The following is an excerpt from OpinionJournal.com’s “Best of the Web” written by the editor, James Taranto.

Bottom Stories of the Day

  • “Maryland Heights to Add More Parking at Government Complex”–headline, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Oct. 19
  • “Alaska’s 2nd FM Station Celebrates 50th Birthday”–headline, Associated Press, Oct. 20
  • “Swede Appointed CEO of Volvo Cars”–headline, Göteborg Daily (Gothenberg, Sweden), Oct. 19

News of the Tautological
“Tougher Standards Hurt Graduation Rates for Weaker Students, Michigan Study Finds”–headline, Detroit News, Oct. 22

Driscoll 14, Durbin 0
On yesterday’s “Fox News Sunday,” Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois had this to say about the 9/11 attack in Benghazi:

Look at the situation on the ground immediately afterwards, when the Libyans were demonstrating in the streets in support of the United States. It is a volatile situation. It is always easier the day after to say how you could have won that football game.

This guy is even more tone-deaf than his state’s former junior senator. As Ed Driscoll notes at InstaPundit.com: “For Durbin, the Americans running Gitmo are the equivalent of Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot. In contrast, the terrorist attack in Libya is the equivalent of a football game.”

Frenemy Alert
Bill Clinton is at it again. “This shouldn’t be a race,” the Associated Press quotes him as saying at a Green Bay, Wis., campaign appearance “for” President Obama on Friday. “The only reason it is, is because Americans are impatient on things not made before yesterday and they don’t understand why the economy is not totally hunky-dory again.”

Once again, Clinton undermines Obama. It’s hard to think of a message more likely to alienate the swing or disappointed voters the president needs than to criticize them for being too impatient. Yet if you’re an already-convinced lefty, you probably don’t even notice how bad Clinton’s message is, because you agree with his characterization of the voters!

Meanwhile, the New York Times reported over the weekend that “the United States and Iran have agreed in principle for the first time to one-on-one negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program, according to Obama administration officials”:

Iranian officials have insisted that the talks wait until after the presidential election, a senior administration official said, telling their American counterparts that they want to know with whom they would be negotiating.

News of the agreement–a result of intense, secret exchanges between American and Iranian officials that date almost to the beginning of President Obama’s term–comes at a critical moment in the presidential contest, just two weeks before Election Day and the weekend before the final debate, which is to focus on national security and foreign policy.

It has the potential to help Mr. Obama make the case that he is nearing a diplomatic breakthrough.

The White House, however, denied the report, and, as the Daily Caller notes, the Times edited the online version of its story to include the denial from spokesman Tommy Vietor.

“We’ll go with the New York Times on this one,” observes a Wall Street Journal editorial. “Someone senior clearly was bragging about the one-on-one deal, and probably because the source or sources thought it would help Mr. Obama.”

This column would like to float an alternative theory, with the caveat that it is entirely speculative. Note that the denial came from a named White House source, while the original report came from “Obama administration officials,” otherwise unidentified except that one of them is “senior.”

“Administration officials” includes those outside the White House. The authors of the Times story, Helene Cooper and Mark Landler, are both White House correspondents, but both have also served as diplomatic correspondents, which means they would have sources at the State Department.

The Times report could be understood as signaling that the president is on the verge of a “diplomatic breakthrough,” but it also could be viewed as a sign that Iran is meddling in American politics–and that its rulers, who regard America as “the Great Satan” would prefer to see Obama win. Perhaps the initial story came from Foggy Bottom* and was meant to hurt, not help, Obama.
[*Foggy Bottom = U.S. State Department, run by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who ran against Barack Obama in the 2008 Democratic presidential primary, and might run again in 2016. If President Obama were to lose, it might increase her chances of winning in 2016.]

For more “Best of the Web” click here and look for the “Best of the Web Today” link in the middle column below “Today’s Columnists.”