If you were feeling guilty about following the juicy story of the Los Angeles mayor’s “journalist” girlfriend who reported that the mayor was having an affair but failed to mention that she was his paramour, you can stop feeling guilty. Now.

In a post titled “More Hot Mayoral Sex,” Mickey Kaus explains why political gossip is good for America (emphases in the original):

The lid is off: L.A.’s mayor faces some N.Y. tabloid-style questioning at a news conference. The L.A. Times reporter who didn’t get the story doesn’t know quite what to make of this new state of affairs–I detect a mild sneering tone! Luke Ford sees a “beautiful synchronicity.” … I think Angelenos may be actually getting interested in local politics for once, which will give us better government in the long run. Special interests (e.g., unions, developers) have less power when people are actually paying attention. [What will happen if all the pols in power are no longer womanizers, etc.?--ed Not a serious possibility.] …

The powerful have less power when people are paying attention. And people pay attention when their interest is piqued. One of the things that piques people’s interest is gossipy, tabloid-style “journalism.” Even that is better than their paying no attention at all … which is the alternative.

Long live the people’s interest, and may we find many infotaining ways to pique it!

There’s a full-fledged PR war going on between Fatah and Hamas. Abbas, having been smeared by Hamas with the accusation that his forces were involved in the kidnapping of Alan Johnston (a notion Johnston did little to dispel when he subtly threw his support behind Hamas), is now smearing Hamas with the jihadist label:

In an interview on Monday with the RAI television network of Italy, Mr. Abbas said, “Thanks to the support of Hamas, Al Qaeda is entering Gaza.”

The accusation, which was quickly denied by Hamas, underscored the depth of Mr. Abbas’s hostility toward Hamas

You don’t say!

… k-i-s-s-i-n-g away the Dems’ chances for ‘08.

Moore is demanding an apology from CNN for boosting the war, and Mother Sheehan is threatening to run against Nancy Pelosi.

There’s one person who might approve: Drew Weston, professor of psychology and author of a new book, The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation.

Dr. Westen takes the unlikely position that the Democratic Party should, for the most part, forget about issues, policies, even facts, and instead focus on feelings.

What he calls “the dispassionate view of the mind which has guided Democratic thinking for 40 years” is deeply flawed, Dr. Westen argues. What decides elections, he maintains, are people’s emotional reactions, even if they don’t know it.

This knowledge isn’t new, of course. What’s new is that serious people (besides Frank Luntz, who’s been doing it for years) are advising the Dems to act more like the Republicans and go for the gut. The NYT succinctly if prissily lays out the problem:

Many of Dr. Westen’s indictments of previous Democratic advertisements, speeches and strategies — from the failure to strike back to the mind-numbing lists of statistics to the lack of emotional power — are not new. Yet even those who agree with his analysis may criticize Dr. Westen for using the same kind of manipulative techniques that he takes Republicans to task for.

I don’t hear the critics. They’re being drowned out by Moore and Sheehan, and the leftosphere.