James O’Keefe tweets that a man from the New Hampshire Attorney General’s Office with the unfortunate name “Richard Head” (I am not making this up!) has demanded O’Keefe’s emails:

Plot thickens. “Richard Head” from NH AGs office sent email letter dated this morning, to person who now has permanent restraining order…

— James O’Keefe(@JamesOKeefeIII) May 16, 2012

Richard Head is the actual name of an actual person at that office. No kidding. Here is his letter to Nadia Naffe:

The date on this email was this morning. Which makes you wonder what kind of coordination is going on here between Naffe, her lawyer, and “Richard Head.”

Keep in mind that, by her own account, Naffe took these emails from O’Keefe without his permission — simply because he happened to use her phone to check his email one day. O’Keefe went to court and won an order preventing her from disseminating these ill-gotten emails. And now, for some strange reason, the New Hampshire Attorney General wants them.

Hmmmmmmmm.

There’s a lot more to this story, including the proof that a certain band of harassers have their fingerprints all over Nadia’s legal shenanigans. But that’s another post for another day.

Let’s just say that there’s more than one Richard Head involved in this story.

P.S. According to O’Keefe’s tweet above, the temporary restraining order that prevented Nadia Naffe from disseminating his emails is now permanent. Which is interesting, because Naffe claimed the complete opposite this morning:

She since protected her tweets, but I got that screenshot before she whisked it away from the general public’s view.

Who is telling the truth? I hope to have a definitive answer to that tomorrow morning — but I think you know which way I’d bet.

[Posted by Karl]

William Galston of Brookings recently published “Six Months to Go: Where the Presidential Contest Stands as the General Election Begins,” which compiles a wealth of polling to paint a fairly gloomy portrait of Pres. Obama’s reelection prospects:

Today, while Obama enjoys about a three-point edge over Romney, his electoral support remains well short of 50 percent. His job approval remains significantly lower than that of the past five incumbents who won their reelection contests and is actually two points lower than Jimmy Carter’s was at this point in 1980. (It is four points higher than George H. W. Bush’s job approval in 1992, however.)

Other yellow lights are flashing as well. One recent survey found that only 46 percent of the people think that Obama deserves to be reelected, versus 49 percent who do not. He receives mediocre grades for his handling of the economy and job creation. Another survey found fully 48 percent of the electorate would “never” vote for Obama, suggesting a ceiling below his 2008 share of the vote. (The corresponding figure for Romney was 46 percent.) And despite some recent improvement, key parts of the Democratic base remain less excited about the 2012 contest than are their Republican counterparts.

Read The Whole Thing, but the vast majority who don’t can get a flavor of it from TIME’s Michael Scherer.

The reactions to Galston’s report seem misguided.  David Brooks wonders why Obama isn’t getting “crushed”, as the “economic climate is as bad as or worse than it was in 1968, 1976, 1992 and 2000, years when incumbent parties lost re-election.”  Brooks concludes that Obama is benefiting from the Emerging Democratic Majority (despite Galston noting the lack of enthusiasm among said Majority) and because the president is just so gosh-darned likeable, what with the creased trousers and all (although the new USAT/Gallup poll is one of several showing Romney’s favorables climbing). (more…)