie is not framed as the story of the noble, virtuous Gore forces being undone by corrupt Bushniks.”

But Jake Tapper has this perspective in Saturday’s Howard Kurtz preview:

Tapper, one of the consultants, says the film is “a fictional version of what happened” and “tilts to the left because it’s generally told from the point of view of the Democrats.”

Tapper was a reporter on the scene in Florida 2000, and wrote an excellent book on what happened there.  His take on the movie is quite instructive.  We’ll be watching on Sunday.

American Idol winner David Cook today consoled the runner-up, Senator Hillary Clinton, who lost by roughly 12 million votes out of 95 million votes cast.

Clinton is disputing the results, however, since the phone systems in both Michigan and Florida failed to register any text messaging votes.

Allow us to plug Mrs. Extreme’s Kids Food Allergies Blog — which deals with public and policy issues surrounding food allergic children based on our experiences with our young daughter — for this provocative post today. Here’s what our far better half writes:

I have never been, and probably will never be, a big Rush Limbaugh fan.

So you can imagine my skepticism in opening this link to his comments today on peanut allergies — fearing what he would say and how his followers would respond.

I was surprised and heartened by his response. According to Limbaugh, this issue is real and can be deadly if not dealt with in time. He highlights one of my deepest fears as a food allergy parent: mean kids using food to bully and harm others.

Contrast Limbaugh’s position on peanut allergies with this article from a steadfastly liberal magazine, Harper’s: “Everyone’s Gone Nuts: The exaggerated threat of food allergies.” Never have I read an article that got the whole food allergy issue so totally and completely wrong.

I usually love Harpers — and cringe at Limbaugh. Here is a case where the exact opposite happened. Seems ironic that the usually libertarian right wants to help us to protect food allergic kids, and the left thinks that this type of protection is excessive and unnecessary. In this case — the left got it wrong, and the right got it right.

So, from this reliable Limbaugh foe: mega dittos to Limbaugh for being so right on this very important issue.

First there was Dana Milbank:

When last we caught up with our heroine, Hillary Clinton’s plight was compared to the Monty Python routine in which a pet-shop owner insists that a dead parrot is still alive. Clinton loyalists disputed the comparison, while some scholars searched the literature and proposed a different Pythonian model: the Black Knight, who valiantly defends his bridge after losing all four of his limbs.

Then, YouTube:

You might have read this in the Post this morning.

But Democratic leaders said they had court precedent and constitutional scholars on their side. “The veto override will have the force of law,” said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).

Pelosi added that her original response upon learning of the mistake had been “uncustomarily crude.”

Then you might have wondered — well, what was that response?

For that answer, you’ll have to check out Jim Mills’ sensational blog in The Hill.  Here’s an excerpt:

Mills on the Hill: What was your immediate reaction when you heard this [the snafu]?
Ms. Pelosi: (After a long period of silence with several interesting facial contortions.) Uncustomarily crude.
[Laughter.]
Mills on the Hill: Excellent.
(Later in same news conference)
Mills on the Hill: Madam Speaker?
Ms. Pelosi: You had one already.
Mills on the Hill: That was a retort.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Pelosi: You got the most information of anybody.
[Laughter.]
I was uncharacteristically candid to you.
Mills on the Hill: You could go all the way around the bases and tell us exactly what you said.
Ms. Pelosi: It wasn’t as bad as you think.
[Laughter.]
Mills on the Hill: What was the first letter?

Mills does reveal the word.  We’ll save that surprise so you’ll click on his story.  But let’s just say, might be time to donate to the Committee to Re-elect Antsy Pelosi.

Joe Biden in today’s Wall Street Journal:

President Nixon didn’t demand that China end military support to the Vietnamese killing Americans before meeting with Mao.

Charles Krauthammer in today’s Washington Post:

Should the president ever meet with enemies? Sometimes, but only after minimal American objectives — i.e., preconditions — have been met. The Shanghai communique was largely written long before Richard Nixon ever touched down in China. Yet Obama thinks Nixon to China confirms the wisdom of his willingness to undertake a worldwide freshman-year tyrants tour.