At Election Central I noticed a link to this article about how Barack Obama decided to quit smoking over the winter holidays. His wife wants him to quit for the obvious health reasons. Perhaps just as importantly smoking is just bad PR in this day and age. The article linked above in the Trib has some interesting discussion about the negative associations smoking has today. The article quotes a communications studies prof saying smoking “doesn’t go with the social, environmental message of reform he would like to project.”

So, an interesting set of questions about the culture and politics and Obama’s public image. But here’s another question. Aren’t people who are in the early stages of quitting a nicotine habit really irritable and on-edge? And isn’t running for president extremely stressful?

To preempt all the emails about the dangers of smoking and the importance of quitting, I’m certainly not disagreeing. It just made me think that presidential campaigns are usually times when people revert to bad habits (eating, smoking, drinking, etc.) not when they quit them.

Reuters …

The Federal Reserve sent record payouts of more than $4 billion in cash to Baghdad on giant pallets aboard military planes shortly before the United States gave control back to Iraqis, lawmakers said Tuesday.

The money, which had been held by the United States, came from Iraqi oil exports, surplus dollars from the U.N.-run oil-for-food program and frozen assets belonging to the ousted Saddam Hussein regime.

Bills weighing a total of 363 tons were loaded onto military aircraft in the largest cash shipments ever made by the Federal Reserve, said Rep. Henry Waxman, chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

“Who in their right mind would send 363 tons of cash into a war zone? But that’s exactly what our government did,” the California Democrat said during a hearing reviewing possible waste, fraud and abuse of funds in Iraq.

On December 12, 2003, $1.5 billion was shipped to Iraq, initially “the largest pay out of U.S. currency in Fed history,” according to an e-mail cited by committee members.

It was followed by more than $2.4 billion on June 22, 2004, and $1.6 billion three days later. The CPA turned over sovereignty on June 30.

Today’s Must Read: Joe Lieberman: the man, the movie lover, the lorax.

Another US helicopter down just north of Baghdad.

This article in the Washington Post notes that the US military in Iraq has already adjusted procedures for helicopter missions after the four shoot downs over the previous two weeks.

Late Update: Reports say seven killed.

Rudy: For ‘partial birth’ abortion before he was against it.

Study finds that recent federal investigations of Democrats far outnumber investigations of Republicans.

In some respects, I know this is like flogging a dead horse. But here’s another example of why the Washington Times doesn’t operate like a actual newspaper or follow any journalistic standards. You remember last week there was this dust-up over Nancy Pelosi’s use of Air Force jets for travel purposes. After the piece ran in the Times, it came out the Denny Hastert had had just the same use of Air Force jets since 9/11. The difference is that the plane Hastert used won’t fly cross-country without refueling. Here’s the Times at the story again today. It’s basically a rehash. But they again fail to mention this salient point, which more or less exposes the whole story as bogus.

Late Update: I didn’t see this when I first read this story. But buried down deep in the article there is this passage: “Mrs. Pelosi wants a larger aircraft that can fly to her home district of San Francisco nonstop. She also wants to be able to ferry other members of the congressional delegation, family members and her staff.” So, my bad, they did mention it, though it was buried. And of course they included the further claim about wanting to ferry other, a claim for which there appears to be no basis. The general point about the lack of any journalistic ethics or standards at the Washington Times, alas, still very much applies.

The Times has a piece today about how the Pentagon is worried that the ‘surge’ can’t succeed unless other civilian government agencies send their folks in too. Spencer Ackerman talked to a source at the State Department who explains why they’re not eager to head to Baghdad.

Is this really true? Have the two liberal bloggers working on the John Edwards campaign really been fired?

The surge focuses on Baghdad. But, according to the recent National Intelligene Estimate on Iraq, one of the upcoming flashpoints in the war is the multiethnic city of Kirkuk — a city the Kurds are coming closer and closer to controlling.

The Iraqi President’s son, a representative of the Kurds, tells us that the fight over the city is bound to be “messy.”