In a classic example of newsmagazine overthink, Time profiles Sarah Palin with a cover story that practically celebrates her thin résumé and essentially makes the case that know-nothingism could be good for America. Seriously:

Palin's unconventional step speaks to an ingrained frontier skepticism of authority — even one's own. Given the plunging credibility of institutions and élites, that's a mood that fits the Palin brand. Résumés ain't what they used to be; they count only with people who trust credentials — a dwindling breed. The mathematics Ph.D.s who dreamed up economy-killing derivatives have pretty impressive résumés. The leaders of congressional committees and executive agencies have decades of experience — at wallowing in red ink, mismanaging economic bubbles and botching covert intelligence.

If ever there has been a time to gamble on a flimsy résumé, ever a time for the ultimate outsider, this might be it. "We have so little trust in the character of the people we elected that most of us wouldn't invite them into our homes for dinner, let alone leave our children alone in their care," writes talk-show host Glenn Beck in his book Glenn Beck's Common Sense, a pox-on-all-their-houses fusillade at Washington. Dashed off in a fever of disillusionment with those in power, Beck's book is selling like vampire lit, with more than 1 million copies in print.

Citing Glenn Beck as proof that many Americans are eager to turn to a pol with little expertise in national policy? But didn't the country just have an election? And didn't a significant majority vote for the guy with two Ivy League degrees who talked about bringing professionalism, science, and expertise back to policymaking in Washington? (Anyone remember Palin's climate change denialism? Not the Time people.)

The Time crew obviously was punching up the subject matter so it could punch up the copy—and sell magazines. One dramatic theme in the piece is that Palin is pure Alaska and that to know her—really know her—you have to know Alaska and the rugged individualism and practical fatalism this far-away land breeds in its denizens:

Palin's breakneck trajectory from rising star to former officeholder — with more twists sure to come — has everything to do with her Alaskan context.

Only to a degree. The sole reason most Americans know anything about Palin is that a fellow from Arizona picked her to be his running mate. Without that, she would still be the answer to a political trivia question. So, obviously, it was the unique and rough-hewn libertarian frontier spirit of the American Southwest, where lone riders settled on arid plains to escape the confining conventions of back-East civilization, that was responsible for Palin's comet-like ascent to public prominence. Or maybe not. Perhaps it was just John McCain's bad judgment.

Without breathlessness and a contrary-for contrary's-sake thesis, Time would not have much to add to all the words spilled and spewed about the Palin pull-out. But give the newsmagazine credit. Through the efforts of five of its talented journalists, Time has managed to craft a more coherent depiction of Palin and her decision to resign than she has herself. So what's her beef with the media?

This was first posted at motherjones.com. You can follow my postings and media appearances via Twitter.

Did Michael Jackson kill the Iranian revolution?

I don't mean that exactly. But the story of the Iranian crisis was subsumed by the mega-media coverage of the pop singer's tragic end. Iran now appears as barely a blip on our collective RSS feed. We've gone from the whole world is watching to much of the world has moved on.

A few data points. First, in recent days there have been few questions at the White House press briefings on Iran. On Wednesday, Fox News correspondent Major Garrett asked press secretary Robert Gibbs what the president thought about the Iranian police's conclusion that the Neda killing was staged y the opposition. Gibbs met that softball with the obvious swing: "shocking." I followed up with what I considered a more substantial query on Iran, asking Gibbs about Mir Hossein Mousavi's statement of that day. Mousavi had called for continuing protests, had declared the government of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad "illegitimate," and had called for the release of detained opposition supporters. Did the president have any reaction, I asked, and has he called for the release of people who have been detained in Iran?

Gibbs said he was unaware if the White House had prepared any comment regarding Mousavi's statement, and he fell back on the usual talking points:

Obviously, David, you've heard the President speak on a number of occasions that the President strongly believes in the right for people to gather in protest without fear or harm or violence.  Obviously there are still a lot of questions that surround the most recent election.  And I think I'll leave it at that.

I've said for weeks that Obama, by and large, has struck the right tone in his remarks about events in Iran. But this response seemed a bit thin. Was it an indication that day to day events in Iran were not looming large within an already quite busy  White House?

On the other side of aisle, let's check in with John McCain's twitter feed, which is followed by over 915,000 people. When I looked at it on Thursday morning, I saw that McCain, who had been calling for more forceful US response on Iran, has not twittered on the subject for a week. But he has twittered about his various media appearances in Arizona during the past week. In twitter-terms, he has left the barricades.

I'll spare you the obvious chest-beating about the ADD of the American public and media. And, of course, the tyrants of Tehran have suppressed media reporting within Iran. No video or pictures--the story fades.

Many analysts who know Iran better than I do have been saying for weeks that given the weak leadership and poor organization of the anti-government movement, the opposition in Iran is in for a long slog. (The Islamic revolution of 1979 took two years to achieve victory.) So don't expect results in the flash of a tweet. Still, the autocrats of Tehran must be saying, "Thank you, Michael Jackson." (Ditto for Governor Mark Sanford.) Today, Americans know far more about the moondancer's will and Neverland  than what's happening--or not--in Iran. And, alas, they care more about it, too.
******
To see a music video of a song by an Iranian pop singer who's been arrested for supporting the opposition, click here.
 
You can follow my postings and media appearances via Twitter.

It's not that often a Washington commentator gets to talk politics and revolution in Iran on television with a famous movie mogul. I was on Hardball with Mike Medavoy, who helped make the Silence of the Lambs, Apocalypse Now, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, Network, Annie Hall, and many other movies and who recently wrote a book on how Hollywood can help promote abroad the positive aspects of American culture. We didn't get to discuss films. But I pointed out that John McCain could not now get away with joking about bombing Iran and poked Dick Cheney for being one of the demagogic politicians misinforming the American public about what will happen to Gitmore detainees once that detention camp is closed.

You can follow my postings and media appearances via Twitter by clicking here.

Jim Pinkerton and I were together again for another Bloggingheads.tv diavlog. We mainly agreed on Iran, with Jim sort of concurring with my assessment that John McCain is "bonkers" for pushing Barack Obama to embrace the Iranian opposition. Nothing would hurt the opposition movement's credibility within Iran--where it counts most--than a big wet-kiss from Washington. We then moved on to health care, with Jim suggesting both Ds and Rs are wrong to preach austerity to the American public when it comes to health care dollars. Perhaps, but I challenged his solution: freeing the health care industry from government regs so it can produce the sort of products and services that can be exported abroad a la McDonald's. Finally, our big topic: whether the remaking of the cheesy 1984 anti-commie movie Red Dawn--high school kids in Colorado beat back Russian and Chinese invaders--is of any cultural significance. Jim: yes and hooray! Me: no and yawn.

Also, at Thursday's White House press briefing, I asked press secretary Robert Gibbs about an earlier McCain tweet, in which the senator again urged Obama to declare an explicit alliance with the Iranian opposition. Here's the exchange:

Q: Thanks, Robert. A question about Iran again. Earlier today, a few hours ago, John McCain, on his Twitter feed, said -- and it's short, as it has to be -- "Mass peaceful demonstrations in Iran today; let's support them and stand up for democracy and freedom!"

MR. GIBBS: Was it that vociferous or are you --

Q : "The President and his administration should do the same." Do you think that it is helpful, or not helpful, for members of Congress to be making declarations like this, and putting pressure on the White House to do and say more?

MR. GIBBS: Again, I'm not going to get involved into commenting on the motivations that other members may have. I know some people agree with what Senator McCain said; some people agree with what other Republicans have said that's very much like the President's position. The President strongly believes that we should and have spoken out to ensure that demonstrators have the universal right and principle to demonstrate without fear of harm. But at the same time, we have to respect their sovereignty.

Gibbs did not use the opportunity to call McCain "bonkers" or anything else. But with a crunch time coming in Iran, we can expect McCain and other Rs to turn up the rhetoric and try to intensify the pressure on Obama. That might be good politics for them, but it's not likely to help the Iranian opposition.

Look at this illustration that accompanied USA Today's story on a new poll on the Republican Party:

Who's missing? Sarah Palin. When Americans were asked who speaks for the Republican Party, the winner was Rush Limbaugh (13 percent). The next four were Dick Cheney, John McCain, Newt Gingrich, and George W. Bush (who was picked by 3 percent). Palin didn't make this list. Responding to this poll, Republican strategist Ed Gillespie told reporter Susan Page, "We cannot be a party of balding white guys." Gillespie, who has a decent crown of hair, ought to check that illustration. Only one of the five is non-balding; only one of five is not white. None are non-male.

In politics, there's always time to fill a vacuum in leadership. Perhaps the more troubling indicator for the GOP is this particular finding in the poll: 33 percent of the GOP respondents said they have an unfavorable view of the Republican Party. When one-third of your own rank-and-file doesn't like you, you're in trouble. (On MSNBC, super-smart analyst Charlie Cook noted that only 4 percent of Democrats are not pleased with their party.)

But does the GOP's disaffected third want the party to go more to the right or to moderate? That's not clear. But two-thirds of the Republicans polled said they yearn for the party to hold the conservative line. (A majority of the wider pool of respondents said the GOP should seek to attract moderates.)

The bottom line: if the POed GOPers crave more conservative red meat, the party can only solidify its base by moving in a direction that will further alienate it from most voters. If those POed GOPers desire a more moderate party, they are at odds with most of their party comrades. Either scenario is bad news for the Republican Party. The party is in a spot where it may not be able to do much on its own to improve its fortunes--other than to wait for economic disaster and/or an overseas crisis that causes voters to become disenchanted with President Obama and Democrats. And that's not a strategy; that's a hope.

You can follow my postings and media appearances via Twitter by clicking here.

For months, I've been waiting for populist rage at the economic collapse and the subsequent bailouts to explode and cause political fallout. In fact last September I thought there was a chance John McCain, looking for a game-changer, would oppose the (first) Wall Street bailout as a conservative populist and reboot and reenergize his campaign. McCain made a few head fakes in that direction, but ultimately he chickened out.

In the months since, politicians on both sides of the aisle have bitched and moaned about Wall Street and the assorted bailouts under way, but no one has truly ignited a populist crusade against those big-money players who have ruined the economy and their pals in Congress. In January, a consultant told me that he had conducted focus groups with Americans of different economic standing, different party affiliations, and different levels of education, and that he had found that few of them were willing to express any anger at either Washington or Wall Street. Many, he noted, had said that perhaps they had spent too much money on things they really didn't need. He was quite surprised by this. No matter how hard he tried to stir up populist resentment--with loaded questions--he couldn't get that sort of a rise of these people.

So where's all the outrage? MSNBC's First Read newsletter has an interesting take on this:

Rage Against The Machine: Anger at Wall Street and at America's financial institutions has been simmering for a while now -- the numerous bailouts, Bernie Madoff, and Jon Stewart vs. CNBC have been just a few examples. But with the news over the weekend that AIG, 80% of which is now owned by the federal government, is awarding millions in bonuses to executives has most likely turned that anger into a furious boil. As the New York Times' Nagourney writes, this populist backlash presents a huge challenge for an Obama administration that might have to hand out additional bailouts to further stabilize the banking industry. ("The biggest risk is that we don't have the political will," Fed chairman Ben Bernanke warned last night on "60 Minutes." "We don't have the commitment to solve this problem, and that we let it just continue.") But the populist rage also might present a bigger challenge to the political party that's more associated with big business, less regulation, and tax cuts for the wealthy. In fact, if there was a time for the Obama administration and Democrats to push to let the Bush tax cuts to expire, to press for the Employee Free Choice Act (or "card check"), or to institute new regulations, this is the time, right? Still, now's a time when everyone in Washington is suddenly going to be channeling his/her inner-populist. Who will have the most credibility doing it? As for the short term, Congress is going to want a pound of flesh (and then some) from AIG. Obama also will discuss AIG during his remarks today.

The White House does have to make a careful calculation. It does not want to end up on the wrong side of a populist wave. And Obama and his aides know this; recall his not-yet-detailed proposal to cap executive compensation and perks. But at the same time, Obama has to fix the system--which means he has to work with the institutions that caused the damage. It's tough to bash and build at the same time. (Obama, no doubt, will be slamming AIG for awarding bonuses to the execs who lead the company to ruin.) The Obama gang has demonstrated that it can thread political needles. But this will continue to be a tough one. Moreover, there will continue to be an opening for Republicans--if any have the spine to go for it.

Talk about an odd couple.

It was only days ago that an irate John McCain took to the Senate floor to chastise President Barack Obama for signaling he would sign the gargantuan spending bill now being considered by Congress that contains a boat-load of earmarks. "Some much for the promise of change," the defeated Republican presidential candidate declared, his voice dripping with anger and sarcasm--and perhaps a touch of bitterness.

On Wednesday morning, though, there was McCain standing elbow-to-elbow with Obama, as the president unveiled a presidential memorandum that will reform government contracting, particularly Pentagon contracting. (A White House fact sheet released in conjunction with Obama's remarks notes that a General Accounting Office study last year of 95 major military programs found costs overruns on 26 percent, totally $295 billion. You can bail out a lot of banks with that kind of dough.) And Obama was praising McCain's efforts to reform military procurement:

I'm so pleased to support the goals of the bipartisan effort on procurement reform that has been led by our own Carl Levin and John McCain in the Senate. They have done extraordinary work trying to push this issue to the forefront. We want to see if we can partner with Senator McCain and Senator Levin to get this done as soon as possible. And thanks to Secretary Gates, some of the reforms that they've talked about are already beginning to take shape. And I've asked him to work with Senators Levin and McCain on developing this legislation as it moves forward,

Obama has played the magnanimty card well. When last month he held the financial responsibility summit at the White House, Obama conducted something of a seminar, calling on the major players in the room and asking for their thoughts. The first person he selected was McCain. And the night before his inauguration, Obama held a bipartisan dinner for McCain. Now, even after McCain kicked Obama in the teeth over earmarks, Obama hailed his past rival as a champion of military procurement reform.

Of course, this is good politics for Obama. Whenever Obama can drape some McCain-ess over an initiative or policy, it will help Obama, as well as indicate that Obama is making good on his vow to encourage bipartisan action in Washington. But plenty of presidents in the past have not been able to resist the temptations of vindictiveness. Obama is indeed showing that he can rise above petty politics. Cynics will say that he's doing so only to serve his own ends. (And, no doubt, some conservatives will be upset with McCain for allowing himself to be used by Obama in any fashion.) But sometime doing what's right politically is the same as doing what's right, period. Obama has demonstrated he can be generous and savvy simultaneously. That's a pretty damn good combination for a politician--and a leader.

Rightwing activists gathered at a Washington hotel this week for the annual Conservative Political Action Conference, where they listened to party leaders bash Barack Obama and George Bush and make excuses for the sad state of both the Republican Party and the conservative movement. Various speakers blamed the liberal media, the spending excesses of the Bush administration and congressional Republicans, and John McCain's lousy performance as a candidate for their movement's woes. What they neglected to do was consider whether the bedrock principles of conservatism--fetishizing the free-market and demonizing government--were no longer operative and out of sync with the present reality. I discussed this on Hardball:

By the way, if you haven't seen it yet, check out this story on how former UN Ambassador John Bolton jokingly suggested at CPAC that a nuclear attack on Chicago would teach Obama a much-needed lesson about national security. And the audience responded with laughter and cheers.

You can follow my postings and media appearances via Twitter by clicking here.

Scene: A Chicago conference room. Two men--one old, one young--sit at a table. Two other men sit in chairs away from the table.

B: It's good of you to come to see me on short notice.

J: Of course, I would.

B: Can I get right to the point?

J: Straight talk? Sure, fire away.

B: It was a tough campaign. But now it's over. And as I said on the campaign trail, I respect all you've done for this country. All you have given and sacrificed. I do. But now it's time to talk about what comes next. For you.

J: (Slightly sarcastic.) Thanks for thinking of me.

B: John, you're not going to have a lot of friends back there. There's Lindsey, Joe and...well, that's about it--

J: You don't have to worry about me--

B: I'm not worrying--

J: And you want to be my friend now?

B: Not your friend. Your partner. Listen, there's a lot we disagree on. But there are several big things we see eye-to-eye on. Guantanamo, torture, global warming, political reform. And I'd like to ask you, what would you now like to accomplish? What legislation would you like to pass? What do you want your legislative legacy to be?

J: Well, I was thinking of a different sort of legacy.

B: I get that. But now you have to ask yourself, what's the McCain Act of 2009 going to be? I'd really like for us to work together. And do something big. Neither of us needs the usual phony rhetoric that comes out of meetings like this. You don't need for me to issue some statement praising you and the spirit of bipartisanship. And I don't need empty words of support from you. That yada-yada-yada won't do us much good. And it especially won't help you back in the Senate where--let's be honest--you're not going to be the most popular guy in the Republican caucus--

J: I think you made that point already.

B: I know. But let's think about what you want to do. Whatever it is, it's not likely you're going to have a lot of support from your fellow Republicans. But if we can find something together, we can make it happen. I've already talked to Harry--

J: You have?

B: And he's all for this.

J: (Slightly sarcastic.) What a prince.

B: John, it's up to you. I am committed to passing the McCain-Whoever Act.

J: Even if it's with Joe?

B: (Sighs) Yes, even if it's with Joe.

J: (Resigned to the logic of the situation.) I see, my friend: keep your friends close, and your enemies closer.

B: No, John, it's putting country first.

J: Yeah, yeah, yeah, I get it: yes we can, right?

B: Actually, yes we can. If you want to.

J: Can we get back to you?

B: (Nodding to one of the other men.) Sure. Have Lindsey call Rahm whenever you want to move ahead.

J: Thanks.

B: Now, do you need a ride anywhere?

J: No, that's okay. Joe's downstairs with the car.

In the aftermath of a decisive defeat, Republicans and conservatives are nursing their wounds and wondering what went wrong. Many have come up with an easy answer: the GOP has drifted from its core principles; consequently, the voters have handed it the pink slip.

But is the drift more to blame than the principles?

Let's look at one example of this argument. Michael Steele, the former Maryland lieutenant governor and an unsuccessful candidate for Senate in 2006, is running to become the new head of the Republican Party. In a statement he released on Thursday, he said,

The Republican Party must present a vision for the future of America that relies on our conservative values and core principles. It is wrong to believe the voters have suddenly become liberal. They have just lost any sense of confidence that the Republican Party holds the answers to their problems. We must face the fact that our party has failed in recent years to live up to our own principles -- we have failed to be 'solutions oriented' in addressing the concerns of all Americans.

Does Steele have it right? Has his party failed to present "solutions" in recent years? Not really. The Republicans have presented plenty of "solutions," but the voters have not cared for them.

What are the two core principles of the Republican Party? Cutting taxes (to ensure a smaller government) and swinging a big stick when it comes to national security. There's also the social issues, such as opposing abortion rights and gay rights. But those lifestyle issues have often been a second-tier matter for many Republican leaders.

It happened. Here's what I posted at MotherJones.com....

So who's a real American now?

With his decisive triumph over Senator John McCain, Senate Barack Obama made obvious history: he is the first black (or biracial) man to win the presidency. But the meaning of his victory--in which Obama splashed blue across previously red states--extends far beyond its racial significance. Obama, a former community organizer and law professor, won the White House as one of the most progressive (or liberal) nominees in the Democratic Party's recent history. Mounting one of the best run presidential bids in decades, Obama tied his support for progressive positions (taxing the wealthy to pay for tax cuts for working Americans, addressing global warming, expanding affordable health insurance, withdrawing troops from Iraq) to calls for cleaning up Washington and for crafting a new type of politics. Charismatic, steady, and confident, he melded substance and style into a winning mix that could be summed up in simple and basic terms: hope and change.

After nearly eight years of George W. Bush's presidency, Obama was the non-Bush: intelligent, curious, thoughtful, deliberate, and competent. His personal narrative--he was the product of an unconventional family and worked his way into the nation's governing class--fueled his campaign narrative. His story was the American Dream v2.0. He was change, at least at skin level. But he also championed the end of Bushism. He had opposed the Iraq war. He had opposed Bush's tax cuts for the rich. He was no advocate of let-'er-rip, free market capitalism or American unilateralism. In policy terms, Obama represents a serious course correction.

And more. In the general election campaign, McCain and his running mate, Sarah Palin, turned the fight for the presidency into a culture clash. They accused Obama of being a socialist. They assailed him for having associated with William Ayers, a former, bomb-throwing Weather Underground radical,who has since become an education expert. Palin indirectly referred to Obama's relationship with the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, who once preached fiery sermons denouncing the United States government for certain policies. On the campaign trail, Palin suggested there were "real" parts of America and fake parts. At campaign events, she promoted a combative, black-helicopter version of conservatism: if you're for government expansion, you're against freedom. During her one debate with Democratic vice presidential nominee Joe Biden, she hinted that if her opponents won the White House there might come a day when kids would ask their grandparents what it had been like to live in a free country. At McCain-Palin rallies, supporters shouted out, "Communist!" and "terrorist!" and "Muslim!" when the Republican candidates referred to Obama. And McCain and Palin hurled the standard charges at Obama: he will raise your taxes and he is weak on national security.

Put it all together and the message was clear: there are two types of Americans. Those who are true Americans--who love their nation and cherish freedom--and those who are not. The other Americans do not put their country first; they blame it first. The other Americans do not believe in opportunity; they want to take what you have and give it to someone else. The other Americans do not care about Joe the Plumber; they are out-of-touch elitists who look down on (and laugh at) hard-working, church-going folks. The other Americans do not get the idea of America. They are not patriots. And it just so happens that the other America is full of blacks, Latinos, gays, lesbians, and non-Christians.

McCain, Palin and their compatriots did what they could to depict Obama as the rebel chief of this other un-American America. (Hillary Clinton helped set up their effort during the primaries by beating the Ayers drum.) Remember the stories of Obama's supposed refusal to wear a flag pin or place his hand over his heart for the Pledge of Allegiance? The emails about Obama being a secret Muslim? The goal was to delegitimize Obama, as well as the Americans who were moved by his biography, his rhetoric, and his ideas. It was back to the 1960s--drawing a harsh line between the squares (the real Americans) and the freaks (those redistribution-loving, terrorist-coddling faux Americans).

It didn't work.

I voted early Tuesday morning. I took my daughters with me. And as I watched them watching me cast a vote, I realized that this election will tell us who the real Americans are--at least for the next four years. Barack Obama and John McCain represent two very different American narratives and two very different constituencies. Having attended rallies for each--including Obama's final campaign rally, which he held in Manassas, Virginia, on Monday night--I remain struck by how different the McCain and Obama crowds look and how different the supporters of each candidate talk and think about the issues, the country, and the world. There are two Americas. And one will win today, and its citizens will have a president who represents their vision of the nation. It's a winner-take-all situation. So those on the losing side will have to contend with frustration, loss, and alienation. (This is my country?) Largely due to the campaign waged by John McCain, this race has been divisive along political-cultural lines. But the returns will show how large the gap is between these two Americas and, more important, which one is ascendant.

I am off to Chicago. Next time I "see" you, we will know.

This time it's personal.

Then again, it was personal in 2004.

In September 2003, I published a book immoderately titled, The Lies of George W. Bush: Mastering the Politics of Deception. Its contention was a simple one: that Bush had gone beyond the normal boundaries of presidential spin in using falsehoods and misrepresentations to skew the public discourse on many fronts: stems cells, global warming, tax policy, and, above all, the invasion of Iraq.

At the time, this was not--in certain circles--a well-received argument. Conservative pundits, pointing to my book and others that came out at the time (Al Franken's Lying Liars, Molly Ivins' Bushwhacked, written with Lou Dubose, and Joe Conason's Big Lies), declared a new phenomenon was at hand: rabid, irrational Bush hatred. MSM commentators, ever looking to reside within the comfortable, above-it-all middle, observed that the left was now mirroring the extreme rhetoric of the Limbaugh-crazy, Coulter-loving right. I noted some examples of this dismissive reax in a recent Mother Jones essay. The New York Times' Matt Bai, citing my book, wrote, "the new leftist screeds seem to solidify a rising political culture of incivility and overstatement." Conservative columnist David Brooks proclaimed that "the core threat to democracy is not in the White House, it's the haters themselves." (Yes, I was more dangerous than George W. Bush.) What few of these commentators of the center and right bothered to do was to evaluate the case I (and the others) had put forward. That is, to confront the facts I had presented. Their aim was to discredit the very idea of anyone going so far as to call the president of the United States a liar. And National Review editor Rich Lowry opined, "I don't think the public is going to buy the idea that [Bush is] a liar."

Lowry got it wrong. By Election Day 2004, polls showed that a slight majority believed that Bush was not honest and trustworthy. Still, Bush managed to best John Kerry in an election that was something of a referendum on Bush's first term. But that election came too early. Had it been held a year later--post-Katrina--any Dem would have thrashed Bush and Cheney at the polls. And now about seven out of ten disapprove of his presidency, and most of the public agrees with the premise that Bush deliberately misled American citizens about WMDs and the threat supposedly posed by Iraq. Bush is heading toward the door widely regarded as a failure: Iraq, Katrina, the financial meltdown. He has become the vanishing president. Hardly seen. Barely relevant.

Bush's style of politics, his policies, his political party--it's all been discredited. Whatever happens in the presidential race, the GOP is poised to take a beating in congressional races. He has led his party to ruin. The battle over the W. story has been won by his critics--at least in the short run. The view that Bush has been a dishonest president and bad for the United States has become the majority position in the United States. If McCain somehow manages to win, it will be in spite of Bush.

Many presidents are elected as reactions to the previous president. George W. Bush's (faux) victory in 2000 was a reaction to the Bill Clinton soap opera. And a Barack Obama triumph would be the natural reaction to the W. years. Obama is the most progressive (or liberal) Democratic nominee since FDR ran for reelection. He is black (or biracial). He is an intellectual. He is no child of privilege. To sum up: he is the opposite of George W. Bush. Not only has Bush started two wars he couldn't finish, presided over a government that lost a major American city, and did little as a financial tsunami hit the nation; he has (I am guessing) created a yearning among many Americans for a non-Bush. And within the realm of conventional U.S. politics, Obama is about as non-Bush as it gets. No wonder Obama has a strong chance of becoming president. He spoke (endlessly) of change; he is an antidote to the Bush presidency.

Sarah Palin calls Barack Obama a socialist. John McCain equates Obama's appearance at a dinner for a Palestinian scholar with hanging out with neo-Nazis. At McCain-Palin campaign rallies, members of the audience call Obama a communist, a Muslim and a terrorist. Is there no doubt that the GOP ticket has the edge on extremism? Do you hear Obama referring to McCain as a war-monger? Do his supporters scream out "fascist" when Obama mentions his opponents?

And the McCain-Palin attacks are particularly hypocritical. McCain is board chair for the International Republican Institute, and the IRI gave nearly $500,000 to a group co-founded by the abovementioned Palestinian scholar, Khalid Rashidi. And Palin spreads the wealth of Alaska by sharing with every state citizen a slice of the state's oil revenue.

But for McCain and Palin, facts--as Ronald Reagan once said--are stupid things.

This has been a rough and tough campaign, but the dirtiest plays have come from the McCain side. On MSNBC this week [correction: it was CNN], McCain aide Michael Goldfarb pointed to Obama's association with Rashidi to claim Obama pals around with anti-Semites. (Rashidi is no anti-Semite.) This was a low moment of the campaign, but because it came late in the game, amid so much last-week hurly-burly, it received not much attention. But it was a good indicator of the McCain strategy: throw mud, see what sticks.

The McCain camp has shown a disregard for facts that extends beyond the S.O.P. of political campaigns. It has tried to deligitimize Obama and his supporters. Palin notes that only certain parts of the country contain "real Americans." A top McCain aide dismissed northern Virginia--where Obama is strong--as not being "real" Virginia.

McCain and his gang have tried to whip up fear and division and exploit both. If he gets whipped on Tuesday, it will be bad news for others who would practice the politics of hate.

I've listened to Sarah Palin several times in the past few days. (It's my job--what I get the big bucks to do.) And as she whips up the crowds that come to her rallies, her biggest argument against Barack Obama is that he WILL RAISE YOUR TAXES. Did you get that? Oh, you missed the nuance. HE WILL RAISE YOUR TAXES. And her case is built on two facts. But they are not facts--or not full facts. And though these attacks have been debunked repeatedly by mainstream media factcheckers, Palin and John McCain keep using them. Call me naive, but I still find it surprising that they believe they can get away with such serial misrepresenting (or lying). So for the last time--I hope--let's look at these two claims.

Claim 1: Obama voted to raise taxes on people making as less as $42,000.

Here's how Factcheck.org evaluated that charge:

So Sarah Palin is a "brainiac." That's what Elaine Lafferty proclaims. And the reason her proclamation is the least bit interesting is that Lafferty is a Democrat and the former editor-in-chief of Ms. magazine, the feminist journal. In a piece she posted yesterday, she notes she has "worked as a consultant with the McCain campaign since shortly after Palin's nomination" and has traveled with Palin on her "cramped" campaign plane.

I have no idea how a onetime feminist activist, a former journalist, and a present Democrat came to be working for an antiabortion, media-blasting Republican vice presidential candidate. But Lafferty wants us to know that Palin possesses "a mind that is thoughtful, curious, with a discernible pattern of associative thinking and insight. Palin asks questions, and probes linkages and logic that bring to mind a quirky law professor I once had."

This is troubling. Why? Because I had assumed that some of the idiotic and false statements Palin had made on the campaign trail were due to a certain amount of ignorance on her part. If she is as smart as Lafferty says, then she would be more dangerous if elected. No intelligent person would say some of the following things, unless she was purposefully trying to fool people.

* To boost her foreign policy cred, Palin said "you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska," and she maintained that she had experience dealing with trade delegations, presumably those from Russia. But according to her calendars, she never met with a Russian official and rarely met with any foreign officials to discuss trade or anything else.

* Palin repeatedly said she opposed the Bridge to Nowhere--even though many news organizations reported she had been a supporter of the project before Congress soured on the project. Why would an intelligent person keep repeating the same mistake?

* Palin said Barack Obama has been "palling around with terrorists"--using the present tense and the plural to hype Obama's past casual association with just one ex-radical. Her intelligence certainly did not motivate her to be precise.

This is rich. Today, while campaigning in Florida, John McCain declared that Barack will say "anything to get elected."

I read this as a cry for help. A quick run-down of McCain self-contradictions and say-anything moments:

* McCain initially opposed the George W. Bush tax cuts, claiming they gave too much to the rich. Now, when Obama wants to reverse those tax cuts, the McCain campaign brands it socialism.

* McCain attacked robocall attacks in 2000. Now he perpetuates them.

* McCain said he doesn't care about a "washed-up terrorist"--meaning Bill Ayers--but he still makes Obama's past association with Ayers a key part of is campaign. (See the robocalls.) And Sarah Palin accused Obama of palling around with terrorists, using the plural form of the word. Putting Ayers aside, name another one.

* In an interview NBC is promoting today, McCain dismisses the elites who hang out at Georgetown cocktail parties. McCain has been a participant in many such gatherings over his decades in Washington.

* McCain stood by a campaign ad saying that Barack Obama pushed for teaching "comprehensive sex education" to kindergartners Obama did not.

* The McCain campaign claimed that Obama's use of the old lipstick-on-a-pig cliche was a direct, misogynistic swipe at Palin. It was not.

* McCain has insisted that Obama, if elected, would push everyone into a government-run health care system. That ain't true.

* McCain said he would skip the first debate unless a Wall Street bailout deal was reached. You know how that turned out.

You know that old joke: there are two types of people in the world--those who divide the world into two types of people, and those who don't. Well, in previous weeks, I've been dividing Republicans and conservatives I know between two types: those willing to acknowledge (even if only privately) that Sarah Palin was not--shall we say--the best pick John McCain could have made, and those who claim she is indeed qualified and will be a fine veep and a capable (should it come to that) president. My rough survey of the Rs and conservatives I have encountered on the street, at political events, and in green rooms at TV studios is that about one half to two-thirds will admit they believe is that Palin is either a misguided error on McCain's part that can be overcome or an act of blatant misjudgment that has led to a freakin' disaster.

When McCain announced her selection it did seem possible the choice would help his campaign. And his campaign did not appear to mind all the attention she drew. But in my recollection, I cannot recall a veep candidate who has so dominated the post-convention story of the election. Not even Dan Quayle. And in Palin's case, the news keeps getting worse. A new NBC/Wall Street Journal poll finds that 55 percent of registered voters believe she's not qualified to serve as president. That's up 5 percent from its last poll--suggesting that the more people see of Palin the less they are impressed. And her negative approval rating for the first time exceeds her positive approval rating, 47 percent versus 38 percent. Moreover, voters told these pollsters that McCain's selection of Palin was their top concern about McCain's candidacy.

The latest neocon to turn tail on John McCain is Kenneth Adelman, a former foreign policy official in the Reagan administration. Adelman is most famous--or infamous--for having predicted in February 2002, 13 months before the invasion of Iraq, that "demolishing Hussein's military power and liberating Iraq would be a cakewalk." Explaining his decision to vote for Obama, Adelman recently told The New Yorker:

"When the economic crisis broke, I found John McCain bouncing all over the place. In those first few crisis days, he was impetuous, inconsistent, and imprudent; ending up just plain weird. Having worked with Ronald Reagan for seven years, and been with him in his critical three summits with Gorbachev, I've concluded that that's no way a president can act under pressure."

And he said of the Sarah Palin pick:

"That decision showed appalling lack of judgment. Not only is Sarah Palin not close to being acceptable in high office -- I would not have hired her for even a mid-level post in the arms-control agency. But that selection contradicted McCain's main two, and best two, themes for his campaign -- Country First, and experience counts. Neither can he credibly claim, post-Palin pick."

He sounds so reasonable, right? But I remember the days when Adelman sounded more like the mad McCainiacs I recently encountered at a McCain rally. In fact, I once wrote about Adelman's use of extremist rhetoric, and that kept him from obtaining a spot on the board of a prominent Washington advocacy group.

From a Nation magazine column (not on-line) I penned in 1988:

It's official: John McCain has exhumed the body of Lee Atwater and breathed life into it.

Atwater was Karl Rove before Rove was Rove. (Actually, he was a mentor for Rove.) As the GOP's top strategist in the 1980s, Atwater--accused often of relying on unethical and dirty tricks--perfected the mean and nasty politics of resentment and, thus, helped elect George H.W. Bush president.

One of McCain's latest ads would make Atwater proud. The main line of the ad, which features Joe the Plumber, is this:

Obama raises taxes on seniors, hard working families to give "welfare" to those who pay none.

At Wednesday night's debate, McCain accused Obama of engaging in class warfare. But this is real, diehard class warfare, with McCain trying to persuade middle-income Americans that Obama will take money away from them to dole out to those on welfare. You can do the racial math yourself.

Here's my take on the final McCain-Obama duel, first posted at MotherJones.com....

A political campaign can be like a rock slide. At some point, it's just going to continue in the direction it's heading--and not much can stop it. After the final debate between Senator Barack Obama and Senator John McCain, it may well be that the 2008 presidential contest has reached not the tipping point, but that rock slide point. This is not a prediction of a pro-Obama avalanche on November 4--though that's a possibility. It's merely an observation that the campaign may be done in the sense that there are no major inputs to come (barring a bolt-from-the-blue event) that will affect the final tally. Polls will show that there are still some undecided voters out there. (Who are these people?) But whatever's going to determine this election--economic concerns, a desire for change, racism, you name it--is probably already in place, and the candidates may not be able to alter this, at least not in a proactive manner. Certainly, at any time, either can turn the race upside down by saying or doing something particularly dopey.

Neither got dopey on Wednesday night. McCain even had his best (or his least unsuccessful) debate performance, but it was no--damn, I hate this cliché--game changer. McCain was more aggressive than in the previous face-offs, and he finally dared to challenge Barack Obama directly on the--drum roll, please--Bill Ayers Question. But there was this: viewers watching McCain's reaction shots during the evening could have easily wondered if the Republican presidential nominee would make it to the finish without his head exploding, for he seemed to be in the midst of an exercise in anger control.

Prior to the debate, there was much chatter about whether McCain would play the Ayers card. Judging from video of his recent rallies, it appeared that his base was demanding blood on this front. But polls indicated that these sorts of attacks have been hurting McCain with in-the-middle voters. So he faced a tough decision: ignore Ayers and upset the diehards or accuse Obama of being a pal of a domestic terrorist and alienate the indies.

McCain and his strategists came up with a hybrid approach: take a shot on the Ayers front and combine it with a traditional political assault. "I don't care about an old washed-up terrorist," McCain huffed, but then he went on to say, "we need to know the full extent of that relationship." Huh? If you don't care about Ayers, why do you care about the relationship? And why repeat the false claim that Obama launched his first political campaign within Ayer's living room?

This was essentially McCain's love letter to the GOP base. ("Now get off my case, okay?") More important, he attached it to his true attack of the night: Obama will raise your taxes. After quickly running through his Ayers index cards, McCain noted, "My campaign is about getting this economy back on track...I'm not going to raise taxes the way Senator Obama wants to raise taxes." In what was probably the last big moment of the campaign before Election Day, McCain offered this meta-argument: Obama is a liberal tax-and-spend Democrat, and I'm a conservative. (He left off the Republican part.)

Repeatedly, McCain accused Obama of wanting to throw money at problems and of yearning to raise taxes. When Obama maintained he would give tax breaks to the bottom 95 percent--and more tax relief than McCain would to this large slice of the American public--McCain replied: hey, this guy wants to raise taxes. And, by the way, he wants to spend your money.

Remember when Bill Clinton in 1996 pronounced "the era of big government is over"? Liberals were incensed that a Democratic president would bolstered Conservative Talking Point No. 1 and would accept the fundamental tenet of Reaganism.

Well, it turned out Clinton was sure wrong about that. Today, Big Government is on the march, with a Republican administration spending hundreds of billions of dollars to bail out Wall Street and to partially nationalize banks. So while we wait for the final presidential debate of 2008, here's a question to ponder: is Reaganism dead? Short answer: you betcha. From Bloomberg:

Crunch time for McCain? Perhaps--for on Wednesday night at his final debate with Barack Obama, John McCain has a do-or-die decision to make. To Atwater or not to Atwater--that is the question. (If you're too young to get the Atwater reference, look it up.) And whatever his answer is, McCain is poised to disappoint--perhaps alienate--one of two crucial blocs of voters.

The Republican party's base wants blood. They cannot believe that a former community activist (read: Socialist!) with barely a moment's experience in Washington who is a secret Muslim and quasi-Black Panther is close to the presidency. For them, the association game--tying Obama to former, bomb-throwing radical Bill Ayers and extreme-rhetoric-hurling Jeremiah Wright--ought to be a fundamental part of the McCain campaign, for these connections reveal the real Obama. Obama, they contend, is fooling the voting public by coming across as a mainstream, composed, confident politician who reasonably talks of consensus-building and change. In their view, he is both the embodiment of the evils of the 1960s and Islamofascism. A sleeper agent. A Manchurian candidate from Mecca. But he is so skilled at keeping his true loyalties covert, he can only be exposed via his ties to Ayers and Wright. This is not guilt by association or the petty politics of personal destruction. It's the key to decoding Obama. Its what must be done so the Republic does not fall into the hands of an internal enemy.

And it was only a few days ago that McCain and Sarah Palin were on the Ayers trail. She accused Obama of "palling" around with domestic terrorists. (She used the plural.) McCain promised a supporter he would raise this connection at the final debate.

But recent polling has indicated that McCain's attacks on Obama have lost him support among voters. More voters see McCain as the more negative of the two candidates and less concerned with issues than Obama. McCain's assaults are simply not working--especially when tethered to McCain's erratic moves regarding the economic crisis. So if he goes all Ayers (or Wright) on Obama, he faces a real risk: pissing off indie and uncommitted voters. But, then, if he holds his fire on this front, he will anger the die-hard conservatives who want to see him pummel Obama and expose the true Obama to the entire world.

John McCain offers his newest lurch today.

In a speech he is scheduled to give in Virginia Beach on Monday, McCain says 17 times that he will fight for America, according to his prepared remarks. He repeatedly calls himself a "fighter." And he's an experienced fighter who won't--like you know who--have to study up on issues before making command decisions.

Over and over in this new stump speech, McCain says he is ready to fight--for the country, for change, for a new direction, for the future, for the children, for justice for all. Seriously.

Times are tough, McCain notes, but America is worth fighting. It needs a fighter like John McCain, who is a real fighter who has always been a fighter for America.

In other words, vote for the fight guy. Here's how the speech ends:

The other day a Republican strategist shared an intriguing anecdote with me. Several years ago, he said, he was talking to Steve Schmidt, who now is the day-to-day manager of John McCain's campaign, and Schmidt said that he hated McCain to such an extent that he would vote for Hillary Clinton instead of McCain if such a choice ever presented itself. "He really said that?" I asked my source. "Beer was involved," this source replied.

These days, Schmidt, who was a senior operative for the Bush-Cheney 2004 campaign, is responsible for getting McCain elected to the White House. No wonder there are problems in McCainland. I'm not suggesting that Schmidt is sabotaging the McCain campaign from the inside. He's a fierce political pro who cares mightily about getting another notch. He doesn't want to be burdened with a loss. But this tale underscores a fundamental reason for McCain's up-to-now failure. His campaign is being run by traditional Republican ops who are using the traditional Republican playbook which relies on the good ol' political tradition of hate-mongering. Which is not how McCain ran for the presidency in 2000.

Many of the folks in charge of the McCain campaign don't really care that much for him. Worse, they are treating McCain as a generic Republican candidate--smothering whatever once was special about him. And McCain has allowed this to happen. He has emasculated himself.

Look at those recent McCain rallies. His supporters are shouting "terrorist" when McCain mentions his opponent. And does McCain chastise them for doing so? No. In fact, he has been pushing the Obama-hangs-with-terrorists theme. Sarah Palin did so explicitly a few days ago by accusing Obama of "paling" around with terrorists--note the plural--a reference to Obama's past association with William Ayers, a former Weather Underground member who became a much-respected education expert. And on Thursday, McCain promised an angry supporter at a rally that he would bring up the Ayers link at the next debate. (Kudos to Joe Biden who, at a Thursday rally, slammed McCain for not having the guts to have done so to Obama's face at Tuesday nights' night. Nice touch: Biden took off his coat as he challenged McCain, noting that in Biden's old neighborhood if you had something to say about a guy, you said it straight to him. It looked as if Biden was preparing for a street brawl.)

My take on the second debate, first posted at MotherJones.com....

Last Thursday, during a McCain campaign town hall meeting in Denver, one participant stood up and challenged the GOP presidential candidate: "When are you going to take the gloves off?" His fellow McCain supporters in the downtown hotel roared with approval. "How about Tuesday night?" John McCain replied, referring to his second debate with Obama.

How about not? The McCain campaign in recent days has pumped up its effort to delegitimize Barack Obama, with its top strategist apparently calculating that McCain cannot vanquish Obama if the election is about issues. At a recent rally in a California suburb, GOP vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin declared "Our opponent...is someone who sees America, it seems, as being so imperfect, imperfect enough, that he's palling around with terrorists who would target their own country." (This was a reference to Obama's past association with Bill Ayers, the former Weather Underground radical who became an education expert). And on Monday, McCain delivered a blistering attack on Obama that was loaded with inaccuracies and distortions. So one expectation among the politerati was that McCain would continue swinging--or thrashing--at the second debate. Work in Bill Ayers. Refer to Jeremiah Wright. Depict Obama as shifty and untrustworthy.

That did not happen. McCain, trailing Obama in the polls, mainly trained his fire on policy matters. He did continue to hurl misrepresentations at Obama. (As the debate proceeded, I received 40 emails from the Obama campaign making this point.) For instance, McCain once again claimed that Obama has voted 94 times to raise taxes, a charge that has been widely debunked by various factchecking outfits. But there was no frontal assault on Obama's character--and only one or two slight digs on his qualifications. The debate was more high-minded than anticipated. But it demonstrated a tough reality for McCain: he is out of sync with his own campaign. He cannot pull the trigger, when his advisers seem to believe a machine gun blast is needed.

Obama and his campaign are fully integrated. He calls for a break from the past eight years on both domestic and foreign fronts and famously urges fundamental change. As a new face--and a black man--he sure does represent change. He is his message. And his campaign for over a year and a half has not had to go through any strategic lurches or had to reconfigure either its candidate or its core pitch. That's not true on the McCain side. His campaign has been nothing but lurches. And the most recent one--a turn toward even more negative campaigning--undercuts his old and now practically worn-out reputation as a straight-talking maverick. So come Debate II, McCain was confronting a tough choice: damned if he does (go negative) and stalled if he doesn't.

Deciding to forego the nasty stuff, McCain relied on policy differences to hammer Obama. The problem: Obama's policy prescriptions are not unpopular.

I don't often make political predictions. But I will issues this one: the presidential debate on Tuesday night will show if John McCain has any soul left.

I admit it: I used to be one of those liberal reporters/saps in Washington who fancied McCain in the late 1990s and during his 2000 presidential run. In those days, he was about as enjoyable as a senator came--and about as publicly candid. And it was fun to watch him poke the GOP in the eye on campaign finance reform and tobacco. It's not as if I believed he was worth voting for in a general election; he was still archly conservative in important ways. But he was indeed a different type of Republican and provided entertaining company in the Green Room or on the campaign trail.

Those days are long gone. McCain leveraged his soul at the end of the 2000 campaign at the GOP convention, when he gave a speech sucking up to George W. Bush, whose campaign had maligned him viciously during the primaries. It was as if a switch was flipped, and McCain realized his only true path to greater power was to make nice (generally) with the Republican establishment and the GOP base. It was a calculation with some logic to it, as 2008 proved. But it meant he had to jettison his best parts.

So we're left today with a fellow who still appears to believe he is a straight-talking maverick--when he is actually just another pol who will say practically anything to get elected and who has turned his campaign over to the sort of whatever-it-takes political operatives he once derided.

Look at his speech from Monday. It was chockfull of misrepresentations that are hard not to call lies. From The New York Times' analysis:

The McCain campaign is naked.

The news is out that the McCainiacs do not believe they can win a fair fight against Barack Obama. Their strategy: slime him. And here's how it works. This past weekend, Obama blasted McCain's health care proposal, which relies on tax credits. He called it "radical." And the McCain camp was outraged at Obama's use of the R-word.

But rather than do battle on policy grounds, the campaign issued a statement slamming Obama for having once served on a board with Bill Ayres, a former Weather Underground bomb-thrower who gave up his radical ways and became a respected education expert:

On a day when new reports have surfaced about Barack Obama's long association with a domestic terrorist, our Democratic opponent had the audacity to call John McCain's health care plan "radical." The American people know radical when they hear it, and John McCain is not the candidate in this election they should be concerned about.

It seems that whenever Obama criticizes McCain's policies, McCain's response will be, "Bill Ayres, Bill Ayres, Bill Ayres." Or, I suppose, it might shift to "Jeremiah Wright, Jeremiah Wright, Jeremiah Wright." I wonder how McCain is going to follow this strategy in the debate on Tuesday night. His running mate, Sarah Palin, looked quasi-foolish trying to change the subject so many times during her face-off with Joe Biden. If McCain is asked about the fact that Obama's tax proposal offers more tax cuts to the bottom 99 percent of taxpayers than his own, will he say, "That's just the sort of plan that a pal of Bill Ayres would propose. And let me tell you about Bill Ayres...."?

Meanwhile, let's pretend that reality matters. McCain's health care proposal is "radical." Or so suggests Jane Bryant Quinn, the not-at-all-radical economics writer for Newsweek. She writes:

My favorite campaign spin of recent days comes from conservatives who fancy Sarah Palin. Much of the reality-based world--which even includes a few conservative commentators, such as George Will, David Brooks, Kathleen Parker, and David Frum--has rendered a verdict on Palin: she's not up to the job. Many voters seem to agree. McCain's post-Palin bounce is gone. Her approval rating in Alaska has dropped.

Blame Palin's fall on Katie Couric--if not Palin herself? No, declares a group of Palin fans on the right: blame it on the Bushies. That is, McCain campaign operatives--most of whom are veterans of the past Bush campaigns--who supposedly are not letting Sarah be Sarah. Here's Bill Kristol:

McCain needs to liberate his running mate from the former Bush aides brought in to handle her -- aides who seem to have succeeded in importing to the Palin campaign the trademark defensive crouch of the Bush White House. McCain picked Sarah Palin in part because she's a talented politician and communicator. He needs to free her to use her political talents and to communicate in her own voice.

I'm told McCain recently expressed unhappiness with his staff's handling of Palin. On Sunday he dispatched his top aides Steve Schmidt and Rick Davis to join Palin in Philadelphia. They're supposed to liberate Palin to go on the offensive as a combative conservative in the vice-presidential debate on Thursday.

Apparently Kristol believes that Palin's "political talents" can trump--or distract voters from--her lack of experience and knowledge (as she demonstrated with Couric). Shouldn't he loose his Official Public Intellectual Card for putting rhetoric ahead of substance?

Then there's Richard Viguerie, chairman of ConservativeHQ.com and a longtime strategist for the conservative movement. He's released a statement chiding McCain:

He must free Sarah Palin to go after Barack Obama and the liberal Democrats, or he will almost certainly lose.

The McCain campaign has put this 'pit bull with lipstick' on a leash. The campaign has surrounded her with people from the Bush administration. And as we can see from the wreckage of the Bush presidencies, these folks don't have the slightest clue how to make a case to the American people.

McCain has to get rid of these Bush people around Palin, along with the lobbyists and the folks from the Washington PR firms, and replace them with principled conservatives who have experience making the case for conservatism.

If only more conservatives would lobby the McCain camp to set Sarah free. And if only the McCain camp would listen. I'd like to see an unhandled Palin. (So would Tina Fey.)

No doubt, Palin is a talented campaigner. That's been proven in the past few weeks when she appears at rallies. But she cannot handle basic questions. This no surprise--especially since she cannot name a single magazine or newspaper she reads regularly. (Not the Weekly Standard?) Palin has not spent much time in her life pondering such matters as foreign policy or economic national policy. That's the reality, and a month's worth of cramming is not going to change that and get her up to speed. The public witnessed the real Palin in the Couric interview.

Kristol and Viguerie seem to think that Palin can hide her ignorance behind slashing attacks on Democrats and liberals. But it may be too late for such a strategy of obfuscation.

The below item was posted shortly before the House voted against the $700 billion Big Finance bailout 228 to 225. Ninety-five Democrats joined 133 Republicans to bring down the bill. And Representative Brad Sherman was one of those Democrats.....

For my money, the $700 billion bailout plan is being rushed through Congress with too much haste. There's been little debate of the plan's basics and not much consideration of alternative approaches to the administration's preferred choice: buying up the bad paper of Big Finance firms that screwed up royally. Yet few in Washington--including John McCain and Barack Obama--want to go out on a limb. Any politician who stands up to Wall Street and opposes this thing has to fear being blamed should the plan not go through and the financial meltdown worsen. In politics, there's safety in numbers. So if everyone jumps aboard and this plan doesn't work out, nobody stands to lose politically. It's the safe political play: get on the train with everyone else.

But there are some legislators who are saying, slow down. House Republicans tried to put on the brakes last week. But their alternative--cut taxes--was a non sequitur. On the Democratic side, Representative Brad Sherman has pulled together a Skeptics Caucus. He drew 30 or so House Democrats to meetings on the weekend. Not enough to block the Paulson Express. But not an insignificant number. And Sherman released a memo detailing his objections to the bailout.

Since there's not much media coverage of the Slow-Down crowd, allow me--as a public service--to post the full document right here, The taxpayers need more, not less, of a debate, before allowing the Bush Administration to start a $700 billion spree.

From Rep. Sherman:

A review of the first Obama-McCain debate, originally posted at Mother Jones....

No memorable exchanges. No historic zingers. No gotchas. The much-anticipated first face-off between Barack Obama and John McCain resolved little. Neither candidate strayed from their usual briefing books. The talking points were recycled. McCain blasted Obama for being a rookie in the ways of national security. Obama questioned McCain's judgment, notably his initial support for the Iraq war.

They both played it safe. Especially when it came to the hot topic of the night: the $700 billion bailout plan for Wall Street. It was no surprise that moderator Jim Lehrer would lead off with the issue, even though the focus of this debate was supposed to be foreign policy. And in his first question, Lehrer asked each candidate to state where he stands on the "financial recovery plan." Neither would get specific. Obama cited the need to move "swiftly" and "wisely." He called for effective oversight of the plan, taxpayer protections, and guarantees the money spent would not reach the pockets of CEOs. He pointed to the current meltdown as evidence of the failure of economic policies supported these past eight years by George W. Bush and McCain. It was standard fare.

McCain noted he was heartened by the bipartisan negotiations under way in Washington. He, too, cited the need for accountability. He mentioned the possibility of adding a provision to the package that would allow the federal government to offer loans to troubled institutions rather than buy their bad paper. Neither one, though, fully endorsed the plan--or raised any objections. Asked if he would vote for it, McCain said, "I hope so." It was a strong signal he would not be mounting any from-the-right populist crusade against the proposal.

But each candidate exploited the bailout queries. Obama tried to tie McCain to Bushonomics. McCain hailed his own efforts to curtail pork-barrel spending on Capitol Hill. Obama slapped him for focusing on $18 billion in earmarks while supporting $300 billion in tax breaks for corporations and wealthy individuals. McCain accused Obama of being a tax-hiker. Obama countered--correctly--that his tax plan provides far more relief for taxpayers making less than $250,000 a year than does McCain's proposal.

It was as if they were eager to talk about any economic issue other than the details of a gargantuan bailout that may or may not work and that may or may not be popular come Election Day.

On foreign policy, the candidates dished out the expected lines. McCain touted the surge in Iraq and slammed Obama for having ever doubted the wisdom of the wonderful General David Petraeus. Asked for the lesson of Iraq, McCain said, rather inelegantly, "You cannot have a failed strategy that will then cause you to nearly lose a conflict." Obama assailed McCain for supporting Bush's grand distraction and having failed to recognize that the job in Afghanistan ought to have been finished first. He connected the ongoing Iraq war bill--$10 billion a month--to the nation's current economic woes.

On Iran, McCain derided Obama for wanting to hold talks with President Ahmadinejad (whose name he mispronounced a few times before getting it right), claiming such a move would practically send a signal that the United States approves of a second Holocaust. Obama defended his policy of engagement, noting that there were other Iranians to speak to besides Ahmadinejad and that the Bush administration has recently broadened its diplomatic approach when it comes to the ol' Axis of Evil. McCain claimed Obama had been indecisive at first in reacting to the conflict in Georgia. Obama echoed McCain's tough stance against Russia, but cautioned that the United States could not revive a Cold War approach because it still has to deal with Russia on the pressing matter of loose nukes.

In talking policy, both men came across as knowledgeable. McCain truly perked up when he got the chance to discuss the strategic importance (as he sees it) of the Caucasus region. Obama demonstrated confidence in his ability to challenge McCain on the strategic importance of the Iraq war. But, indubitably, many viewers of the debate would score these exchanges in accordance with their preexisting opinions of the two candidates. As for those knotty undecideds, there was no specific assertion that an analyst could point to and say, "This is going to stir them."

Once the debate ended, the television commentators immediately tried to assess the impression each conveyed. McCain did come across as somewhat condescending. He barely looked at Obama and almost seemed annoyed to have to be talking foreign policy with that other guy. He tried to put Obama down by charging that Obama did not know the difference between a tactic and a strategy. He slapped him for not supporting funding for the troops. (Obama voted against an Iraq war funding bill that did not have a timetable for withdrawal--just as McCain voted against a funding bill that did.) And McCain sent one straight shot at Obama, saying, "I don't believe that Senator Obama has the knowledge or the experience" to be commander in chief.

That was no knockout punch. And Obama kept his now-famous cool. He did not swing too hard at McCain. Several times during the debate, Obama said that McCain was "absolutely right" about the point under discussion. Obama did question McCain's temperament, noting that McCain had threatened extinction for North Korea and had once jokingly sung a song about bombing Iran. But McCain, in response, pointed to his opposition to Ronald Reagan's deployment of Marines in Lebanon as proof he can be trusted to make prudent decisions about war. (That is, he's no warmonger.) McCain noted he wears a bracelet honoring a U.S. soldier killed in Iraq as a reminder of his pledge to that soldier's mother to do all he can to insure her son's death was not for naught. Obama replied that he, too, wears a bracelet--given to him by the mother of another fallen soldier who asked him to make sure no other parent loses a son in vain. He was calm; McCain was pugnacious. How that plays is hard to assess. It's truly a matter of taste.

There was much buildup for this debate. For weeks, members of the politerati looked forward to it as a defining moment in the campaign. The big question: would Obama be able to display commander-in-chief cred? Then McCain's shenanigans--pulling out, jumping back in--added to the drama. The big question: would he be prepared? And would Obama be able to take advantage of the last-minute shift to economic matters? But the debate ended up a straightforward affair, with no twists, no turns. Commentators could score it any way they wanted. Obama held his own on national security affairs, so give him the nod. McCain did the same on economic matters, so maybe he won over the 27 American voters who have yet to decide. You can look at it this way: given that Obama has been ahead in the recent polls, McCain lost by failing to beat him to a bloody pulp. Or this way: McCain survived what many analysts considered to be a bad week for him.

In any event, it's on to the next main attraction: the Biden-Palin duel on Thursday. Then there will be two more Obama-McCain debates. But who knows what other crises will hit between now and November 4 that will force the candidates to react to the real world? In fact, this past week demonstrates that the candidates' responses to events beyond their control may be more important in determining the outcome of this election than the debates. Fancy that: reality trumping political theater. It happened this past week. And in the next six weeks, it could do so again.

Once McCain said game on, I posted this item:

We must meet as Americans, not as Democrats or Republicans, and we must meet until this crisis is resolved," John McCain said on Wednesday, explaining his decision to suspend his campaign and not participate in the first presidential debate. A McCain aide told Reuters, "If the package is reached and the country is saved, there will be a debate. But if there's no deal, how can you get on a plane...for a debate?"

On Friday morning, McCain's campaign released this statement:

"He is optimistic that there has been significant progress toward a bipartisan agreement now that there is a framework for all parties to be represented in negotiations, including Representative Blunt as a designated negotiator for House Republicans. The McCain campaign is resuming all activities and the Senator will travel to the debate this afternoon."

Note the adjustment in standards. First, the McCain camp said deal or no debate. Two days later, the position was, negotiations are under way so let's debate. Was this change an act of decisive leadership or a necessary political flip-flop? Maybe Jim Lehrer, the moderator of Friday night's debate, can ask him that."

What's kinda amazing--okay, it's not really amazing--is that the McCain camp thinks it can get away with this. Or with
this. Or with its falsehood-ridden attack ads. Or with McCain's new Osama-like stance toward holding press conferences. Or with its claims that Sarah Palin is ready-to-go on Day One. The John McCain of 2000 used to deride the usual BS of politics: spin, stunts, and sleaze. Now he bathes in it. There seems no bottom yet to his descent into situational politics. Forget the debates, I want to see him back on The View defending himself and the campaign he heads.

Driving to work (late) this morning, I was listening to The Diane Rehm Show on NPR (plug: I'll be on Friday morning), and I heard a comment that almost caused me to strike a pothole. The topic of the day was the financial crisis and the under-construction bailout, and Simon Johnson, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics and former IMF economic counselor, commenting on the $700 billion package being thrown together on Capitol Hill, said, We're more in the realm of "chaos theory than economic theory."

Wow. And whoa. This rush to save Wall Street's backside is not only unseemly but perhaps perilous. Yesterday, Peter Orszag, the director of the Congressional Budget Office, testifed that the bailout could worsen the ongoing economic crisis. And even if the Democrats succeed in crafting a package that includes necessary provisions regarding accountability and transparency, CEO compensation, bankruptcy reform, and mortgage protection for homeowners, there are still plenty of questions about the overall approach of this bailout: the feds using taxpayer dollars to buy lousy assets from poorly-run companies to keep these poorly-run companies afloat. There are alternatives. The federal government could lend money to needy financial institutions instead of buying their crappy assets. Or it could buy better assets and pump money into the financial system that way. My Bloggingheads.tv sparring partner Jim Pinkerton advocates restructuring the entire financial sector to make sure none of its major players get too big to fail. Economist James Galbraith (a regular Mother Jones contributor) proposes pouring half a trillion dollars into the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (to preserve depositors' confidence in banks and prevent a run), putting $200 billion in reserve so the Treasury, if necessary, can buy preferred stock in banks to recapitalize these institutions, and waiting to see what happens. That is, let the folks who screwed up do what they can with their bad paper. Galbraith notes that serious economic problems will remain, but the threat of systemic collapse would be abated.

The point is that the Paulson path is not the only one. In fact, it may be the wrong one. Certainly, a few days--or a week or two--of debate and discussion before committing $700 billion would not be unwarranted. "We need more than three days to sort this out," Simon Johnson said. And he's right. The Democrats in Congress ought not be force to quick, decisive and misguided action by the we-must-act-today pronouncements from George W. Bush and others in his administration. On Thursday, John McCain said "time is short" and that a deal must be completed before the financial markets open on Monday. Barack Obama should reply: not if it's a bad deal.

Obama certainly wants to--and needs to--come across responsibly. (Who wants to be blamed for the crash of an entire sector?) But this train is probably moving too fast for the public. Slowing it down to get the response right could be a twofer: good policy and good politics.

There's no crying in baseball. And there's no time-outs in presidential campaigns. Yet John McCain is asking for that. On Tuesday afternoon, he called for putting off the first scheduled presidential debate this Friday so he can suspend campaigning, head to Washington, and work on the financial bailout package.

This is a guy who's missed a ton of votes in the Senate throughout his presidential campaign and who just days ago called for shoving the current mess on to the lap of a commission. Actually, given that the world doesn't stop for crises--and that sometimes there's more than two or three items on a president's radar screen--this week would be a pretty good test for a candidate. He has to prep for a debate and participate in bailout deliberations.

In a brief--very brief--statement, McCain said the nation must "set politics aside." He invoked 9/11 and the coming together that occurred following that attack. "We must show that kind of patriotism now," he declared. But why is postponing the debate patriotic? And how long should the delay be? If Congress is going to get this package right, it could take weeks. Is McCain suggesting no debates transpire for that period of time?

And how about this for an idea? If McCain is too busy to show up on Friday night, perhaps he could send Sarah Palin. And Obama could dispatch Joe Biden. That would at least be a true test of their ability to fill in.

By the way, after McCain made his announcement, the Obama campaign sent out this note:

At 8:30 this morning, Senator Obama called Senator McCain to ask him if he would join in issuing a joint statement outlining their shared principles and conditions for the Treasury proposal and urging Congress and the White House to act in a bipartisan manner to pass such a proposal. At 2:30 this afternoon, Senator McCain returned Senator Obama's call and agreed to join him in issuing such a statement. The two campaigns are currently working together on the details.

That's a mature way to handle this situation. In a subsequent appearance before reporters, Obama said that when he and McCain talked at 2:30 on Wednesday afternoon, McCain told him he was considering whether they ought to delay the debate. Obama informed the reporters that he thought McCain was "mulling" it over. But after the call, McCain, without any further discussion with Obama, went public with his proposed time-out. How patriotic.

"I think we should continue to have the debate," Obama said. "....We've both got big planes...They can get us from Washington to Mississippi pretty quickly."

If the "fundamentals" of this economy are strong, why then is President Bush proposing a $500 billion bailout of financial firms?

Even though John McCain cannot answer that question, he still bangs his fist and decries Wall Street greed-meisters and Washington influence peddlers (the same sort of people who are working for his campaign). And, as I wrote elsewhere, he may be out-populisting Barack Obama.

The economic crisis under way surely is scaring voters and pissing off many of them. How dare these Wall Streeters and their lobbyist pals game the system and put our economy in peril? How many of them will be losing their second homes (with heated pools)? At this stage, McCain is expressing some of that anger, though he goes back and forth on the substance. (First, don't take over AIG; then, hooray for the take-over of AIG.) Obama has reacted more coolly. And he better watch out. Many voters freaked out by the economic meltdown do not want only calmly-delivered policy proposals. They want to see someone voice their own worries and feelings--as in outrage. In fact, I would bet that many of those still-undecided voters care more about how a candidate reacts than what a candidate proposes.

Democrats usually have the edge over Republicans when it comes to voters' perceptions of who would best deal with economic matters. But in a crisis, many voters are going to look for leadership, not policy details. So McCain may not have to answer the above question. He just has to stop making stupid comments and come on strong, decisive and mad. And Obama should ponder how to prevent himself from winding up on the wrong end of an anger gap.

After all, Americans have a right to be livid with the screw-ups of Big Finance, the deregulators of Washington, and the game-riggers of K Street. And they are entitled to a president who feels not only their pain, but their anger.

As regular readers can tell from the past few days, I've been fixated on a point: as mega-finance firms fail, it's absurd for McCain to beat on Wall Street when his campaign is chockfull of corporate lobbyists (past and present) who have been paid lots of money to rig the system for Big Finance firms. And that includes UBS executive and McCain adviser Phil Gramm, who, as chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, pulled a backroom legislative stunt in 2000 to make sure that credit default swaps--a certain financial instrument that helped pave the way to the subprime meltdown--would remain completely unregulated.

The nice thing about having an obsession and being head of a Washington bureau is that you can assign reporters to stories. So I asked Jonathan Stein and Nick Baumann, two colleagues of mine at Mother Jones, to go through a list of 177 lobbyists working for the McCain campaign and find those who have been influence-peddlers for financial firms. They did and discovered that over 80 of these lobbyists have been game-riggers for financial corporations. Consequently, we had a story to post:

In the past few days, as the economic crisis has deepened, Senator John McCain has been decrying the excesses of Wall Street. At a campaign rally in Tampa on Tuesday, he vowed that he and Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, if elected, "are going to put an end to the reckless conduct, corruption, and unbridled greed that have caused a crisis on Wall Street." He noted that the "foundation of our economy...has been put at risk by the greed and mismanagement of Wall Street and Washington."

He blasted CEOs who "seem to escape the consequences." He denounced Wall Streeters who "dreamed up investment schemes that they themselves don't even understand" and who used "derivatives, credit default swaps, and mortgage-backed securities" to try "to make their own rules." He excoriated Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for gaming the system. And he slammed financial industry lobbyists for misguiding members of Congress. "I can promise you the days of dealing and special favors will soon be over in Washington." On Wednesday morning, after the federal government committed $85 billion to prevent the collapse of the American International Group (AIG) insurance conglomerate, McCain again assailed irresponsible corporate executives. "We need to change the way Washington and Wall Street does business," he proclaimed.

McCain has been quick with fiery, populist-tinged speeches. But one thing has been missing: any acknowledgment that McCain's own campaign has been loaded with the type of people he's been denouncing. As Mother Jones previously reported, former Senator Phil Gramm, McCain's onetime campaign chairman, used a backroom maneuver in late 2000 to slip into law a bill that kept credit default swaps unregulated. These financial instruments greased the way to the subprime meltdown that has led to today's economic crisis. Several of McCain's most senior campaign aides have lobbied for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. And the Democratic National Committee, using publicly available records, has identified 177 lobbyists working for the McCain campaign as either aides, policy advisers, or fundraisers.

Of those 177 lobbyists, according to a Mother Jones review of Senate and House records, at least 83 have in recent years lobbied for the financial industry McCain now attacks. These are high-paid influence-peddlers who have been working the corridors of the nation's capital to win favors and special treatment for investment banks, securities firms, hedge funds, accounting outfits, and insurance companies. Their clients have included AIG, the newest symbol of corporate excess; Lehman Brothers, which filed for bankruptcy on Monday sending the stock market into a tailspin; Merrill Lynch, which was bought out by Bank of America this week; and Washington Mutual, the banking giant that could be the next to fall. Among these 83 lobbyists are McCain's chief political adviser, Charlie Black (JP Morgan, Washington Mutual Bank,, Freddie Mac, Mortgage Bankers Association of America); McCain's national finance co-chairman, Wayne Berman (AIG, Blackstone, Credit Suisse, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac); the campaign's congressional liaison, John Green (Carlyle Group, Citigroup, Icahn Associates, Fannie Mae); McCain's veep vetter, Arthur Culvahouse (Fannie Mae); and McCain's transition planning chief, William Timmons Sr. (Citigroup, Freddie Mac, Vanguard Group).

When cable news shows air footage of McCain railing against greedy execs and the lobbyists who rig the rules for the benefit of Wall Street dealmakers, there ought to be a crawl beneath him listing these lobbyists. (Talk about a fair and balanced presentation.) Short of that, here's the list of the McCain aides and bundlers who have worked for the high-finance greed-mongers McCain has pledged to take on. So far, it seems, none of them have been cast out of the campaign. If McCain were serious about his outrage, he might throw these money-changers out of his own temple.

To see that list, click here.

It is almost literally unbelievable.

John McCain, responding to the current economic troubles, says that "Wall Street has betrayed us." He calls the current mess the "result of excess and greed and corruption." He adds,

We've got to make sure that people like Fannie and Freddie, organizations such as Fannie and Freddie, never have the influence again that they had in Washington. You saw it, Joe. The old boy network -- Republicans, Democrats, they had influence with everybody. So therefore, we didn't act to have the sufficient oversight while these organizations grew and grew and became the corrupt institutions that they are today."

Old boy network? Influence? Can't McCain smell the stench of old-boy influence-peddling every time he enters his campaign headquarters? As I noted yesterday, several of McCain's top campaign aides lobbied for Fannie and Freddie. His campaign overall has at least 177 lobbyists working for his campaign. These are people who get paid large amounts of money to win special treatment for corporate interests, public interest be damned.

Then there's Phil Gramm, the onetime chairman of McCain's campaign. As I explained elsewhere, when Gramm chaired the Senate banking committee in 2000, he slipped into a massive must-pass spending bill a piece of legislation totally deregulating the the market for credit default swaps, a little-understood financial instrument. The swaps market then exploded, and the rampant use of unregulated swaps--which function kind of like insurance policies for big financial institutions--helped grease the way for the subprime meltdown.

So whose greed and excess is McCain now decrying? It is the greed and excess of some of the people who have helped run his campaign. His denunciation of influence peddlers, asleep-at-the-switch regulators, and me-first CEOs is absurd, given his own ties to these folks. His most prominent economic policy surrogate is Carly Fiorina, who pocketed $42 million in severance pay and other goodies when she was forced out as CEO of Hewlett-Packard. The question is, how long can McCain get away with this?

Obama has a slight but narrowing edge in the polls when voters are asked who's best able to handle the economy. It's certainly obvious that voters don't review the details of each presidential candidate's economic policy before deciding whom they want in the driver's seat when the economy heads into a ditch. Many voters pick a favorite based on impressions. Right now, McCain is sounding a more populist tone than Obama, whose strategy seems to be to portray McCain as too tied to George W. Bush and too out of touch to be trusted with this hurting economy. So even with McCain stumbling (by declaring the "fundamentals" are strong), McCain looks more like the fighter, the guy who's ready to knock heads together--the heads of the greedy SOBs responsible for this mess--and get things going again with a healthy dose of reform. It's phony populism. It's like the head of a Mafia family decrying a crime wave caused by his own lieutenants. But that doesn't mean it cannot work politically.

In politics, being right doesn't always count. You have to show you can fight. McCain is ignoring reality to position himself as a populist reformer. Obama better burst that bubble.

In response to the news of the latest Wall Street meltdown, John McCain put out a statement that in part said:

Major reform must be made in Washington and on Wall Street. We cannot tolerate a system that handicaps our markets and our banks and places at risk the savings of hardworking Americans and investors. The McCain-Palin Administration will replace the outdated and ineffective patchwork quilt of regulatory oversight in Washington and bring transparency and accountability to Wall Street. We will rebuild confidence in our markets and restore our leadership in the financial world."

Perhaps he could start at McCain Campaign HQ. At least four of McCain's senior campaign aides--including Charlie Black, Rick Davis, and Wayne Berman have lobbied for Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. And at least 20 of McCain's fundraisers have also lobbied for Freddie and Fannie. These folks were gaming the system for these now-discredited institutions. And now they are handing McCain his speech lines

McCain is surrounded by lobbyists. One hundred and seventy-seven, according to a report put out by the Democratic National Congress this past weekend. (Yeah, that's a biased source. But the paper trail is well documented.) Does McCain not understand that these lobbyists spend their days doing what they can to avoid making the legislative and regulatory processes in Washington more accountable and transparent. If McCain wants an open system, perhaps he would ask all those lobbyists helping his campaign to fill out reports explaining all their contacts with legislators, staff, and regulators--noting precisely what legislative changes, decisions and favors they are seeking.

In a new add, his campaign says, "Our economy in crisis Only proven reformers John McCain and Sarah Palin can fix it....No special interest giveaways." The guys and gals running McCain's campaign specialize in special interest giveaways. There is a whopping disconnect between what McCain says and what his top people do. If he doesn't see that, then he is, as the Obama crew says, out of touch.

It's as close as it gets to the most MS of MSM outfits declaring, McCain's lying!

I'm referring to a news article on the front-page of Saturday's New York Times that starts:

Harsh advertisements and negative attacks are a staple of presidential campaigns, but Senator John McCain has drawn an avalanche of criticism this week from Democrats, independent groups and even some Republicans for regularly stretching the truth in attacking Senator Barack Obama's record and positions.

Though the piece uses the usual framework of he said/he said--that is, others are saying that McCain is lying--it does present the evidence that McCain's recent assertions about Obama are outrageously false. It also quotes prominent Republicans saying that McCain and running mate Sarah Palin have vigorously mugged the truth in recent days. Though the article was, no doubt, in the works for a day or two, it seems as if comic Joy Behar of The View has pushed the media along. At least, she can claim credit for beating the Times to an obvious point.

Meanwhile, the "Factchecker" column of The Washington Post has awarded McCain four Pinocchios--that's as high as its lying scale goes--for claiming Friday on The View that Palin, as governor of Alaska, did not seek federal earmarks. That's an outright falsehood. But the column felt compelled to go a step further:

Some readers have complained that I have been soft on the Democrats over the last week, while awarding a string of Pinocchios to the McCain campaign. I would like to think that this simply reflects the current state of the campaign: the McCainites have been on the offensive over the last week, tearing into Obama with a series of questionable TV ads. If you think it reflects bias on my part, there is a simple remedy: send in specific examples of Pinocchio-esque statements by Obama and the Dems, and I will check them out.

Both newspapers are essentially saying that at this stage McCain is the liar in the race. (The Post's "Factchecker" gave Palin a pass on her first week--and did not score several of her facts-challenged assertions.) No wonder the Republicans and the McCain campaign are trying to whip up a war against the so-called "Eastern media elite"--for a campaign narrative is close to being born: the fall of the Straight Talker. For the Obama camp, the question is, how best can it exploit this twist-in-the-making?

Much chatter on the Internet about John McCain's appearance on The View on Friday morning. This guy won't do a press conference, but he'll do daytime talk. Nevertheless, it was quite instructive, for McCain lied to the ladies.

He told them that Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, his running mate, did not accept federal earmark funds. But Barbara Walters and Joy Behar had it correct when they declared she had. As the Anchorage Daily News has reported, Palin in 2007 sought "52 earmarks valued at $256 million in Palin's first year. This year, the governor's office asked the delegation to help them land 31 earmarks valued at $197 million." (When I appeared on NPR's Diane Rehm Show on Friday morning, even conservative writer Stephen Hayes had to acknowledge that Palin is exaggerating when she claims she opposed the infamous Bridge to Nowhere.)

Palin's earmark record has been widely reported. Is McCain clueless? Maybe he's out of the loop because he does not know how to use the Internet on his own. Or is he deceitful?

In a way, the View gals let him off easy. Referring to two recent McCain ads--one falsely accusing Barack Obama of sexism by using the "lipstick on the pig" phrase, the other falsely accusing Obama of having supported teaching "comprehensive sex education" to kindergartners--Joy Behar said to McCain, "Now we know that those two ads are untrue, they are lies. And yet, you at the end of it say you approve these messages. Do you really approve these?"

McCain replied, "Actually they are not lies. And if you see some of the ads running against me." He then hammered on the "lipstick" point, saying that Obama should not have used that old expression. (See the exchange here.)

The "lipstick" battle is an easy one for McCain to win--or play to a disingenuous draw. He looks as if he is defending the honor of his running mate, even if there is no truth to the fundamental charge that Obama was maligning Palin. But the sex ed ad is utterly indefensible. Behar missed her chance. She ought to have said to McCain, "Can you prove that Obama advocated teaching comprehensive sex-ed to kindergartners? I will donate $10,000 to your favorite charity, if you can. If not, you will have to come back on this show and admit your campaign lied. Deal or no deal, Senator?"

Behar was so close to what colud have been a game changer. At least, a media game changer. (Real life is another thing.)

But United States democracy ought not to depend on Joy Behar pressing John McCain. The bigfoots of the news media should be prepping to give McCain this sort of treatment. It's no wonder McCain has been ducking press conferences of late. He cannot back up what he and his campaign have been saying about either Obama or Palin. But eventually McCain will have to come out of his cave and face some reporters somewhere. And they ought to be ready with tough questions. If this does not come to pass, then the moderators of the debates should step in and serve up the difficult queries. It shouldn't take a stand-up comic to get a presidential candidate running a dishonorable campaign to face the music.

Meanwhile, an advocacy group has taken on McCain regarding his campaign's phony sex-ed ad, noting that McCain was actually denouncing Obama for supporting a bill that sought to protect children from sexual predators. Any parent of small kids ought to cheer the group's effort...and remember how McCain has crassly exploited the issue of sexual abuse for political gain.

If you want to see why John McCain and his spinners might get away with their ramped-up sleaze attacks on Barack Obama, turn to page four of Thursday's Washington Post. There you will find an article headlined "McCain Camp Hits Obama On More Than One Front.". The piece begins:

Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign launched a broadside against Sen. Barack Obama yesterday, accusing him of a sexist smear, comparing his campaign to a pack of wolves on the prowl against the GOP vice presidential pick, charging that the Democratic nominee favored sex education for kindergartners, and resurrecting the comments of the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr.

And the next several paragraphs go on to describe these attacks and the consequent back-and-forth between the Obama and McCain campaigns. The piece reports,

The attacks over the first three days of this week have come at a sometimes dizzying pace. Within 24 hours, the McCain campaign released a television advertisement saying Obama favored "comprehensive sex education" for kindergartners, produced an Internet ad charging that the Democrat had referred to Palin as a pig, then concluded with another ad saying, "Obama's politics of hope? Empty words."

....McCain allies think they have succeeded in knocking Obama on his heels since he accepted his party's nomination in Denver two weeks ago.
"They really are in a meltdown," said Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (S.C.), a McCain adviser.

Only after describing the gleeful GOPers and upset Dems does the article evaluate the ads, essentially noting they were, well, crap. For instance: "The sex education ad referred to legislation Obama voted for -- but did not sponsor -- in the Illinois Senate that allowed school boards to develop "age-appropriate" sex education courses at all levels. Kindergarten teachers were given the approval to teach about appropriate and inappropriate touching to combat molestation." The piece suggests--but does not spell out--that it was a complete lie for the McCain camp to say that Obama wanted to teach kindergarteners "comprehensive sex education."

Next to the article on the hard copy of the Post was indeed an analysis of the sex education ad, noting the ad had misrepresented Obama's record and awarding it three Pinocchios (out of a possible high of four).

But here's the perennial problem: the campaign story of the day was not that McCain was lying about his opponent; it was the fight between the two candidates. Whenever the media report false charges in an evenhanded manner--A said X about B; B said X was not true--the party hurling the mud wins. And wins big. Sure, the Post's "Factchecker," Factcheck,com, and Politifact.com each rate political accusations for accuracy and fairness--and often slam a campaign for peddling falsehoods. But, it seems, campaigns dependent on sleaze can all-too-easily survive the negative reviews from these outfits.

The issue then is whether a campaign's reliance on such tactics becomes a key component of the overall media account of the election--and whether a candidate has to answer for such actions. So far McCain has not.

The current issue of Mother Jones has an essay I wrote along similar lines about how the media handle presidential prevarications. You can read it here.

This campaign is becoming ridiculous. And let's be honest: it is John McCain's fault.

Yesterday, his aides went bonkers over Barack Obama's remark that John McCain and Sarah Palin by campaigning for "change" are putting "lipstick on a pig." The McCain camp quickly arranged a conference call for reporters, during which former Massachusetts Governor Jane Swift, a Republican, accused Obama of mounting a sexist attack on Sarah Palin. (It was not an attack on McCain, because apparently he does not use lipstick.) Obama's comment, as many have pointed out, was not a chauvinist jab at Palin. He was using an expression that, again as many others have pointed out, McCain has also used on occasion.

Yet today, the McCain campaign released a web ad that quotes CBS News anchor Katie Couric ("one of the great lessons of that campaign is the continued and accepted role of sexism in American life") and that accuses Obama of mounting a sexist "smear" against Palin. (A lipstick smear?) Of course, Couric was not referring to Obama's remark. Talk about taking a statement out of context. And the ad maliciously plays Obama's lipstick comment over a headline that reads, "Barack Obama on Sarah Palin." This is nothing but deceitful.

Worse, while the McCainiacs were falsely charging Obama with sexism (playing the gender card?), they were putting out a recklessly false television ad that claimed Obama had backed legislation in Illinois to teach "comprehensive sex education" to kindergartners. A McClatchey fact-check of the ad noted this charge was without merit and absurd. The legislation had allowed local school boards to teach "age-appropriate" sex education and had provided schools the ability to warn kids about sexual predators and inappropriate touching. That is, it was designed to protect children. Yet McCain was trying to turn it into anti-Obama ammo. (Joe Klein is really upset about this.)

The McCain Mafia seems committed at throwing whatever it can at Obama: from falsehoods about taxes and earmarks (example: Palin opposed the Bridge to Nowhere) to silly and unsupported charges about sexism and sex-ed. Their strategic goal, obviously, is to keep Obama pinned down. Should the Obama campaign waste time knocking down these purposeful errors and excessive spin? That would be letting McCain shape the debate to his advantage. But if the campaign allows this stuff to hit the wall--and maybe stick--the McCain mob wins. Should it sling crap back at them? Perhaps Team Obama ought to stick to the ground game campaign manager David Plouffe has designed and not be distracted by the cable news noise. But at some point does that noise affect the ground reality? I suppose the only answer is, the Obama camp has to do it all: swat the flies, make its own case (for Obama and against McCain), and keep moving ahead.

But so much for an honorable campaign from an honorable man. Then again, given that McCain has already explicitly accused Obama of traitorous conduct (opposing a war to win an election), nothing should come as a shock. Not even abusing sex education to score points. The fortunate thing for McCain is that presidential campaigns have no true referees. Some in the media try, but the McCain camp is doing all it can to turn the election into a battle between its side and the media, a naked attempt at delegitimizing media criticism of the Palin pick and other McCain campaign moves. There is no power that can slap McCain with what he truly deserves: a time-out in a corner.

Imagine if Barack Obama ran an ad touting his vice president pick like this:

And Joe Biden was against the war in Iraq

.

There would be far-and-wide condemnation because such a statement would be a lie. (Biden voted for the blank-check Iraq war resolution in 2002 after trying mightily--but failing--to win approval for a more restrictive alternative he crafted with two Republican senators.) But look at McCain's latest ad, which celebrates McCain and running-mate Sarah Palin:

The original mavericks. He fights pork barrel spending. She stopped the Bridge to Nowhere.

Okay, how many times does it have to be pointed out? Governor Sarah Palin supported the Bridge to Nowhere at first. This is how the Anchorage Daily News put it:

When John McCain introduced Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate Friday, her reputation as a tough-minded budget-cutter was front and center.

"I told Congress, thanks but no thanks on that bridge to nowhere," Palin told the cheering McCain crowd, referring to Ketchikan's Gravina Island bridge.

But Palin was for the Bridge to Nowhere before she was against it.

The Alaska governor campaigned in 2006 on a build-the-bridge platform, telling Ketchikan residents she felt their pain when politicians called them "nowhere."

...In September, 2006, Palin showed up in Ketchikan on her gubernatorial campaign and said the bridge was essential for the town's prosperity.

She said she could feel the town's pain at being derided as a "nowhere" by prominent politicians, noting that her home town, Wasilla, had recently been insulted by the state Senate president, Ben Stevens. "OK, you've got Valley trash standing here in the middle of nowhere," Palin said, according to an account in the Ketchikan Daily News. "I think we're going to make a good team as we progress that bridge project."

One year later, Ketchikan's Republican leaders said they were blindsided by Palin's decision to pull the plug.

That is, she flip-flopped on the Bridge to Nowhere.

Do "original mavericks" rely on outrageous spin? Apparently so. It used to be that McCain--to a degree--was the sort of politician who would snort at such political shenanigans. Now he relies on them.

SARAH PALIN'S SECRET EMAILS.The Palin administration won't release about 1100 emails from her governor's office--many written or sent by Governor Palin or CC'ed to her--claiming these communications cover confidential policy matters. Then why do the subject lines for some of these emails refer to a political foe, a journalist, and non-policy topics? And how can the governor's office claim many of the withheld emails are covered by "executive" privilege when some were CC'ed to her husband Todd Palin (a.k.a. the First Dude), who is a private citizen? See my new and exclusive report on Palin's secret emails here.

My friends, I am not here tonight to talk about the past. You know my past. You know my story. You know how it has shaped me. Many others this week have graciously reminded you of what I've been through and what I have tried to do to serve my country. And, yes, it's true that the past is prologue. But I am here to talk about the future--about how we together can strengthen our nation and improve our great land for all of its citizens, especially those who confront difficult challenges or face hard times. So let me tell you what I'd like to do--for you and with you--should I be fortunate enough to be your next president....

That was not the speech John McCain delivered on Thursday night. Instead, he offered an unexciting mix of GOP orthodoxy and declarations of personal maverickness--which was capped by yet one more long and detailed recounting of his POW days of forty years ago. Enough already. A video introduction prior to his speech had covered the same ground--as had many other speakers this week. McCain was pulling a Kerry, relying too heavily on his past heroics and exploiting them in a manner that could devalue an authentic experience. Democrats who were worried after Sarah Palin's speech on Wednesday night could breathe a sigh of relief once McCain was done. The guy had managed to move the ball back to where it had been before Sarah-mania struck.

Here's how I assessed the speech at MotherJones.com:

Number of sentences in John McCain's acceptance speech about his experience as a POW in Vietnam: 43.

Number of sentences about his 25 years in the House and Senate: 8.

The convention ended as it began: a commemoration of McCain's hellish years in a Hanoi prison cell four decades ago. The political equation was a simple one: POW equals patriotic hero equals a fighting president. Before McCain walked down the long runway at St. Paul's Xcel Center, a baritone voice declared over the P.A., "When you've lived in a box....you put your people first." Case closed.

But there was a speech to get through. And before McCain arrived at the climactic I-was-a-POW finale, he delivered, in wooden style, a no-better-than-par speech that was mostly a series of traditional GOP buzz phrases: lower taxes, cut spending, open markets. He noted, "We believe in a strong defense, work, faith, service, a culture of life, personal responsibility, the rule of law, and judges who dispense justice impartially and don't legislate from the bench. We believe in the values of families, neighborhoods and communities." (Just not community organizers.) Was the speechwriter who penned Sarah Palin's acceptance speech too busy to work on McCain's?

Unlike most speakers at the convention, McCain acknowledged that some Americans are facing tough times. "I fight for Bill and Sue Nebe from Farmington Hills, Michigan, who lost their real estate investments in the bad housing market," he said. "Bill got a temporary job after he was out of work for seven months. Sue works three jobs to help pay the bills." And he said he would fight for Jake and Toni Wimmer of Franklin County, Pennsylvania. "Jake," he explained, "works on a loading dock; coaches Little League, and raises money for the mentally and physically disabled. Toni is a schoolteacher, working toward her Master's Degree. They have two sons, the youngest, Luke, has been diagnosed with autism." But how would McCain help these folks? Moments later, he offered a dumbed-down version of his economic plan: " I will keep taxes low and cut them where I can. My opponent will raise them. I will open new markets to our goods and services. My opponent will close them. I will cut government spending. He will increase it." (By the way, many analysts and journalists have repeatedly noted that Obama's economic plan would cut income taxes far more than McCain for Americans below the top 1 percent.)

Over and over, McCain cited his love of country and his dedication to the nation that "saved" him. He tried to present himself as the candidate of change, who wants to transform "almost everything: from the way we protect our security to the way we compete in the world economy; from the way we respond to disasters to the way we fuel our transportation network; from the way we train our workers to the way we educate our children." (He did not explain why after eight years of a Republican administration the country needs so much change.) McCain reminded the GOP delegates that he has on occasion challenged his own party. His domestic policy ideas, the few he offered, did not rouse the crowd--except when he called for more oil and gas drilling. In response, the delegates once again enthusiastically chanted, "Drill, baby, drill!" It was one of the biggest shout-outs of the night. The audience was notably silent when McCain called for boosting alternative energy sources.

Maverick, fighter, fixer--McCain said he was all of that. But, above all, he was McCain the warrior who had returned home. He had fought for the country once before--and he had suffered. He will fight for it again. "I have the record and the scars to prove it," he declared. "Senator Obama does not." Wave the bloody shirt....

You can read the rest here.

After the speech, I attended the swanky Vanity Fair/Google party. It was jammed with Republican politicos, and a smattering of journalists. The mood among the GOPers was not as joyous as it had been after Palin's star-turn on Wednesday night. As I was leaving at 2:00 am, I noticed that McCain campaign manager Rick Davis was at the party. (How many GOP convention speakers had derided the liberal media and Hollywood? Yet Davis--and hundreds of other GOPers--did not mind drinking and dining with VF. Hypocrites or schnorrers--you decide.) "He's really putting country first," I quipped to a McCain aide. "He has to work the bloviators about the speech," the aide replied. If so, he had a helluva job to do. And too bad for him--the bar had closed an hour earlier.

Here's a review of Sarah Palin's speech I posted at MotherJones.com.

The speech was the easy part. But she did it well.

Delivering the most anticipated vice presidential acceptance speech in modern political history, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin accomplished the mission. She talked family, biography, policy, and John McCain. Especially John McCain the POW. And--Democrats beware--she demonstrated she's handy with a rhetorical stiletto and can slice Barack Obama and Joe Biden, while flashing a stylish smile.

The 44-year-old Palin did not wipe out questions about her experience. She did address allegations she had abused her office while serving as a small-town mayor and as a governor. She did not defend her more extreme social positions, such as her support for teaching creationism. But in politics, performance counts for much. And for a little-known politician who had been hunkered down for days, as negative stories and rumors flew about, she had a helluva opening night. Next, Palin will have to face the media--one of the targets of her speech--fielding presumably tough queries about her actions (and life) in Alaska and her foreign policy experience (or lack thereof). But for the night, she held her own--and showed that she has the potential to be a fierce and effective critic of the Obama-Biden ticket.

Palin came on right after former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani had trash-talked Obama, and she began with an obligatory maneuver: praising John McCain as a hero, and doing so multiple times. She quickly dealt with the, uh, family issue, noting that "No family ever seems typical...our family has the same ups and downs of any other." Not quite. But it sounded good.

After comparing herself to Harry S Truman and hailing small-town Americans (like herself), she lit into Obama. "A small-town mayor," she said, "is sort of like a community organizer except that you have actual responsibilities." (When Giuliani earlier referred to Obama's days as a community organizer, he drew laughs and hoots from the delegates.) Palin claimed that Obama had written memoirs but not laws, that he has given speeches on the Iraq war but has never used the word "victory"--except when "talking about his own campaign." Obama, she said, was more worried about the rights of terrorists than defeating terrorists. And what will Obama do once he has finished "turning back the waters and healing the waters"? Raise taxes, reduce the strength of America, and do nothing to increase drilling. (The delegates repeated their favorite chant of the evening: "Drill, Baby, Drill"). "The American presidency," Palin said, in another dig at Obama, "is not supposed to be a journey of personal discovery." She grinned the grin of a smooth put-down artist.

Palin, a self-described "hockey mom," laid on the populism--the Republican version of populism--noting how she had confronted entrenched interests in Juneau (she got rid of the governor's jet and chef), praising factory workers and small farmers, citing her husband's membership in the steelworkers' union, bashing the elite Eastern media, and denouncing the "permanent political establishment" of Washington, many of whom were in the hall as McCain supporters, donors, and aides. (After the speech, Republican pollster Frank Luntz said he believed Palin has the potential to connect with working-class voters.)

Decrying the Democrats as tax-hikers and national security weaklings, while blasting Washington, is the usual fare for Republicans. But Palin read her lines with flair and confidence. And--can we be frank?--she looked darn good doing so. She was with the program: this election is not as much about change, hope, or issues as it is about the measure of one man. "Biden and Obama," she said toward the end of her speech, "say they are fighting for you....There is only one man in this election who has ever really fought for you...in places where winning means survival and where defeat means death." He is, she continued, "the kind of fellow whose names you will find on war memorials in small towns across America--except he came home." And, she noted, he possess "the special confidence of those who have seen evil and have seen how evil is overcome....That is the kind of man America needs." It's some ticket: a made-in-small-town-America working mom and the man who goes off to war to protect her way of life.

Palin's case for McCain was as effective a pitch for the GOP candidate as any made at the convention. And her attack on Obama was drenched with panache. After she was done, her family--including her pregnant teenage daughter's fiancé--joined her on the stage, and then McCain walked out. "Don't you think we made the right choice for the next vice president of the Untied States?" McCain exclaimed with glee. McCain and his aides were entitled to conclude that Palin had been misunderestimated by her critics and foes.

They also were entitled to believe that Palin would be something of a babe-magnet for the party's base. Days ago, Tom DeLay, the former House majority leader, told me that by picking Palin, McCain had electrified social conservatives, who had not been jazzed by the prospect of voting for McCain in November. But at his church, this past Sunday, DeLay's parishioners told him they now were excited about the ticket. Palin's performance on Wednesday night can be expected to reinforce and boost social conservatives' enthusiasm for the McCain-Palin ticket. The social cons have a new champion.

Political experts say that veep picks ultimately do not determine outcomes in presidential elections. And that's probably true. Yet on Wednesday night, Palin displayed plenty of potential. (Joe Biden had reason to say to himself, "This debate's gonna be a challenge.") Though rumors still swirl and unanswered questions about her official actions in Alaska remain, Palin might end up an asset, not a liability, for McCain. She has to meet the press and withstand the ongoing and intense media scrutiny that only began a few days ago. She has to handle that debate with Biden. She has to prove her mettle on the harsh campaign trail. But while pundits before the speech were pondering how the McCain campaign could put lipstick on this (seemingly) pig of a choice, after the speech was over, it was clear, for at least the moment, that with Palin there's more lipstick than pig.

On the first night of the GOP convention, Fred Thompson, the actor-senator who flopped as a presidential candidate, was given the role of a lifetime. This grumpy old guy was asked to play Marie Antoinette. And he nailed it.

As soon as Thompson hit the podium to give one of the two centerpiece speeches of the night (his co-star was Joe Lieberman), he derided the Democrats for harping on the current economic difficulties, poking fun at them for acting as if the country was in the middle of another "great depression." He didn't accuse them of whining, but he came close, as he hailed the United States as a "prosperous" country. His performance garnered applauds from the delegates, many of whom, playing to type, looked as if they spend more time at the country club fretting about tee times than at the kitchen table worrying about bills.

There are two Americas, it seems. One with concerns about the nation's economy, the other in happy denial. And the latter was in full view at the Xcel Energy Center in St. Paul. Through opening night, there were hardly any references to the troubles at hand. The convention spent more time celebrating former military heroes and POWs than addressing worries voters might have about the economy, health care, education, climate change or any other issue other than national security. On these fronts, it was as if the Republicans had nothing to say. Thompson tried to get the crowd stirred up over taxes and abortion, but that was so 1980s. Voters viewing the proceedings could be forgiven for wondering, what are these guys going do for me and my neighbors?

That was odd, given that the slogan of the convention is "Country First." What was being placed first by McCain's convention planners was McCain--specifically McCain the POW. This night was not about country; it was not about what can be done to make this country better and stronger; it was not about offering policy proposals that would improve the lives of Americans; it was about promoting a brand: Hero McCain.

After the first night was over, I strolled over to a hotel bar and met up with several journalists and pollster Frank Luntz. Luntz mentioned that in Michigan only 9 percent of the voters believe the country is on the right track. Nine percent? What do the McCainites think the other 91 percent in Michigan are looking to the GOP for? Heroic tales of McCain from 40 years ago? Hagiography?

It was a vapid start to a convention, which will probably end up being dominated by Sarah Palin's acceptance speech, not John McCain's. (Soap opera usually trumps politics.) But Tuesday evening was an example of hollow patriotism. Country First? No, it was McCain First. And a true patriot might consider placing the needs of his fellow countrymen ahead of his own political needs.

So much for all that talk about Hurricane Gustav helping the GOPers by providing George W. Bush a convenient excuse for not showing up at their convention in St. Paul. On Tuesday night, Bush will address the convention via satellite.

The theme of the night, McCain campaign officials said, is "Who is John McCain?" Putting it that way seems odd. Why a question. Don't most voters already know? Using such a formulation reminded me of a not-so-grand moment in presidential politics involving retired Admiral James Stockdale, who was Ross Perot's running mate during the 1992 campaign. (Ignore the Fred Thompson bits in the below clip.)

Having Bush speak on Who Is McCain night is more proof of the hollowness of American politics. Only eight years ago, Bush supporters, during the 2000 primary contest between Bush and McCain, waged a whispering campaign to try to define McCain as a syphilitic, Manchurian Candidate who was married to a mob-linked, drugs-abusing wife and who had fathered an out-of-wedlock black child. At the time, the Bush campaign--and Bush himself--said nothing to distance itself from the vicious rumor-mongering. Of course, the McCain camp suspected that Karl Rove and the Bushies were actually behind the effort. Compare that to how Barack Obama has publicly declared that Sarah Palin's family life ought not to be a campaign issue.

In any event, Bush's appearance tonight will close a circle on the Bush-McCain relationship. Bush will return the praise that McCain, sacrificing honor and principle for expedience, (insincerely) heaped on Bush at the 2000 convention. And Bush's appearance will be a reminder to voters that McCain, the so-called straight talker, has forged a phony bond with Bush to advance his political career. It turns out that not even a hurricane could blow away McCain's deal with the devil.

Here's my dispatch on Barack Obama's acceptance speech, first posted at MotherJones.

It was a historic speech on a historic night--in a remarkable setting. A crowd of tens of thousands of Americans, filling an entire stadium in the middle of the country, waved American flags and signs calling for "Change." Never in the nation's history had more Americans attended such an event. Never before had an African-American accepted the presidential nomination of a major party in the United States. And the speech of Barack Obama matched the moment.

He connected his own history--the history of a not-quite-ordinary American family--to the mythical promise of America. His rhetoric soared--as usual--but it was tethered to reality: in particular, the stark differences between how Obama would approach the challenges the nation now faces and how John McCain would do so. Obama laced his criticism of the Bush years and the possible McCain years with a dose of populism, which gave portions of the speech a sharp edge. And he brought his pitch for hope and change down to the ground with a succinct description of policy ideas he would work for as president.

Obama, as convention dictates, began with a high-minded theme: America is a land of promise, but, he declared, that promise--especially for hardworking Americans--is in jeopardy, placing the nation at a critical juncture. "These challenges are not all of government's making," he said. "But the failure to respond is a direct result of a broken politics in Washington and the failed policies of George W. Bush. America, we are better than these last eight years. We are a better country than this." Given that polls show that at least seven out of ten Americans--maybe more--believe the country is on the wrong track and a similar number of Americans disapprove of Bush, his criticism was not at all radical.

In one of the more important passages, Obama, taking a populist turn, made the case that his opponent does not understand this:

The truth is, on issue after issue that would make a difference in your lives--on health care and education and the economy--Senator McCain has been anything but independent. He said that our economy has made "great progress" under this President. He said that the fundamentals of the economy are strong. And when one of his chief advisors--the man who wrote his economic plan--was talking about the anxiety Americans are feeling, he said that we were just suffering from a "mental recession," and that we've become, and I quote, "a nation of whiners."

A nation of whiners? Tell that to the proud auto workers at a Michigan plant who, after they found out it was closing, kept showing up every day and working as hard as ever, because they knew there were people who counted on the brakes that they made. Tell that to the military families who shoulder their burdens silently as they watch their loved ones leave for their third or fourth or fifth tour of duty. These are not whiners. They work hard and give back and keep going without complaint. These are the Americans that I know.

Now, I don't believe that Senator McCain doesn't care what's going on in the lives of Americans. I just think he doesn't know. Why else would he define middle-class as someone making under five million dollars a year? How else could he propose hundreds of billions in tax breaks for big corporations and oil companies but not one penny of tax relief to more than one hundred million Americans? How else could he offer a health care plan that would actually tax people's benefits, or an education plan that would do nothing to help families pay for college, or a plan that would privatize Social Security and gamble your retirement? It's not because John McCain doesn't care. It's because John McCain doesn't get it.

Obama blasted McCain for embracing the "that old, discredited Republican philosophy--give more and more to those with the most and hope that prosperity trickles down to everyone else." He proclaimed that it was time for GOPers, "to own their failure. It's time for us to change America. And that's why I'm running for president of the United States."

He did not say--as Hillary Clinton did during the primaries--that he was running to fight for you. His is still a campaign of collective action--us, not me-- and that might continue to make it hard for voters facing tough economic times to identify with Obama. (Some people desire a champion slugging for them, not a movement to join.) But on tax cuts, health care, outsourcing, energy independence, and education, Obama vigorously outlined the stark differences between him and McCain--and he presented those differences in language designed to appeal to working-class voters.

On national security, Obama ceded no ground to McCain. "If John McCain wants to have a debate about who has the temperament, and judgment, to serve as the next Commander-in-Chief, that's a debate I'm ready to have," he said. None of his arguments were new--he blasted McCain for being overly eager to go to war in Iraq before the job was done in Afghanistan--but he did so with great confidence. "John McCain likes to say that he'll follow bin Laden to the Gates of Hell--but he won't even follow him to the cave where he lives," he remarked.

Obama sounded strong; he looked strong. "If John McCain wants to follow George Bush with more tough talk and bad strategy, that is his choice--but it is not the change that America needs," he said. Obama warned McCain to stop questioning his patriotism: "I've got news for you, John McCain. We all put our country first." And, he said, don't go pulling the same-old, Rove-like stunts, accusing Democrats of being nothing but tax-raisers and national security weaklings:

The times are too serious, the stakes are too high for this same partisan playbook. So let us agree that patriotism has no party. I love this country, and so do you, and so does John McCain. The men and women who serve in our battlefields may be Democrats and Republicans and Independents, but they have fought together and bled together and some died together under the same proud flag. They have not served a Red America or a Blue America--they have served the United States of America.

Throughout the entire speech, Obama's delivery was powerful. He stuck with his now-familiar message of hope and change. He reiterated his call for a politics that transcends pettiness and distractions. But he really took it to the other side--issuing specific charges and offering specific ideas for policy changes. Obama still has one failing as a great speaker: he does not quite step out of the moment of the Grand Speech to talk directly to the individual on the couch who is watching and weighing. He seeks to inspire and attract support with political poetry--but there's a touch of abstraction to the exercise.

Nevertheless, what was in the speech was far more important than what might have been missing. Anyone watching could see that Obama has an economic vision. He showed he had no reluctance to challenge McCain on national security. He linked the policy debates of the moment to the noble currents of American history, noting that this day was the fortieth anniversary of the "I Have a Dream" speech of Martin Luther King Jr. He soared high. He punched hard. He was tough without being mean. It was a near-perfect--or maybe perfect--blend of positive and negative.

Can an acceptance speech make a difference in an election? This was one with the potential to do so. And as the Democrats' convention concluded with fireworks exploding at Denver's Invesco Field and stately orchestral music playing from the loudspeakers, Democrats were entitled to look at their once-improbable leader and say, Mission Accomplished. But the Republicans will have their chance to rip Obama apart at their convention next week--and in the weeks following that. This will be a fierce and bloody election. There will be no more big speeches for Obama, though the debates between the candidates could end up mattering much. Yet on a night when the fast trajectory of Obama's extraordinary life intersected with the slow trajectory of American history, Obama made a passionate and forceful case for himself, for his campaign, and for his view of America and what must be done to serve its citizens. He gave his supporters cause for hope.

Soon after I wrote yesterday's posting--in which I questioned whether the Democratic convention was producing enough red-meat attacks against John McCain--I ran into Senator Dick Durbin, the Illinois Democrat and No. 2 in the Senate. I asked whether the Obama people planning the convention had made the slightest of strategic errors by not striking at McCain in a harsher manner. No, no, no, said Durbin, who has been one of Barack Obama's most enthusiastic supporters in Democratic officialdom. "They're cutting ads right now that will be a lot sharper," he noted, referring to spots that would come out after the convention. "We need to come out of here with a positive message."

Well, we'll have to see how strong those ads are. But on Thursday night, the main speakers at the convention generally stuck to the usual practice: praise McCain's heroism, courage and service to the country and then say the problem with him is that he has a few bad ideas. Joe Biden, who as veep-mate is supposed to be the lead attack dog, went on about how McCain's courage "amazes" him and noted that his friendship with McCain transcends politics. As I've written before, this strategy of heaping praise on McCain the man and then questioning McCain's ideas may place the Dems in a corner. McCain attacks Obama for being a traitor. He says Obama is so ambitious he is willing to lose a war to win an election. That's a damn ugly charge. It's a vicious indictment of Obama's character. What do the Obama-ites do? They say McCain is a man of solidity but they disagree with his policy notions. Not very even, right?

So don't the Dems then have to ratchet up? Show voters he's a phony maverick or a warmonger or completely out of touch (with the Internet, the economy, take your choice)? After all, if the choice for the voters is a good man with some bad ideas or a bad man with some good ideas, wouldn't many choose the former?

Hours after Biden's speech, I found myself in a hotel restaurant at closing time with an assortment of reporters and political ops. I raised this point, and a Democratic political consultant (not the one I mentioned yesterday) disagreed. This person said that there had been a loot of private polling done on the Democratic side that indicates that on-the-fence voters would not buy a direct slam on McCain and that they would not absorb any negative information about him unless the attacker paid tribute to McCain's military service. The consultant was adamant on this point. S/he maintained that the polling did show that voter perceptions of McCain could be changed to benefit Obama, if the attack was crafted the right way and McCain was not merely blasted.

I don't have access to this empirical data. It could be overwhelmingly convincing. (My table-mate did not reveal who had done this polling.) But if the Democratic assault on McCain has to be nuanced and tempered with praise, that could be quite tricky for the Obama campaign to pull off. It's clear that the McCain attack on Obama ain't gonna be subtle. Not next week in St. Paul. And certainly not in the weeks after that.

For my review of the third night of the convention, click here.

Following Hillary Clinton's get-over-it speech on Tuesday night at the Democratic convention, I was at a swanky party, and a political consultant I've known for years--a smart fellow who has been essential to the careers of several prominent Democratic legislators--walked up to me and said that the Barack Obama campaign had made a serious strategic mistake. "We've had two soft nights," he complained.

The first evening was the warm-and-fuzzy celebration of Michelle Obama. Then came Hillary Night. Throughout both evenings, some shots had been taken at George W. Bush and John McCain, but no real fusillade had been launched against the two. (Ohio Governor Ted Strickland had a good line on Tuesday when he quipped, "It was once said of the first George Bush that he was born on third base and thought he'd hit a triple. Well, with the 22 million new jobs and the budget surplus Bill Clinton left behind, George W. Bush came into office on third base, and then he stole second.") This consultant noted that four years ago he had argued against the stay-positive approach of John Kerry's convention. The Kerry crew's decision to not pummel Bush throughout the four-day convention is now regarded by many political pros as a major error. And this consultant was worried that the Obama camp was repeating history. "We've lost two nights," he said.

He knew that on Wednesday night, Senator Joe Biden would take after McCain. That's what veep candidates do. They play the attack dog. And every Democrat and journalist in Denver was expecting Biden to do so with enthusiasm. But regardless of how well Biden would do in this role, it did seem that the Obama campaign had relegated its assault on McCain to something of an "attack hour," rather than integrate it fully into the convention's narrative. (And Biden's attack would have to compete for attention with Bill Clinton's much-anticipated speech that night.) Though the Obama campaign did have to go through several compulsory exercises on the first two evenings--"humanize" Michelle, hail Teddy Kennedy, and pacify Hillary Clinton--it's not hard to imagine an alternative schedule that would have featured speakers or films that ripped into McCain to make the point that this election presents a fundamental choice and that a vote for McCain would be one damn serious mistake.

Obama did win the nomination by promising to rise above partisan potshots. But not every shot has to be a cheap one. The Republicans and their allies, of course, are doing what they can to make Obama seem like The Other. They question the American-ness of Obama and his wife. They lie about his tax plan. Their goal: to delegitimize Obama. The Obama campaign should not follow the GOPers into the gutter. But it does need to persuade those I-don't-know-yet voters that McCain is not only an ex-POW and self-proclaimed maverick but a fellow who--due to his conservative policy positions, connections to corporate lobbyists, cluelessness about the Internet, combustible temperament, eagerness for military confrontation and more--would be a bad president for the country. Up to now, much of the Obama campaign's assault has focused on tying McCain to Bush. (Hillary Clinton's one zinger against McCain played off this point.) But this line of attack will only go so far. On Election Day, voters will be deciding between Obama and McCain. For Obama to win, voters will have to believe McCain himself--because of his own views, his own traits--is dead wrong for the job.

Has the Obama campaign blown it? Hyperbolic questions like this cannot be answered until after the votes are cast and counted. But let's consider another question: will the Republicans at their convention next week begin with two soft nights and not try to rip the hide off Obama from the start? Perhaps. But if I were an Obama adviser, I wouldn't count on that.

Among the politerati gathered in Denver for the Democratic convention there is a question some are whispering: do you have a sinking feeling?

There has certainly been a profound mood shift for Democrats and journalists who fancy Barack Obama since the days of early summer when Obama, having vanquished Hillary Clinton, seemed a dragon-slayer with a clear path toward the White House, never mind that old guy who kept saying dumb things and whose campaign was undisciplined and disorganized. This week, at parties and receptions, in the hallways of the Pepsi Center (and does anyone else think it is odd that a major political party picks a possible next Leader of the Free World in an arena named after a beverage?), and on the street corners of Mile High City, people are asking if the Democrats--yet again--can blow it.

There is reason for worry. Recent polls have been not so hot for Obama. One CNN survey found that the number of Hillary backers who say they will vote for John McCain over Obama in the fall has increased in recent weeks. (That number was supposed to decrease.) A Quinnipiac poll out today shows McCain ahead of Obama in Florida 47 to 43 percent. Obama had a two-point lead there in late July. Yet that poll also found that Florida voters say they prefer a Democrat over a Republican in the White House by a 44 to 39 percent margin. That is, a generic Democratic candidate beats a generic Republican in the Sunshine State. Yet McCain leads Obama. Any theories? (Race--there I said it.)

In Ohio, according to the Quinnipiac survey, Obama has a one-point advantage over McCain. In Pennsylvania, he holds a seven-point lead, the same as it was in late July. In both of these states, there is also a tremendous yearning for a Democrat in the White House. In Pennsylvania, the poll found a 50 to 32 percent margin, and in Ohio, it was 44 to 35 percent. It seems that throughout Swing-state-land, voters want a D to reside in 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. But that desire is apparently not translating into strong support for Obama.

There's more: pundits keep punditing about Obama's inability to connect with working-class Americans (meaning, white working voters). Such talk--which may have validity, given these polls--is spooking Dems and Obama fans who know that for years the Republicans have been able to succeed in part by slamming Democratic candidates as out of touch, elitist, and effete (even when the GOP's candidates were plutocrats and handmaidens of the well-to-do). These Dems and journalists say--apparently rightfully--that Obama has not yet passed the I-feel-your-pain test.

And there's more: the ghost of John Kerry. The Democrats' 2008 convention is only one day old and already Dems and journalists are wondering if it will be a replay of last time. As the 2004 convention ended, the Kerry campaign and Democrats were on a massive high. Many believed the convention had been a success and had placed Kerry on practically an undeniable route to the White House. It didn't turn out that way. This time around, there's hypersensitivity on this front.

No doubt, there's plenty cause for concern (but not panic--not yet) for Obama fanciers. The race, as depicted in the polls, is much tighter than might be expected, considering the external circumstances (a lousy economy, a lousy president). And the Obama magic does seem less magical these days. A nineteen-month-long campaign has taken its toll. But there's much to happen in the next ten weeks that could determine the outcome. This could end up a blowout in either direction, or a narrow win by either side. Which is why, despite the hoopla of convention week, some Obama-ites within the political set appear to be preparing themselves for the possibility of déjà vu all over again.

For my take on the first night of the Democratic convention, see this dispatch here.

A piece on Biden I posted at Mother Jones.....

In the end, Barack Obama used unconventional means to announce a conventional choice for his running-mate.

Via a three A.M. text message sent to the cell phones of his supporters, donors and volunteers, Obama's campaign declared that he had chosen Senator Joe Biden, the Delaware Democrat, to be "our" veep nominee. (Three in the morning--was this a dig at Senator Hillary Clinton or just a coincidence?) With this I'll-let-you-know-first gimmick, Obama had snagged millions of cell numbers and email addresses his campaign can use in the weeks ahead to motivate voters and push them to the polls on Election Day. So in purely tactical terms, his running-mate rollout was indeed pioneering and widely successful. What remains to be seen, of course, is whether he made a smart pick by attaching his campaign for change to a fellow who has worked Washington's ways in the Senate for 35 years.

Sometimes going conventional is not the wrong course. During the past weeks of veep-frenzy, Biden's assets and liabilities have been dissected repeatedly. He possesses extensive foreign policy experience (which Obama does not). He can do straight-talk relatively well for a senator (while Obama has been accused of not fully connecting with working-class voters). Then again, Biden has suffered in the past from both verbal diarrhea and gaffe-itis. I've attended many committee hearings in the Senate when Biden turned a question into a long-winded monologue that drove people in the room to want to shout, "Question, Senator, do you have a question?!!" And there are times when Biden's mental filter has switched off and he has said the dumbest thing, such as when he famously called Obama "the first mainstream African American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy." (The Daily Mail headlined its account of Obama's pick this way: "Obama names 'gaffe-prone' Joe Biden as his running mate.")

But Biden is a smart legislator who has shown that he can suppress his own faults when he must. He had a good campaign this past year as a presidential candidate. He won few votes but performed well at the debates and demonstrated he could keep his infamous verbosity under control. At the confirmation hearing for Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, while other Democrats got bogged down in legal jargon practically indecipherable to the average person, Biden peppered Roberts with straightforward questions about Roberts' claim that he merely wanted to be an umpire on the bench who calls constitutional balls and strikes. "Much as I respect your metaphor," Biden countered, "it's not very apt, because you get to determine the strike zone. The founders never set a strike zone." It was the best moment of the hearing.

On foreign policy, Biden has always been an activist, thinking and engaging with the issues and crises generating headlines and those that don't make the evening news. He has a fancy for cooking up proposals. And even if he devises ideas that may raise objections--such as his plan to partition Iraq--he often deserves credit for the effort. (He issued his proposal for splitting up Iraq at a time when the Bush administration was doing nothing but "staying the course.")

One of Biden's better moments came in the run-up to the war with Iraq. In the fall of 2002, the Bush administration, claiming Saddam Hussein had amassed loads of WMDs that he could hand to al Qaeda for attacks against the United States, was demanding that the House and Senate grant Bush the authority to invade Iraq whenever he wanted. Rather than cave to Bush, Biden, the chairman of the foreign relations committee, worked with Republican Senators Richard Lugar and Chuck Hagel to craft an alternative: a resolution that would allow Bush to attack Iraq only for the purposes of destroying Iraq's WMDs and only after seeking UN approval. If the UN withheld permission, Bush would have to come back to Congress and prove that the threat was so "grave" that only military action could eliminate it. This was a wily legislative maneuver that could have averted a war. (And Biden told me and Michael Isikoff during an interview for our book, Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War, that he had received backdoor encouragement from Secretary of State Colin Powell.) But Biden's bipartisan measure was ultimately derailed by a fellow Democrat: House minority leader Richard Gephardt, who essentially accepted the White House's blank-check approach. After Gephardt did that, Republican senators told Biden, How can we be to the left of Dick Gephardt? "I was so angry," Biden later said. "I was frustrated. But I never second-guess another man's political judgment."

Biden went on to vote for the Iraq war resolution. Which demonstrated his Washington-ness. He had tried for something better. When that failed, he, too, accepted the prevailing notion. But his pre-vote effort to create a much more limited resolution will afford the Obama-Biden ticket a small measure of cover when its foes point out that Obama's main charge against John McCain (he supported the Iraq invasion) can also be applied to his running-mate.

The main rule in veep-picking is this: First, do no harm. Among Obama's conventional options, each had obvious problems. Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana stood side-by-side with McCain in fervently advocating the war in Iraq prior to the invasion. Governor Tim Kaine of Virginia is another political newbie on the national stage with no foreign policy cred, and he has yet to rack up many accomplishments. As for Senator Hillary Clinton, with her on the ticket, the election would be as much about the Clintons as about Obama and McCain. Depending on your view, that's either a big winner or political hell.

Biden comes with decades of baggage. There are thousands of Senate floor votes for GOP oppo researchers to sift through. He's had more than one plagiarism scandal. Hailing from a solidly Democratic state, he brings no Electoral College votes with him. But he has the talent to be both Obama's attack dog and his top foreign policy adviser. And though vice presidential nominees tend to have no true impact on the final results, Biden has the potential to be a fierce campaigner for and with Obama--that is, if he can be the better Biden for the next ten weeks.

By tapping Biden, Obama does little to reinforce his core themes of change and hope. He does not amplify his Washington-is-broken and postpartisan messages. He does not boost his claim that his campaign is a movement. He does not increase the excitement factor or accentuate the historic nature of his candidacy. But then Obama himself has already provided much of that. And it's possible that the American electorate can only absorb so much unorthodoxy in a presidential election. With Biden, Obama may have passed the do-no-harm rule. But that won't be known until the election is over.

On Thursday, two Obama-ites asked me if John McCain's inability to recall how many houses he and the missus own is a "game changer." This suggested to me that the conventional media wisdom that Barack Obama was either slipping or not doing as well as he should be doing against McCain had taken hold within Obamaland. And perhaps the Obama-ists should be fretting, for polls are not always wrong, and voter surveys do seem to show McCain holding nearly even when external circumstances (a lousy economy, an unpopular war, $4-a-gallon gas, a populace that overwhelmingly believes the nation is on the wrong track) ought to give the fellow from the non-incumbent party a major advantage.

Thus, the desire within the Obama camp to change the game.

McCain's house--make that, houses--moment certainly is a boost for Obama. But it's unlikely to alter the fundamentals. This election is, as another piece of conventional media wisdom puts it, about Obama. Much more so than McCain. The GOPer is a known quantity. Many voters, correctly or not, believe they know the guy. Obama, even after campaigning for a year and a half, remains the new kid on the block. His challenge is to forge a bond with those in-the-middle voters, many of whom tend not to pay close attention to the details of political debate. Consequently, many of them are easily swayed by misleading or false attacks--the specifics of which they might not absorb, even as they develop an impression shaped by the attacks. (Yeah, I heard there's something about Obama's Muslim background......)

During the nomination battle, Obama was able to reach many Democratic primary and caucus voters directly--through campaign appearances, through direct voter meetings, through surrogates. And he connected. Now that he's playing to a bigger, more diffuse, and less engaged audience, it's tougher for this fresh face to forge a bond.

The pundits keep saying that Obama has to demonstrate to voters that he feels their economic pain and knows how to relieve it. That's true. But he also has to make a direct connection. He cannot just release solid economic plans and give well-written speeches on economic matters. He can indeed best McCain in issuing economic proposals. But that's not the same as getting a voter to feel that he or she knows--really knows--Obama.

So while watching the Olympics, I was surprised to see the Obama ad that has run repeatedly. It's darn conventional. The spot touts his plans for creating millions of jobs and advancing alternative energy. Wind generators are pictured. And Obama gazes in a leader-like fashion into the wonderful future. I wondered why Obama in this ad wasn't speaking directly to whoever was watching it. A commercial that claims he's great and has great ideas is not going to do much on the forge-a-bond front. Such an ad follows the conventions of standard commercials: talk at the viewer. Obama has to talk to voters. And that's more difficult in the general election than in the primaries. And the main way to reach undecided, swing, independent, or whatever-you-call-them voters is, alas, by the media and advertising.

Obama's people obviously understand this. And who knows what they have planned for the coming weeks. Still, I keep waiting for a breakthrough. Maybe that's an unfair expectation. But as the general election contest now stands, the Obama campaign cannot rely on McCain slip-ups--of which there have been many. It must create the game-change it seeks.

One of my favorite sub-subplots of the presidential campaign is John McCain's continuing exploitation of Representative John Lewis, the civil rights icon and hero. This has been such a strange episode, and I wonder what it means about the GOP presidential candidate.

First, in April, McCain went to Selma, Alabama, to deliver a speech about patriotism and courage--and expropriated the patriotism and courage of Lewis. Speaking at the site of a historic civil rights clash, McCain recounted how hundreds of civil rights activists, led by Lewis, had marched across the Edmund Pettus Bridge and peacefully confronted state troopers who brutally attacked them. McCain hailed Lewis and quoted him. ("When I care about something, I'm prepared to take the long, hard road.") McCain did not cite any action he himself had ever taken to advance the civil rights cause--presumably because there were none to cite. (McCain had even opposed establishing the birthday of Martin Luther King Jr. as a holiday.) McCain, as I noted at the time, was trying to wrap himself in the bloody shirt of John Lewis. Moreover, a Lewis associate told me that McCain had never been close to Lewis, that McCain did not invite Lewis to attend this event, and that McCain had not even informed Lewis he would be making this speech.

McCain had served in the U.S. Congress with Lewis for 21 years. But in all that time, McCain had not established any relationship with Lewis. If McCain really was so impressed with Lewis, why had he not reached out to him? Yet McCain, looking to grab a piece of civil rights history, was claiming Lewis was a leader to emulate. And in the same speech, McCain bashed Barack Obama, who had been endorsed by Lewis, as a panderer and peddler of "false promises."

This was odd; McCain was attempting to sell himself by praising a fellow who was campaigning for Obama. Then the story got more bizarre. At the presidential forum hosted by best-selling mega-pastor Rick Warren on Saturday, McCain was asked to name the "three wisest people" he would call on were he to become president. His list: General David Petraeus, Meg Whitman, the former CEO of eBay, and, yes, John Lewis.

The following day, we at Mother Jones asked Lewis for a comment, and the Georgia congressman said, "I cannot stop one human being, even a presidential candidate, from admiring the courage and sacrifice of peaceful protesters on the Edmund Pettus Bridge or making comments about it." But Lewis added, "Sen. McCain and I are colleagues in the US Congress, not confidantes. He does not consult me. And I do not consult him."

Think about this. McCain said Lewis would be one of the three wisest people he would rely upon for advice in the White House. But McCain has not asked Lewis for any advice in the two decades he has been in Congress with him. How else then to read McCain's references to Lewis other than as crass pandering and exploitation? After all, since Lewis entered the House in 1987--and even before that--McCain has had the opportunity to pick up the phone and say, "Hey, John, can you help me out with some advice." But he has not done so.

McCain is lucky that Lewis is a class act. He could make an issue out of this and cause McCain to look like a fool. Lewis has chosen not to. But for voters looking for authenticity, this is an indicator that McCain can be as phony as any non-maverick politician.

I'm still on vacation. Be back soon..

In a front-pager on Sunday, The New York Times took on the question, is John McCain a warmonger? The paper did not put it in such an indelicate manner. But that was (and is) essentially the issue at hand. The story reminded readers of McCain's bellicose rhetoric after 9/11. In October 2001, he appeared on David Letterman's show and said that Iraq might behind the anthrax attacks. He also claimed that Mohamed Atta, the lead 9/11 hijacker, had met with Iraqi intelligence--even though the evidence at the time was unclear. (The entire charge was eventually debunked by U.S. intelligence.) And on an aircraft carrier in January 2002, he yelled to sailors, "Next up, Baghdad!"

None of this trip down memory lane was surprising, given that McCain months ago was joking about bombing Iran. McCain is a guy who despite his own military service and POW experience has been too eager in recent years to play the war card. Not only was he among those who made false claims about Iraq to win popular support for a U.S. invasion of that country; he seemed eager for the war. The Obama campaign might consider reminding voters of his excessive enthusiasm for military confrontation with Iraq and Iran.

But that's not why I'm writing this posting. What stood out in this article was McCain's response to a query posed to him by the Times. Asked about his support for the war in Iraq, McCain replied via email:

Given Mr. Hussein's history of pursuing illegal weapons and his avowed hostility to the United States, "his regime posed a threat we had to take seriously." The attacks were still a reminder, Mr. McCain added, of the importance of international action "to prevent outlaw states -- like Iran today -- from developing weapons of mass destruction."

Okay, when will the war backers stop spinning? As it turned out, Saddam posed no immediate treat to the United States. He was, of course, a problem--but not a threat. And the war did not prevent his outlaw state from developing nuclear weapons because Iraq was not developing nuclear weapons at the time. Saddam's nuclear program was kaput. In fact, the international inspections program that was ended by the U.S. invasion was itself effectively preventing Saddam from developing nuclear weapons and other WMDs.

McCain would not admit that he had gotten Iraq wrong. He said that his pre-invasion remarks about Iraq's WMDs were misleading because of "Iraq's opacity under Saddam." But that's a convenient CYA excuse. The weapons inspectors had gotten it right at the time and were saying there was no evidence of major WMDs in Iraq. McCain, like others legislators (Republicans and Democrats), simply chose not to believe them.

On this crucial issue, there's no straight talk from McCain. Then again, there cannot be. For any admission of error might make it harder for him to rush into the next war.

I'm still on vacation. Posting will suffer for a few more days.

I'm on vacation, so posting will suffer this week and the next. But I was impressed by the responses--okay, some of the responses--to the previous item, in which I asked, Can a black man be elected president? Note the wide range of replies--from it's irrelevant to it's the main thing. Thus proving that we are indeed in the midst of a grand political science experiment, yet one with tremendous real-life consequences.

One noteworthy reply came directly to me in an email from Jeffrey Hart, a veteran conservative who has been a senior editor at The National Review since 1968 and who wrote speeches for Nixon and Reagan. He's an Obamacon, one of the rightwingers who are hot for Barack Obama. He writes:

I've read you Blog on maybe we can't elect a black president. But three weeks ago Obama was ahead in Gallup by 4-6 points. Obama was black then too. Then there came his trip to the Middle East, Iraq, Germany. Apparently successful. Now he and McCain are about equal in the national poll.

What explains that?

Only very recently Obama might have brought race into the foreground when he said "They will try to frighten you with etc. and the fact that "I don't look like those other presidents" on the currency.

McCain seized on that. Hoped that race would not be part of the campaign. Sure. He's delighted to have race in the foreground. In the Sat. NYT Bob Herbert cites earlier McCain innuendoes about race.

But those weren't taking hold as Obama's polls remained very good. Did Obama make a big mistake in that "not looking like other presidents"? Or have McCain attack ads about flip-flopping been enough to pull Obama's polls down?

That is, I think Obama's polls sank before the recent race business. What to do? Obama should attack (and run TV spots):

1. McCain supported a hugely expensive war sold with lies. Be specific.

2. McCain wants to make Bush tax cuts permanent -- "Hood Robin" tax-cuts. Robin Hood took from the rich and gave to the poor. Bush-McCain Hood Robin cuts give to the richest and take from the rest.

3. McCain would appoint Judges "like Roberts and Alito." There goes Roe. Women Alert.

4. McCain would renew Bush's attempt to attach Social Security to the stock market. The stock market drops about 200 points every time you look.

5. McCain has no national plan for medical care.

6. Play clips of Gramm saying people are "whiners" about lousy economy. That was a "gaffe," defined as when a politician tells you what he really thinks. Gramm was McCain's economic guru until he let it out what McCain really thinks.

7. Play TV clips of McCain hugging and kissing Bush. That absurdity sez it all. It may be that Obama is too nice. But to win he must go on the attack, but with comic touches.

8. The three presidential debates will be devastating for McCain: Pericles vs. Donald Duck.

Wow. It's not every day that Obama gets such advice (and cheerleading) from a National Review editor and former Reaganaut. Whether Hart is correct or not--and his plan sounds good to me--the fact that a fellow with his pedigree is rooting for Obama and hoping for him to hit McCain damn hard shows that this sure is one different election--and not just because of the race of the candidates.

In the meantime, while I'm gone, feel free to continue discussing the race factor in the comments section--or anything else.

Consider these tidal forces: the economy is sagging, two wars (one quite unpopular) are under way, the incumbent GOP president has basement-low approval ratings, and over 80 percent of the nation believes the country is heading in the wrong direction. With all that, the presidential candidate of the party on the outs ought to have a near-cakewalk to the White House. And perhaps Barack Obama will win handily in November. But the latest national polls show he has but a modest (if steady) lead over John McCain.

So here's an unoriginal thought: if Obama were a white guy with a white-guy name, he'd probably be heading toward a 40-state win--okay, maybe a 30-state win. That leads to this unoriginal and obvious question: will American voters elect a black man president?

I can't help thinking that's a defining question of this election, perhaps the defining question. Sure, there are other factors at play. Obama, it is true, doesn't possess the governmental experience of your average presidential nominee. But solid experience is not always what voters desire. (Remember George W. Bush?) And, yes, Obama has not been a leader on commander-in-chief-ish issues--though he was still able to render the correct call on the Iraq war. But are these the decisive matters in this election?

It is often hard to discern what factor is the game-changer--especially before votes are counted. But Obama's race looms large for my back-of-the-envelope calculations. I wonder if the United States--that is, a majority of voters--can pull the lever for a biracial man with an unusual name. And I've been asking political analysts of different ideological bents about this for weeks. To date, no one has impressed me with a creative answer. Some say, "Of course, America can do this." Others say, "we'll see, won't we?" A few seem dedicated to hiding their pessimism. (And I recall what a key Hillary Clinton fundraiser and aide said to me at the start of the primary campaign: We cannot make our strongest case against him--America is not going to elect a black man.)

I have no clear take on this. Barack Obama as president? On the morning after Election Day, will Democrats be saying, "what were we thinking?" Or will the world look at the United States and see that its citizens had overcome a history of racism to make history? I dunno.

Thus, I ask you to tell me. Is this the key question of this election: can a black man be elected president? I'm on vacation for a while and will keep this thread open for several days. Please share your informed or uninformed speculation in the comments section below. And feel free even to give an answer to the question itself.

Sorry for the all-too obvious cliché in the headline, but Virginia Governor Tim Kaine is the Conventional Wisdom Flavor of the Moment, when it comes to who will share the Democratic ticket with Barack Obama. MSNBC's First Read tipsheet sums it up:

Gov. Tim Kaine is all the rage today -- with a front-page Washington Post piece saying that he has had "very serious" conversations about possibly becoming Obama's veep pick, as well as a Politico article that has a source saying that Kaine is "very, very high on the short list." What's more, Kaine today just happens to be in Washington (for his WTOP interview at 10:00 am ET). And guess what? Obama's in DC, too. For all we know, the two are meeting as you read this, or have already met (Obama had a VERY early call time this morning). Kaine's strengths: He helps with the battleground of Virginia; reinforces Obama's outside the Beltway message (although part of his state happens to be inside the Beltway); also reinforces Obama's emphasis on faith (he's a devout Catholic); speaks fluent Spanish (once serving as a missionary in Honduras); and is close to Obama. Kaine's weaknesses: He has little name ID across the country; has no national security experience; and it's debatable how much more support Obama might gain in Virginia with Kaine on the ticket -- given that Mark Warner and Jim Webb are also campaigning for him and given that Kaine's geographic strength in the state is fairly similar to Obama's. The Obama campaign isn't one that likes to surprise. Could it be they are sending a signal that Kaine is very likely, and if you don't speak now Dem special interest groupies, forever hold your peace?

Yesterday, Republican Governor Tim Pawlenty was the rage, with pundits expecting John McCain to name the Minnesota chief executive his veep choice during an appearance on Larry King Live. But on the show, McCain announced nothing. He wouldn't even say he if would announce anything before the Olympics kick off on August 8.

Should we care about all speculation? It's hard for political reporters to not be dragged into the who's-it-gonna-be speculation? And every four years we go through this exercise. But, eventually, presidential candidates pick their running-mates, and then the fun can start. (Remember Dan Quayle?) So it's something of a waste of journalistic resources to go overboard trying to figure out whom might be selected. But whaddayathink? Should he go with Kaine?

On Friday morning, on NPR's Diane Rehm Show, guest-host Susan Page made me--really, really, really made me--and the two other commentators (PR man/syndicated columnist Tony Blankley and Politico's Jeanne Cummings) predict John McCain's running-mate pick. None of us were eager to prognosticate. But Page insisted.

Earlier in the day, I had pondered the conventional-wisdom short-list of McCain's choices: Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, former Bush budget director Rob Portman, and former Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge. At least three of these contenders should be nowhere near McCain's calculations:

Ridge: He favors abortion rights. That could help McCain with independent voters, when the inevitable McCain-wants-to-criminalize-abortion ads start flooding the airwaves in the fall. But does McCain want to be at war with the base of his party from now until election day? (One problem for McCain is that he cannot win without the party's base, and he may not be able to win by catering to it. What a paradox!)

Portman: As the economy slides further into a ravine--and Bush's approval ratings remain in the gutter--does McCain want by his side the man who was in charge of Bush's budget? Portman does hail from the must-win state of Ohio, and he's considered an affable and effective campaigner. But McCain would find it harder to distance himself from Bush's economic policies with one of Bush's key economic appointees on the ticket.

Jindal: As I noted earlier, if McCain opts for this 37-year-old overachiever, he will make exorcism a campaign issue, for Jindal will have to explain his 1994 account of an exorcism in which he participated--and prove his account was true. Also, Jindal's record in Louisiana has been not-so-stellar recently. Senator, once more, can you explain whether you believe that Satanic demons can take possession of an individual and that people like your running-mate can perform amateur exorcisms to drive these spirits away?

So that leaves Pawlenty and Romney. Pawlenty comes from a swing state, but he has no standing on the national stage. "Pawlenty of nothing," one conservative pundit quipped to me recently. As for Romney, he does okay (not great) with the GOP base (the part of which that does not consider Mormonism to be an anti-Christian cult), and he can talk about his business experience at a time when the economy is ailing. One key question is, is McCain still pissed off at Romney over his attacks on McCain during the primary campaign? McCain does have anger issues. (See here for a recent example.)

When pressed for an answer by Page, I went with Romney, noting I was probably wrong. Blankley chose Ridge. And Cummings picked Portman, adding that voters would not necessarily identify him with Bush. But we all stipulated that we had no clue. As for me, I doubt that the veep pick will make much of a difference for McCain's campaign. He (and Barack Obama, too) ought to keep in mind the cardinal rule: first, do no harm. Yet that short-list is full of potential dangers.

It was inevitable. American advocates of the Iraq war are now arguing that they know better than Iraq's leaders when it comes to how long U.S. troops should stay in Iraq. And this approach seems to be animating John McCain's view of the war.

Advocates of the war received a blow recently when the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said several times that it would like to see some sort of timetable for a U.S. pullout. For McCain, this was particularly troubling, for it placed the Iraqi government closer to Barack Obama's position (set a schedule for a gradual withdrawal) than his position (stay and win, win, win, and then withdraw). So what's a neocon to do? Simple: attack Maliki.

In The Washington Post, Max Boot, a foreign policy adviser to McCain, wrote:

There is some irony in the fact that Democrats, after years of deriding Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki as a hopeless bungler and conniving Shiite sectarian, are now treating as sacrosanct his suggestion that Iraq will be ready to assume responsibility for its own security by 2010. Naturally this is because his position seems to support that of Barack Obama.

A little skepticism is in order here. The prime minister has political motives for what he's saying -- whatever that is. An anonymous Iraqi official told the state-owned Al-Sabah newspaper, "Maliki thinks that Obama is most likely to win in the presidential election" and that "he's got to take preemptive steps before Obama gets to the White House." By smoothing Obama's maiden voyage abroad as the Democratic nominee, Maliki may figure that he will collect chits that he can call in later.

Giving the Iraqi prime minister an added motive to posture about troop withdrawals, even while he explicitly eschews binding timelines, is that he is engaged in contentious status-of-forces negotiations with the United States. He may figure that threatening to boot us out gives him more leverage over our troops. Beyond the negotiations, there is the imperative of Iraq's provincial elections, supposed to take place this year. Maliki no doubt expects that his Dawa party will reap political benefits from appearing to stand up to the Americans.

Oh my goodness! A political leader making statements and setting policies because of...politics! How dreadful. Boot goes on to diss Maliki: "Keep in mind also that Maliki has no military experience and that he has been trapped in the Green Zone, relatively isolated from day-to-day life. For these reasons, he has been a consistent font of misguided predictions about how quickly U.S. forces could leave."

That is, Boot, who toils as a fellow for the Council on Foreign Relations, knows more about conditions on the ground than Maliki. One need not be a fan of Maliki--who has indeed run a corrupt and inept administration--to note that he's the guy who was selected by Iraqis to be their leader and render such judgments. And that his ineptitude does not allow the United States--or the McCain campaign--to dismiss his decisions. (Can other nations do that regarding George Bush?) And what's the logical extension of Boot's (and McCain's) stance? To lean on Maliki? To support "regime change" in Iraq? To threaten to stay in Iraq no matter what the Iraqi government says. Boot does acknowledge, "Of course, if the Iraq government tells us to leave, we will have to leave." But he's essentially saying, pay no attention to what the Iraqi government is signaling. What a nice lesson for the burgeoning democracy in Iraq.

On the Hill, Republicans have been taking a similar posture. House Minority Whip Roy Blunt told the Post, "I find it interesting that Prime Minister Maliki is now the person to go to." This was a sneering remark. But whom should be gone to? When the Iraqis voted for the new government, supporters of the war hailed the event as a breakthrough justifying Bush's decision to invade a country on false (or inaccurate) pretenses. Oh, what to do when the results of that election produce inconvenient consequences?

It may well be true that Maliki is declaring he wants U.S. troops out to enhance his political standing, as local elections approach. But all politics is local. As local politics in Iraq places Maliki and his government more in sync with Obama than McCain, the McCain camp is left with the Ugly American option of insisting it knows better than the locals. And who's going to buy that?

This was first posted at motherjones.com...

As John McCain moves to select a running mate, it seems--at least for the moment--that the star of potential veep nominee Bobby Jindal, the Louisiana governor, is rising. This is good news for Democrats.

On one level, Jindal is impressive. The son of Indian immigrants, he's only 37 years old, and he has already been elected a member of the U.S. House and a governor. (Talk about a Junior Achiever!) Yet can McCain, who claims Obama is not sufficiently experienced to become president, say with a straight face that Jindal is prepared to take the helm. And Jindal's record in Louisiana--including his stint in charge of the state health department--has its spotty moments. Then there's that exorcism.

Blogs and news outfits have already picked over a 1994 essay that Jindal, a convert to Catholicism, wrote for a Catholic magazine, describing an exorcism of a friend in which he was an observer/participant. Not only did Jindal and his pals manage to drive the Satanic demon out of their friend; the exercise, Jindal suggested, also cured her skin cancer. The article was entitled, "Physical Dimensions of Spiritual Warfare."

Americans tend to be quite religious. Most tell pollsters they believe in heaven and hell (and assume they are heading upward, not downward, once they expire). Many tend to believe literally in the devil. But how will an amateur exorcism--that violated Catholic law (which allows only certified exorcists to perform the ritual in very limited circumstances)--play with, say, swing voters? No doubt, Jindal will have to discuss the episode. With Oprah perhaps? That would indeed be Must See TV.

Here's one excerpt of his article that an interviewer might want to ask about:

While Alice and Louise held Susan, her sister continued holding the Bible to her face. Almost taunting the evil spirit that had almost beaten us minutes before, the students dared Susan to read biblical passages. She choked on certain passages and could not finish the sentence "Jesus is Lord." Over and over, she repeated "Jesus is L..L..LL," often ending in profanities. In between her futile attempts, Susan pleaded with us to continue trying and often smiled between the grimaces that accompanied her readings of Scripture. Just as suddenly as she went into the trance, Susan suddenly reappeared and claimed "Jesus is Lord."

With an almost comical smile, Susan then looked up as if awakening from a deep sleep and asked, "Has something happened?" She did not remember any of the past few hours and was startled to find her friends breaking out in cheers and laughter, overwhelmed by sudden joy and relief.

As a vice presidential candidate, Jindal would be under great pressure--and ought to be--to make other participants in the event available for interview. In the article, he used fake names. But he insisted every single detail was true. Given that such an event must have had a profound impact on him--he came face to face with a real demon!-- this possible president-in-waiting would be obligated to prove that he got the story right, that he was not exaggerating. (Remember how the press and the GOPers went after Al Gore's claims in 2000 with a vengeance?) And the media, of course, would be on the hunt to find "Susan" to get her side of the tale. (Enquiring minds might want to know if her skin cancer is still gone.)

Is Jindal prepared to disclose more about this exorcism? Is the McCain campaign prepared to see more disclosed? The event is a legitimate target for voter interest and media scrutiny. After all, Representative Dennis Kucinich had to explain his UFO siting. And Jindal should not be allowed to hide behind the cloaks of faith and personal privacy. Barack Obama had no choice but to explain his relationship to a particular minister. He didn't duck the issue by claiming it was a private relationship based on faith. So if Jindal is anointed by McCain, the exorcism will be fair game.

America may or may not be ready for a national political debate about exorcism and Satanic demons. By picking Jindal as a running mate, McCain would give the country a chance to find out.

With Barack Obama still on his grand tour overseas, John McCain's campaign took a potshot at the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee for supposedly violating an agreed-upon rule of U.S. politics. It did so by sending out an email to reporters highlighting a statement pundit David Gergen uttered on CNN:

Barack Obama made the first mistake of his trip, in my judgment, in releasing a statement in which he said exactly what [Iraqi Prime Minister] Maliki had said in those conversations [with Obama]. We have a long tradition in this country that we only have one president at a time. He's the commander in chief and the negotiator in chief. I cannot remember a campaign which a rival seeking the presidency has been in a position negotiating a war that's under way with another party outside the country.

Gergen, counselor to presidents of both parties, was overstating the case. After all, it was Maliki who had told Der Spiegel days before he chatted with Obama that he fancied Obama's call for a phased withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. Obama was not giving away any big secret by sharing the basics of what he and Maliki had discussed. But Gergen was truly hyping this episode by asserting no presidential contender had ever dared to interfere in wartime policy-making. There was a time when a presidential candidate truly did undermine a president while a war was under way--and Gergen worked for this candidate once he became president: Richard Nixon.

In a 1991 letter to The New York Times, William Bundy, the Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs during the Lyndon Johnson administration, described the "covert operation" mounted during the 1968 presidential candidate by Nixon, the GOP nominee, John Mitchell, his campaign manager, and Anna Chennault, a Republican activist. Bundy noted, as others have, that Chennault became Nixon's secret channel to President Nguyen Van Thieu of South Vietnamese through South Vietnamese Ambassador Bui Diem. (Diem, Mitchell and Chennault met together in Nixon's New York apartment sometime in the summer of 1968). And in the fall of 1968, the Johnson administration learned (via intercepted South Vietnam embassy cables) that Chennault had been conveying "Republican" messages to Thieu, urging him to abort or cripple the peace talks then proceeding between President Johnson and Hanoi. The Nixon camp did not want the Democrats to score a political victory by negotiating a peace agreement right before the election. And the implied or explicit message to Thieu was that Thieu would get a better deal if Nixon were elected president. As Bundy noted, Thieu took actions that impeded the peace talks.

Bundy wrote:

On Nov. 3, two days before the election, Mr. Johnson taxed Mr. Nixon with Mrs. Chennault's activities, and Mr. Nixon categorically denied any connection or knowledge -- almost certainly a lie in light of later disclosures. In the circumstances, Mr. Johnson and Mr. Humphrey decided, separately, not to raise what would surely have been a highly divisive issue so late in a campaign. A year later, Theodore White, describing the episode in his book on the 1968 campaign, rightly called Mr. Humphrey's decision one of the most decent actions ever taken by an American political figure.

What the Nixon crew did was truly unprecedented messing around--actively and secretly undercutting ongoing peace talks to gain political advantage. And Gergen worked in the White House of the fellow whose campaign did this. Before Gergen again claims Obama has broken precedent, he might want to review this ugly episode.

I recently wonderedif McCain was getting close to creating an unfortunate (for him) campaign narrative: he's not with it. The latest evidence:

Asked by ABC's Diane Sawyer Monday morning whether the "the situation in Afghanistan in precarious and urgent," McCain responded:

"I think it's serious. . . . It's a serious situation, but there's a lot of things we need to do. We have a lot of work to do and I'm afraid it's a very hard struggle, particularly given the situation on the Iraq/Pakistan border," said McCain, R-Ariz., said on "Good Morning America."

Iraq and Pakistan do not share a border. Afghanistan and Pakistan do.

Okay, he probably meant to say the "Afghanistan/Pakistan" border. But can you imagine if Barack Obama made a similar verbal slip? The McCain camp would declare it proof he is unfit to command. And media commentators would howl. (Have you noticed that much of the media coverage of Obama's overseas trip is framed this way: the trip is fraught with risk....for if he makes any mistake overseas, he's done for?)

Yet with McCain, this is just another....eh, McCain moment. Like when he repeatedly mixed up Sunni and Shia. And when he kept referring to Czechoslovakia (a country that no longer exists). And when he couldn't accurately describe (or remember) his stands on key policy matters. (See the posting below.) How many passes does McCain get? I don't know. But this is one envelope he doesn't want to push.

It's not often that I recommend reading The Washington Times, the conservative newspaper owned by Unification Church leader Sun Myung Moon, but a report it published on Friday on John McCain was a scorcher. Here are some excerpts:

At times it appears Sen. John McCain's Straight Talk Express should stop and ask for directions.

From signature issues such as immigration and climate change to tax cuts, the presumed Republican presidential nominee sometimes just seems lost as to his own record and his stance on hot-button social issues.

After Mr. McCain said he opposed child adoptions to gay and lesbian couples, his campaign clarified that he wasn't making policy and would leave the issue to the states.

In the past week, the candidate was unable to say whether he thought health care plans that cover drugs to treat impotency also should cover contraceptives. Mr. McCain voted against such a proposal in 2005.

For a candidate who delights in telling audiences that it's time for "a little straight talk," he has given his opponents chances to question that reputation....

Ouch. The piece goes on:

Twice this year, Mr. McCain has said he doesn't support "mandatory" caps on greenhouse gas emissions, even though that is the crux of his proposal to address climate change....

On immigration, Mr. McCain misrepresented his own record on the most important vote of the past 40 years. He told the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials that he supported the 1986 amnesty. Mr. McCain voted against that bill, telling the Arizona Republic in his hometown that it was racist and would lead to employer discrimination.

So what's the explanation for McCain's constant (to be polite about it) swerving? The article quotes conservative activist and former Reagan administration official Donald Devine: "He's not a detail person. He's not a liar. I think he just can't believe that he would ever do anything wrong. He would think that would be some kind of moral failing, and he just figures there's got to be something that isn't right with what the other person said." How's that for an endorsement? McCain's no liar, he just can't believe he can make a mistake. And he doesn't have a head for details!

McCain better watch out. He's getting quite close to establishing--here comes that buzz word--a narrative. And it ain't a flattering one: it's the story of an older candidate who either (a) cannot remember what he has said or done or (b) misrepresents the facts for political expedience. Neither scenario is in sync with a tale of a straight-talking, independent-minded politician. And the last thing McCain can afford is to come across as discombobulated or confused--especially about his own positions and actions. When The Washington Times takes notice, that's one helluva warning. This is a meme just waiting for MSM attention.

A prominent liberal commentator approached me today and said, "I'm sorry I voted for Obama." This person was livid about Obama's vote for the FISA bill. ("Telecom immunity is a biggie for me," s/he said.) And this commentator, after complaining Obama's plans for the economy and energy independence were not extensive enough, shared his/her big fear with me: "He's an empty suit."

That's not my take. But there's obviously a liberal backlash against Obama, especially among a small cadre of bloggers who were enraged by his vote for the FISA legislation. Liberal voices, such as Arianna Huffington, have slapped or blasted Obama for supposedly moving to the center. My hunch is that these criticisms do not reach the swing, independent, moderate, whatever-you-call-'em voters who don't yet know for whom they're going to vote. (Obama versus McCain--you have to be pretty distant from the political process to have to wrestle over that choice.)

But I suppose one question is whether the left-of-center complaints about Obama provide any drag on his campaign. In 1992, similar criticism of Bill Clinton did nothing to slow down Clinton, who angered (or irked) many liberals with his triangulations and connections to the Democratic Leadership Council, a corporate-backed group that spent much of its time bashing the base of the party. But the more contemporary evidence is Obama's continued success at fundraising. On Friday, his campaign announced that he had raised $52 million in June. That's $30 million more than McCain raked in--and only $3 million less than what Obama raised in his best month (February).

Bottom-line, he's still going strong. At least in June, that is. All this fundraising was before his FISA vote and before the media misreported that he was backtracking on his vow to disengage in Iraq. But the numbers indicate that throughout June, after he became the presumptive nominee, he still was drawing new supporters (Hillary Clinton backers?) and continuing to build an enormous base of donors he can tap for the general election. The July fundraising figures, though, will be interesting--revealing whether the recent outburst of liberal dissatisfaction has spread beyond the blogs (and whether McCain's recent blunders have even further dampened enthusiasm for his campaign).

It's not hard to imagine the calculation going on at Obama HQ: we'll take the grumbling, as long as Obama can still work his magic with voters (especially those in-the-middle uncommitteds) and donors. But at some point, might there be a real cost? Watch the July ticker.

Okay, we know that John McCain cannot operate a computer on his own. A few days ago, he told The New York Times that his wife Cindy and political aide Mark Salter help him find the websites he likes to peruse and that he's been learning how to get to these spots on his own. C'mon--how hard is it to turn on a computer and double-click on a browser icon? Nevertheless, this is one candidate who better learn fast how to surf. Not just to show he's no fuddy-duddy Luddite, but to make sure he does not become known as a fool

McCain in recent weeks has often repeated dumb mistakes. He mixed up Sunni and Shia--and then did so again and again. His campaign released a list of 300 economists who it claimed supported his economic plan. Yet after Politico reported that several did not back McCainonomics, McCain continued saying that 300 economists were behind him. Then there's this: the guy keeps on referring to a country that does not exist: Czechoslovakia. On Monday, he bemoaned Russia's attempt to reduce "the energy supplies to Czechoslovakia," which ceased to be in 1993 (when it split into the Czech Republic and Slovakia). That slip-up sparked news reports and tittering on blogs. But after all that, on Tuesday, McCain did it again, once more decrying Russia's "reduction in oil supplies to Czechoslovakia."

Sure, all politicians--and all of us--misspeak from time to time. But there is a pattern to McCain's gaffes: after he makes a mistake, he does not correct himself and goes on to restate it. There are several possible explanations for this. One is that because he doesn't use a computer, he does not see the full impact these mistakes have; thus, he does not make an effort to avoid repeating the missteps. After making an error about Czechoslovakia, shouldn't he have made a point to get it right the very next day? Wouldn't you? Another explanation, of course, is that his penchant for repeating gaffes is age-related.

In any event, this apparent McCain trait could come to threaten his campaign. A few more episodes like these--in which he looks discombobulated or out of touch--might give birth to a negative narrative for McCain. (A newsmagazine cover: "How confused is John McCain?") Ronald Reagan, it is true, was a serial mugger of facts, and that did not impede his political career. But McCain is no great communicator, and if voters have questions about his age, this sort of stumbling will reinforce such concerns. So perhaps McCain ought to sign-up for a daily Google alert on himself and check it each night--if only to see what blunders he ought not repeat the next day.

Will John McCain soon move to an all-Iran-all-the-time campaign?

Consider this: as I've noted previously, Iraq may be fizzling out as a campaign issue for McCain. One of his strongest arguments against Barack Obama is national security. And he has used Iraq as a battering ram, claiming that Obama is a defeatist who would let the terrorists win in Iraq. Though the war is quite unpopular, McCain and his strategists apparently believe that voters don't want to lose the war and that voters can be frightened into supporting the candidate who promises triumphant victory not tail-between-the-legs extrication. At least, McCain can tout his Iraq stance as evidence that he is tough enough to take on the evildoers and protect the homeland. George W. Bush sort of pulled this off in 2004. Much of the public by then had turned against the war, but Bush and Karl Rove pointed to the war as proof that Bush was willing to everything necessary to defend the United States. The argument was something like this: Bush is so committed to protecting the United States he'll even invade the wrong country. And it worked.

Can McCain's variant--championing an unpopular war to display cajones--succeed? His problem is that the Iraqis may not cooperate. The other day Prime Minister Nouri al-Malki said that there should be a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. forces. And the negotiations between Baghdad and the Bush administration over the agreement governing U.S. forces in Iraq has bogged down because of the Iraqi demand for a timetable and for stripping immunity from U.S. troops and contractors. A source who recently spoke to the Iraqi foreign minister tells me that the foreign minister was insistent that this agreement contain some sort of timetable.

So if the Iraqis end up endorsing a timetable or asking the U.S. to leave, McCain won't be able to use Iraq as an issue. (And, of course, if the ground reality in Iraq becomes worse, McCain's case will also be weakened.) So what's a hawk to do? Thankfully for McCain, there's Iran. He can bang that drum from now until Election Day. Hype the threat. Promise clear and decisive action--and confrontation, if need be. A warrior candidate needs a war (or near-war). Expect more Iran-slamming from the fellow who has had lots of trouble telling apart Sunni from Shia.

BTW, yesterday I linked to a Reuters article quoting military analysts who said there was no reason to go ballistic over Iran's recent missile tests. It's a point that was lost in all the tough talk that politicians dished out yesterday. So here are some excerpts from that article:

Iran showed footage of missiles on Wednesday it warns could reach Israel and U.S. bases in the Middle East, but military analysts said the damage they could wreak was limited and not enough to deter any would-be attacker....

"This is the Iranians saying: 'We can match you if it comes to that'," said Andrew Brookes of the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) think-tank in London. But, he added, the "possession of some rockets" was not going to stop Israel from going ahead if it felt it must bomb Iran to prevent it from acquiring nuclear arms.

Defence analyst Paul Beaver said Iran's missile programme was fairly advanced but that it still needed to get accuracy and guidance systems right for long distances. "They are some way away yet from threatening Israel or U.S. bases," he said.....

Iran may fire the missiles if it were attacked but its "real strength lies elsewhere," Pieter Wezeman, a researcher at the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI). Analysts say Iran could employ unconventional or "asymmetric" methods to strike back, for example against U.S. forces in Iraq and by disrupting crude supplies vital for the world economy with hit-and-run attacks against oil tankers.

The U.S. political discourse over Iran would be improved by the addition of such cool-headed appraisals. But that would not be in the interest of McCain and the Republicans.

Forget the recent manufactured news about whether Barack Obama was shifting his position on Iraq. (He's always said that he has a goal of withdrawing troops within 16 months and would aim to do so in a responsible and careful manner, meaning that it could take longer or shorter.) The real story is this: in the general election, one candidate says, This war was a mistake and we must end it and begin disengagement; the other proclaims, This war was righteous and we must keep our troops there (maybe up to 100 years) and win it. Given public opinion on the war, it's no wonder that the Republicans and the McCain campaign want to muddy up this stark difference--and the best way for them to do that is to make it seem as if Barack Obama has an unsteady hand when it comes to the war. So expect the desperate GOPers to pounce on any Obama remark that they can twist into purported proof that Obama is not really sure what he wants to do about Iraq.

But on Iraq the McCainiacs have more to worry about then Obama. They are being undermined by Baghdad. On Monday, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said that he wants some sort of timetable for a U.S. troops withdrawal. Though his national security adviser added that any timetable would be conditioned on the ability of Iraqi forces to provide security, this was the first time the PM had mentioned a schedule for disengagement. (All politics is local: Maliki's party faces a stiff challenge in the upcoming provincial elections from Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, who has called for the departure of U.S. military forces.)

So how can McCain and his gang now accuse Obama of being a defeatist surrender-monkey when his call for a timetable for withdrawal is echoed by the leadership of Iraq? This is a real problem for McCain. He has no edge on Obama when it comes to the economy. His only hope of upstaging Obama--policy-wise--is on national security matters, with the Iraq war front and center. But if the Iraqis don't buy the absolute necessity of U.S. troops remaining in Iraq, what does McCain have to offer? (How do you say nada in Arabic?)

I've been repeating this for a year--sorry to do so again--but the reality on the ground in Iraq in the fall will have an impact on the U.S. election. The connection used to be obvious: bad news there would be bad news for the Republicans here. But there's now another possibility: good news there could be bad news for Republicans here. If there are too many explosions and little political progress in Iraq, McCain could pay a political price on Election Day. But if the Iraqis decide they want to go it on their own with the Americans gone, McCain would have no Iraq policy left. Sure, he could claim the surge worked and try to claim credit. But voters, as the cliche goes, tend not to reward presidential candidates for past actions; elections, the consultants keep reminding us, are about the future. Americans don't want other Iraqs in the future. And without Iraq, McCain is merely a sometimes quirky Republican ex-maverick who has yet to learn how to speak convincingly about the number-one issue, the economy. He needs Iraq. But he needs it not too hot and not too cold--and the stove is far beyond his control.

Wow. This just in:

Breaking the mold of traditional political Conventions, the Democratic National Convention Committee (DNCC) today announced that Senator Barack Obama will accept the Democratic nomination for President of the United States at Denver's INVESCO Field at Mile High. INVESCO Field can accommodate more than 75,000 people and will be the site of the 2008 Democratic Convention's final day of programming on Thursday, August 28, 2008.

So on the final night of what is expected to be a no-news (as is now routinely the case) convention, the Dems will not mount the typical Nominee's Big Speech in the convention arena but hold an Obamapalooza in a stadium, with the seats filled not merely by delegates, operatives, and contributors but by regular folks. That will add some grandeur to the climactic night--which will be occurring on the 45th anniversary, to the day, of Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream" speech. Talk about big nights. What's John McCain going to do to match all this? Rent a battleship for his acceptance speech? Announce--prematurely--the bombing of Iran?

It's no happy July 4th for the economy. According to the latest government stats, several tens of thousands of Americans lost their jobs in June. Of course, that's news that the presidential candidates have to respond to. Look at their statements.

Barack Obama:

As we head into the 4th of July weekend, today's report that our economy has lost another 62,000 jobs is a stark reminder that far too many Americans will spend this holiday out of work and struggling to provide for their families because of the failed policies of the last eight years.

Our economy has now shed 438,000 jobs over the past six months, while workers' wages fail to keep pace with the skyrocketing cost of gas, groceries and healthcare. The American people are paying the price for the failed economic policies of the past eight years, and we can't afford four more years of more of the same. That is the essential issue of this campaign because Senator McCain has fully embraced the Bush economic agenda. I believe it has to change.

But, as these numbers demonstrate, the American people can't wait another six months. We need action now. That's why I'm calling on Congress and the President to enact real, immediate relief with energy rebates for working families this summer, a fund to help families avoid foreclosure, extended benefits for the long-term jobless, and assistance to states that have been hard-hit by the economic downturn.

As President, I'll move us in a new direction with policies to restore broad-based, bottom up growth that benefits all Americans. I will provide working families with a middle-class tax cut; fight for affordable health care and college tuition; work to help raise workers' wages, and invest in infrastructure, education and a clean energy future to create millions of new jobs. That's the change the American people need."

John McCain:

Americans across this country are hurting and today's job numbers are just the latest indication. From rising gas prices to home foreclosures, families are struggling to meet economic challenges that become greater every day. Washington can no longer abdicate its responsibility to act. Our focus must be clear: enact policies to create jobs today.

To get our economy back on track, we must enact a jobs-first economic plan that supports job creation, provide immediate tax relief for families, enact a plan to help those facing foreclosure, lower health care costs, invest in innovation, move toward strategic energy independence and open more foreign markets to our goods.

The American people cannot afford an economic agenda that will take our country in the wrong direction and cost jobs. At a time when our small businesses need support from Washington, we cannot raise taxes, increase regulation and isolate ourselves from foreign markets. These are the same old siren songs that have failed the American people time and time again.

Notice anything? Obama is in a position to blast current federal policies (i.e., George W. Bush) and to remind voters that over 400,000 jobs have been lost in the past six months of Bush's watch. Thus, change is needed. And who represents change? Well, you know.

McCain, though, bemoans the consequences of the faltering economy but he does not hold any specific player accountable. He merely swings at a generic target: Washington. Of which he has been a part of for decades. His target is not the Bush administration but the "economic agenda" of his unnamed political foe.

Summing up, Obama surveys the economic troubles, and he says that ongoing policies (Bush's policies) are wrongheaded and a new course--his course--must be plotted. McCain looks at the economic mess (which is associated with an administration he supports) and says let's stick with the general approach of the past seven years and don't trust that other guy's solutions. Which message do you think has the better chance of resonating with voters? After all, what's the real problem: "old siren songs" or present policies?

MORE BLOGGINGHEADS.TV. See me and Jim Pinkerton tussle once more on Bloggingheads.tv. On this edition, we ponder whether the Supreme Court is in play in the 2008 election. Is Wes Clark out of play? Has Obama put religion in play? And have the Taliban put Afghanistan in play? And there's more: Pinkerton explains why you should worry about China and India in space--and not global warming. By the way, he wants to build a giant pipeline across the United States--not to carry oil, but water, from East to West. Check it out.

FIRE UP THE BARBECUE. Enjoy your Fourth and all that potato salad. (Hmmmm, potato salad.) I'll be back next week.

We interrupt politics-as-usual and the parallel who's-up/who's down media coverage to bring you...policy substance. And policy substance about an issue much neglected: U.S. relations with Mexico and Latin America. Please--por favor--don't click away. It seems to me that one of George W. Bush's greatest failures (and lost opportunities) is Mexico. When he entered office as a boy-president, Mexico was actually one of the few foreign policy matters that he knew something about and that he seemed to care about. But he has done nada during his two terms to address the problems plaguing U.S.-Mexico relations. And it seems obvious--wall or not--that the United States will at some point have to deal with trade, crime, drugs, and immigration challenges that bind together us gringos and our poorer neighbors.

This week, McCain took a trip to Mexico and Colombia to highlight, in part, his devotion to free trade. Political strategists of both parties scratched their heads, because this issue is no winner for McCain--especially in the tight states of Ohio, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. But this is a nonpolitical posting, so let's get back to the substance.

On the occasion of McCain's journey to Latin America, the policy people at the Washington Office of Latin America, a nonprofit shop, pulled together a memo on the McCain trip. The paper notes, "The trip follows nearly eight years of neglect toward Latin America under the Bush Administration. Would a McCain Administration be any different?" And it poses some tough questions that the media should ask McCain. Here's a sampling:

Congress just approved $400 million dollars of security assistance to Mexico as part of the Merida Initiative. Yet the United States has made no commitment to address two key catalysts in the violence: steady demand for drugs in the United States, and the illegal flow of weapons into Mexico. Senator McCain has expressed support for the Merida Initiative, but how would he tackle these two domestic problems that contribute to the bloodshed in Mexico?

The Bush Administration has supported the Mexican government's increasing use of the military in anti-drug operations, despite accusations of serious abuses by the military against civilians in the course of these operations. Will McCain back Mexico's use of the armed forces -- instead of the police -- in drug sweeps indefinitely? How would he address the growing reports of human-rights abuses by Mexican forces, and how does he envision rebuilding civilian authority in the drug war in Mexico and throughout Latin America?

Before NAFTA, supporters of the agreement said it would increase employment in Mexico and narrow the gap between U.S. and Mexican wages. Just the opposite has happened. The annual number of undocumented immigrants arriving in the United States from Mexico nearly doubled in NAFTA's first decade. Has the NAFTA experience made McCain rethink his uncritical support for free trade and, if elected, what would he do to address the root causes of economic insecurity in Mexico and elsewhere in Latin America?

These are solid queries that McCain ought to confront. They're certainly more important than a debate over what Wesley Clark said about McCain's military service. What makes me believe they will get less attention?

On a McCain campaign conference call with reporters on Tuesday, Senator Lindsey Graham and former POW Orson Swindle continued to bash retired General Wesley Clark for his recent statement that John McCain's military service did not qualify him to be president. Graham, who has become a lead attack dog for McCain, touted McCain's executive experience, citing his days as a squadron leader and his tenure in the Senate. And Exhibit A regarding McCain's spine-of-steel leadership, he noted, was McCain's criticism of Donald Rumsfeld's failed strategy in Iraq. This is a familiar refrain within the McCain camp: McCain was willing, even at political peril, to decry the disastrous Rumsfeld policy in Iraq. Supposedly, this shows McCain is a fellow of guts and grit.

Wait-a-second. It's not that gutsy when you scapegoat the Pentagon chief but let the commander in chief off easy. Moreover, why should McCain win points for denouncing a failure once it was widely perceived as a failure. Where was this former military man prior to the war. When informed experts--including General Eric Shinseki--were suggesting that the Rumsfeld plan for Iraq was inadequate (because a lot more troops would be needed inside the country after the invasion), McCain did not display prescience and courage by backing them up. I recall no sign of him questioning the planning of the war or the early post-invasion decisions of the Bush administration. Two weeks before the war, he said, "I have no qualms about our strategic plans."

After the invasion, McCain did stand by the administration and Rumsfeld for several years. In March 2004, he said, "We're on the right course." In May of that year, he was backing Rumsfeld, saying it was "premature" to talk of booting Rumsfeld from his job. "He's done a fine job," McCain remarked. In December 2005, he said, "I do think that progress is being made in a lot of Iraq" and called for staying the course. And into 2005, McCain insisted that there were the right number of troops in Iraq--that is, that no surge was needed. (You can find a list of McCain's everything's-going-well remarks here.)

Why award McCain a medal for eventually slamming Rumsfeld and backing a surge? Had he earlier--even before the war--pointed out problems and called for a more effective strategy, he would deserve kudos for both smarts and political courage. He did indeed break with Rumsfeld (not Bush) sooner than some other Republicans. But he rode the Bush-Rumsfeld Express for years. Which leads to this fair conclusion: had he been in charge, he would have made the same mistakes they did.

Here's a dispatch I posted at MotherJones.com about a press conference held on Wednesday afternoon....

David Plouffe looks ready to roll. At a Washington, D.C., press conference, Barack Obama's campaign manager surveyed the general election political landscape for several dozen reporters, and he spoke confidently, like a man who will have the money to do all that he believes is necessary and optional. Which he is, because he can expect to have $200 to $300 million to deploy--now that Obama has decided to sidestep the public financing system (which awards $85 million to party nominees) and raise much more from individual donors.

Plouffe repeatedly noted that the Obama campaign will have the resources to challenge John McCain in practically every state and to pursue multiple strategies for victory. That is, the campaign can attempt to win by holding on to every state John Kerry won in 2004 and swinging only Ohio from R to D, or it could win by bagging Iowa plus Colorado and New Mexico. Or how about losing Pennsylvania but winning Virginia and North Carolina? Plouffe claimed that Obama was already competitive in states that are not traditionally Democratic in presidential races, such as Alaska and Montana and that he can make a run at McCain in Georgia (where Libertarian Party candidate Bob Barr, a former GOP congressman from Georgia, might draw votes from McCain). Plouffe has the money to invest in a number of game plans--to run ads and set up staff in various states. And as the election approaches, he will be able to determine which states to stick with or abandon. He's in a candy store with plenty of allowance.

How will he use the money? Plouffe told the reporters that a top priority is to "shift the electorate." He wants to spend a lot on registering African-Americans and voters under the age of 40 to "readjust the electorate" in assorted states so the voting pools in these states are more pro-Obama. "A couple of points here, a couple of points there," he says, and red states can go blue. Especially smaller states, where a swing of 10,000 votes could be decisive. And, he emphasized, his campaign will have sufficient resources to identify the people it needs to register, contact them directly, and mount targeted get-out-the-vote efforts. The campaign, he said, is not just going to set up registration tables outside community events.

And there's more. Plouffe boasted that Obama's campaign will not have only an edge in volume (more volunteers, more organizers, more door-knocking, more phone-banking, more precinct work, more advertising); it will have an advantage in quality. There's a "persuasion army" working on behalf of Obama, he said. He pointed to polls showing that Obama supporters and Democrats are far more enthusiastic about this election than McCain supporters and Republicans. Consequently, Obama persuaders--supporters who volunteer or merely talk up Obama among friends and relatives--are likely to do a better job than McCain persuaders. This is "a hard thing to quantify," Plouffe remarked. But he added, "we think it means a lot."

It was an impressive performance: more cash, more volunteers, more ads, more opportunities to go on offense, more enthusiasm, more...everything. And when I asked Plouffe about possible racial bias among voters, he said that based on the campaign's own research, "we certainly don't believe it will be a major impact....It's not a barrier for the people who will be deciding this election." In other words, voters who won't vote for Obama because he is biracial are the same voters who wouldn't vote for any Democratic nominee. Is Plouffe right about that? Well, he seemed confident. But, then, he seemed confident about everything. He did acknowledge that all elections have unforeseen twists and turns. Yet whatever comes, he and Obama will not have the excuse, "if only we had more money, we could have tried...." Plouffe essentially said that he is going to play every angle he can imagine. And that's not spin.

On Monday, I was at the annual Personal Democracy Forum, and the news of the day--in between wide-ranging talk of social networking, new politics, and blogging and journalism--was a brief exchange between Tracy Russo, who was deputy director of online communications for John Edwards' 2008 campaign, and Mark Soohoo, an adviser to the John McCain campaign for online matters.

It was a slam waiting to happen.

In early February, John McCain, in an interview with Yahoo news, acknowledged that he does not know how to use a computer without his wife's assistance (thus, he couldn't say whether he prefers a Mac or a PC). Bloggers and techies have been poking fun at McCain ever since.

So at the PDF confab, Russo, while sitting on a panel with Soohoo, remarked that she did not see how anyone unfamiliar with computers could become president in 2008. Soohoo responded the best he could:

You don't necessarily have to use a computer to understand, you know, how it shapes the country....John McCain is aware of the Internet.

Aware of the Internet? It's a remark ready-made for derision. But let's (at least this time) avoid the cheap shot, for there is a serious point here: where is McCain's intellectual curiosity? Over the past decade, more and more Americans of all ages have become wired. Using email and the Internet has become a fundamental activity of modern life. How could McCain, who has long wanted to lead this nation, say to himself, I don't need to know how this stuff works? And in an era when so much depends on the Internet--including much of the economy and aspects of national security--how could a senior legislator and commander-in-chief wannabe eschew firsthand experience of how this series of tubes and wires functions?

What motivated--or demotivated--McCain to be a computer illiterate? Is he a fuddy-duddy resistant to change? Is he--let's be frank--too old to absorb new notions? Is he a Luddite? None of these are qualities you'd want in a president. Are there other explanations?

This is no laughing matter. At a debate, a town hall meeting, or a press conference, McCain ought to be pressed on this point. Not as gotcha politics; this is fundamental politics. Voters ought to know what makes a candidate tick--or not. Soohoo's reply to Russo was, of course, insufficient. Being "aware" is not enough. McCain needs to say more on this front. Maybe in an email.

A bit slow on the uptake, I just noticed that Nicolle Wallace (formerly Nicolle Devenish) is a senior adviser to the John McCain campaign. She used to be communications director for the George W. Bush White House and was a top spinner for the Bush-Cheney campaign in 2004. And her involvement in the McCain campaign is an indicator of an institutional problem for McCain.

Before I explain, let me flash back to a telling encounter between Wallace and CNN's Wolf Blitzer that occurred on November 22, 2005:

BLITZER: Welcome back. The attacks and counterattacks over Iraq reached a new level in recent days with Congressman John Murtha's call for a speedy pullout from Iraq and an emotional House debate on that idea. Joining us now from the White House, the president's communications director Nicole Wallace....Was it a mistake for the White House to compare what John Murtha was saying to Michael Moore, the liberal filmmaker?

WALLACE: You know, I think that words have such power in this debate. But if you look at the policy that Michael Moore advocated for the duration of last year's presidential campaign, it is the exact policy that the congressman proposed....And certainly the policies that Congressman Murtha advocated are not debatable. He was very clear. He advocated an immediate withdrawal from the battle space in Iraq.

BLITZER: He didn't advocate an immediate withdrawal. He said over the next six months, and then to keep the troops in neighboring states like Kuwait, Qatar, over the horizon, to go back in if necessary.

WALLACE: Well, look, you've had him on your air for a lot of the last five days and I think he's probably articulated his position much more clearly than I can do. We disagree with the...

BLITZER: That's what he articulated the first day when he made his long statement.

WALLACE: Well, I'm not sure what you want to debate me on, Wolf.

BLITZER: I'm not debating. I'm just saying he didn't call for an immediate withdrawal.

WALLACE: Well, what he is advocating differs from current White House policy. And, frankly, I only saw two other Democrats, Democratic colleagues of Congressman Murtha's side with his position. But this is a healthy debate to have.

BLITZER: I want to be precise on this, Nicole, because words matter.

WALLACE: Absolutely.

BLITZER: The resolution that was in the Congress used the words "immediate withdrawal." And there were three Democrats who voted for that. Congressman Murtha talks about a six-month phased withdrawal and then keeping troops in the region, which is significantly different.

Did she mean that "absolutely"? Probably not. In this one exchange, Wallace first tried to misrepresent Murtha's position as "immediate" withdrawal. Blitzer called her on it. She next claimed--falsely--that only three Democrats supported Murtha. And then Blitzer called her on that. So two fibs (or lies, if you prefer) within moments. A total disregard for the truth.

What does this have to do with McCain? I'm not sure he understands that the basis for the maverick reputation he once developed was his self-professed commitment--realized or not--to so-called straight talk. During his 2000 campaign, he did come across as not-the-usual politician. He often--though not always--said what he believed. And he told hard truths about the corruptions of Washington.

That was then. In the eight years since, he has taken more dives and has flip-flopped enough (especially on the Bush tax cuts) to place him in the category of ordinary pol. Republican strategists are worrying that McCain may have a tough time selling himself as a change-seeking, independent-minded maverick. Well, if he and his campaign play traditional, spin-centric politics--see here for examples--the ol' McCain will remain lost. The more he depends on Nicolle Wallace and like-minded political operatives, the harder his mission will be.

What's John McCain thinking?

On Friday, he published an op-ed in the Detroit Free Press that hailed NAFTA and slammed Barack Obama for raising questions about the free trade pact. And on the same day, he was scheduled to speak at the Economic Club of Canada in Ottawa, where he would deliver the same message.

From the op-ed:

The North American Free Trade Agreement has provided our economy with a framework in which we can become more competitive....What is needed is the cooperative work of partners to reduce the burden of complying with NAFTA's rules of origin and to reduce border delays so they do not become impediments to trade or the equivalent of a tariff. Perhaps most of all, those who would lead our countries must work to ensure that the benefits of NAFTA are understood throughout our countries, and not jeopardized through "cowboy diplomacy."

U.S. Sen. Barack Obama does not understand this. He has called NAFTA "devastating" and "a big mistake," characterizations that are out of touch with the reality of NAFTA in Michigan. What truly would be devastating is to jeopardize the trade expansion of NAFTA through a misguided, isolationist impulse that would inevitably and understandably alienate a key partner like Canada.

McCain seems to want to create a black-and-white debate: NAFTA-is-good/criticism-of-NAFTA-is-bad. From that simplistic perspective, Obama's call for revisiting and revising NAFTA has to be bad.

But the Obama camp must be thinking, "thank you, John McCain." NAFTA is not a political winner. Not if polls are any indication. Last December, a Pew poll showed that among Democratic primary voters, 45 percent said free trade agreements are a "bad thing." Only 36 percent said such agreements are a "good thing."

Sure, you say, that's just those protectionist, hide-their-heads-in-the-sand, turn-back-the-clock, enslaved-to-Big-Labor, anti-globalization naysayers of the Democratic Party. But look at how Republican voters broke on this issue: 45 to 39, "bad thing" versus "good thing." That is, GOPers had the same view of free trade agreements as Democrats: most don't like 'em. This marked a downward shift for NAFTA. A 2005 poll found that 44 percent of the public considered NAFTA a "good thing," while 34 percent did not. More recently, an April Pew poll found dislike of NAFTA among all registered votes, with 48 percent calling the agreement a "bad thing," and only 35 percent describing it as a "good thing."

It sure makes sense that as the economy droops, there will be more popular skepticism regarding NAFTA and other free trade agreements. (In that April poll, 61 percent said that free trade agreements lead to job losses; only 9 percent said these pacts create jobs.) Why, then, is McCain beating the NAFTA drum? Maybe this is an act of theological loyalty to the Church of Free Trade. But that April poll also asked registered voters who would be more likely to make wise decisions about trade. In that category, McCain had a 48-to-38 percent edge over Obama. Is he now trying exploit that gap? Perhaps. But as he celebrates NAFTA, McCain may actually help Obama close that divide. NAFTA is just slightly more popular than George W. Bush. If McCain wants to run with it, the Obama camp won't be unhappy.

Barack Obama bit the bullet and on Thursday opted out of the public financing system. In a piece for Mother Jones, I ask the question, Is he a promise breaker or a reform shaker? How you answer that might depend on whom you want to win in November. Here's how the article starts:

In the decades after Watergate, the basic thrust of campaign finance reform was this: limit the flow of big-money private contributions to candidates. No more bags of money for the pols. Now, only donations of up to $2300 from individuals are acceptable. And in the presidential race, there is public financing: the nominees--if they agree to forgo fundraising--receive full underwriting of their general election campaigns. This year that subsidy is about $85 million.

This system has been an imperfect reform. There have been loopholes. Well-heeled private interests have poured money into independent efforts to support a preferred candidate or, more often, blast that candidate's opponent. And parties could raise money, while corporations could donate unrestricted amounts to presidential conventions. So the opportunity for one side to outspend the other (using unlimited donations from wealthy individuals, corporations or unions) has remained. The influence of big money has not been eradicated. Still, presidential candidates, once nominated, could focus on campaigning, rather than cash-hunting.

Now comes Barack Obama.

He has run for president as an agent of change who slams the money-talks ways of Washington. As an Illinois state senator and as a U.S. senator, he has passed reform measures. Yet on Thursday, in an email to his supporters, he announced that he would not participate in the public financing system in the general election, despite an earlier promise to stay within this system. He will be the first major presidential nominee to reject public financing for the general election since Watergate. Instead of relying on that check from the U.S. Treasury, he will continue his record-setting fundraising operation. John McCain's campaign immediately and predictably proclaimed that this decision "undermines his call for a new type of politics" and will "weaken and undermine the public financing system."

Obama said:

It's not an easy decision, and especially because I support a robust system of public financing of elections. But the public financing of presidential elections as it exists today is broken, and we face opponents who've become masters at gaming this broken system. John McCain's campaign and the Republican National Committee are fueled by contributions from Washington lobbyists and special interest PACs. And we've already seen that he's not going to stop the smears and attacks from his allies running so-called 527 groups, who will spend millions and millions of dollars in unlimited donations.

Obama is clearly doing what's best for his political prospects. No doubt, Obama, who has raised about $265 million so far (while McCain has raised $97 miliion), can pocket hundreds of millions of dollars in the general election. So by eschewing the public financing system, he will have far more dollars to deploy--and be able to double, triple or quadruple what the McCain campaign raises and spends (presuming McCain keeps within the system).

But the story here is deeper than the simple narrative, Obama-sells-out-reform. His campaign, relying on Internet fundraising, has broken records in the number of small donors it has attracted. It has been far more populist than other major campaigns when it comes to fundraising. As Obama put it, "Instead of forcing us to rely on millions from Washington lobbyists and special interest PACs, you've fueled this campaign with donations of $5, $10, $20, whatever you can afford. And because you did, we've built a grassroots movement of over 1.5 million Americans." Sure, Obama did receive a significant amount from maxed-out contributors and bundlers, but he has mobilized small contributors unlike no one else. Given that the goal of the reform system was to prevent big-money backers from getting their hooks into a candidate, are its restrictions less relevant for a candidate who does so well with small donors?

When the system was first designed, few could imagine an Internet-dominated world in which it would be possible for a candidate who motivates millions of voters to haul in so much from non-fat-cats. Are these rules then obsolete? And considering that Democrats have often been at a disadvantage when it comes to big-bucks fundraising (though not lately), should a Democratic nominee walk away from an advantage in people-power fundraising? After all, if literally millions of citizens yearn to make a small contribution to a campaign that aims to undo the work of the Bush administration, why stop them? Isn't that small-d democracy at its best? And Obama's decision will put him in a stronger position to pressure independent groups from raising and spending unlimited amounts to support him or attack McCain. If he does draw in $300 million or so in campaign donations, Obama will not need these outsiders. McCain, however, will. Even though McCain has said he does not fancy independent spending in campaigns, he will be less able to lean on these players (say, this year's Swift Boaters) to cease and desist. Assuming that McCain will rely on the public subsidy of $85 million, the GOP will somehow have to cover the $200 million-plus gap between the McCain campaign and the Obama campaign....

Read the rest here.

Newspapers often don't like to call public figures liars or dissemblers. But read this passage from the Washington Post article on the recent attempt of the McCain camp to portray Obama as weak on terrorism because he praised how Islamic terrorists who bombed the World Trade Center in 1993 were prosecuted:

Tuesday, the McCain team drew a direct line between the prosecution of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, saying that submitting the bombers to the criminal justice system was, in the words of former Navy secretary and 9/11 Commission member John Lehman, "a material cause" of the 2001 attacks. Lehman participated in the McCain conference call.

Lehman said grand jury evidence in the 1993 bombing was "put under seal" and not made available to the CIA, thus denying the agency timely access to information that "would have enabled many of the dots to be connected well before 9/11 and . . . give a good chance to have prevented" the later attack. In particular, he cited information concerning a connection between Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the alleged ringleader of the 2001 attacks who is imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay, and the bombing.

But both the report of the 9/11 Commission, which investigated intelligence failures leading to the 2001 strikes, and the prosecutor of the 1993 case disagreed with Lehman's version of history. The commission's final report, which Lehman endorsed as a member of the panel, gives no indication that any failure to share information on the bombing with the intelligence community had "significance for the story of 9/11."

Instead, the report cites political and intelligence failures to understand the scope of the terrorist threat after the 1993 attack, as well as a failure to fully analyze the implications of the available information. It also blames the FBI and the CIA for failing to effectively communicate with each other, problems that were later addressed in the USA Patriot Act and the reorganization of the intelligence community.

Grand jury secrecy "could have operated in these cases as a barrier to information flowing from law enforcement to intelligence," former U.S. attorney Mary Jo White, who successfully prosecuted six major terrorism cases including the 1993 bombing, said Tuesday. But, she added, "as a matter of fact it did not."

White and several people involved in the 9/11 Commission disputed Lehman's assertion that "the CIA was not allowed to see that evidence." Lehman also described then-CIA Director George J. Tenet as "flabbergasted at what he found in that material" once it was made available to him. But Tenet made no such claim in his 2007 book.

Bottom line: the McCain campaign attacked Obama falsely. It made up facts. It distorted history.

But this was not the focus on the Post's article which was headlined, "Candidates Clash on Terrorism: In Sharp Exchange, Each Side Calls Other's Position a Risk." The story led with the cat fight: McCain attacks Obama; Obama attacks McCain. The yadda-yadda-yadda of political coverage. Yet the reporters--Anne Kornblut and Karen DeYoung--did the heavy lifting and demonstrated that the McCain squad was stretching the truth to make its case, and they placed this information at the end of the article.

But how about breaking out of the he said/he said box? Here's an alternative lead: "On Tuesday, the McCain campaign accused Barack Obama of having a weak position on terrorism, though it partly based its charge on assertions that were not accurate." That is, don't even give a candidate the room to make a charge that is supported by false information.

Throughout the media, there has been an increase in the factchecking of candidates' claims. The Post does this in a regular feature and awards Pinocchios to fib-telling pols. (Remember Hilary Clinton and the sniper fire in Bosnia?) But such vetting hasn't stopped politicians from playing with the truth. Perhaps it's time for the MSM to escalate and call out the truth-manglers in a direct manner within the news coverage. I don't know if that will slow down the flow of political lies. But it sure ain't likely to increase them.

It looks as if the staffers on the Overreaction Desk at McCain HQ are working overtime. First, they tried to make a controversy out of a Barack Obama throwaway line. Talking about his readiness to combat smears and negative attacks, Obama last Friday said, "If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun." That prompted this reax from the McCain camp: "Barack Obama's call for 'new politics" is officially over....[He] said that if there's a political knife fight, he'd bring a gun." Obama was merely quoting the Sean Connery character in The Untouchables: "You wanna know how to get Capone. They pull a knife, you pull a gun." Citing Connery is not going to be a loss for a presidential candidate. Now, how would the McCainers respond, if Obama said, "Go ahead, make my day"?

On the more substantive side, McCain's team also pounced on Obama for a statement he made regarding apprehended terrorist suspects:

Let's take the example of Guantanamo. What we know is that, in previous terrorist attacks -- for example, the first attack against the World Trade Center, we were able to arrest those responsible, put them on trial. They are currently in U.S. prisons, incapacitated. And the fact that the administration has not tried to do that has created a situation where not only have we never actually put many of these folks on trial, but we have destroyed our credibility when it comes to rule of law all around the world, and given a huge boost to terrorist recruitment in countries that say, 'Look, this is how the United States treats Muslims.' So that, I think, is an example of something that was unnecessary. We could have done the exact same thing, but done it in a way that was consistent with our laws."

What's wrong with that quote, if anything? Well, the McCain-bangers say that it shows that Obama wants to use only law enforcement techniques in going after evildoing terrorists--and that would place every single American family at risk, for the only way to deal with radical Islamic terrorists is to hunt them down in military fashion without being bogged down by the due process niceties of police work. But is that what Obama actually said or implied? A fair reading seems to be that he was referring to what happens to terrorist suspects after they are captured. In fact, as the McCain people well know, last year, Obama said he would be willing to strike al Qaeda targets inside Pakistan unilaterally. How's that for being a global Dirty Harry?

So the McCain gang was trying a bit too hard to stretch Obama;s remark about the treatment of detainees into proof that Obama is a weak-kneed defeatist who cares more about the rights of the 9/11 perps than preventing them from hitting the U.S. again.

But on a McCain campaign conference call on Tuesday--during which campaign aides and advisers--tried to brand Obama as soft on terrorism, the McCain squad did latch on to a developing meme on the right. Referencing Obama's support of the recent Supreme Court decision that said that Gitmo detainees have a right to habeas corpus, the McCain surrogates--responding to a question from Stephen Hayes of The Weekly Standard--said they'd like someone to ask Obama if he believes that Osama bin Laden ought to be allowed to submit a writ of habeas corpus to a U.S. federal court if he is captured by U.S. forces. You can expect voices on the right to echo this talking point--until the question is indeed put to Obama. In the meantime, wouldn't it be nice if we really did have to worry about what to do with a captured bin Laden?

UPDATE: That didn't take long. About two hours after the McCain conference call, the Obama campaign held its own call to respond. During the first question, Bill Sammon of the Washington Examiner asked if Obama believes that bin Laden, if apprehended, should have the same rights as detainees in Gitmo. Senator John Kerry, speaking for Obama, said that the Supreme Court has decided what rights all Gitmo detainees must be awarded--and that McCain would have to abide by this, should he become president. The McCain team, Kerry said indignantly, is engaged in Karl Rove-style politics by claiming that Obama and the Democrats are legalistic and weak when it comes to terrorism, noting that the Democrats voted to support military action in Afghanistan. "This is typical of the Republican playbook," he said.

The Los Angeles Times offers a front-page corrective on Monday, with a report noting that women voters are moving from Hillary Clinton to Barack Obama. Part of the end-of-the-primaries narrative was the spurned-women subplot: PO'ed female supporters of Clinton will vote for John McCain over the guy who prevented their gal from breaking the glass ceiling. Here's the money paragraph:

Now that the Democratic marathon is over, [female] Clinton supporters...are siding heavily with Obama over McCain, polls show. And Obama has taken a wide lead among female voters, belying months of political chatter and polls of primary voters suggesting that disappointment over Clinton's defeat might block the Illinois senator from enjoying his party's historic edge among women.

This is inevitable. Though enterprising reporters can no doubt find particular women voters who still are soooooooo upset about Clinton's loss that they will say they'd rather vote for McCain--or even Dick Cheney--instead of Obama, there's little reason to believe that women who supported Clinton will flock in statistically significant numbers to a long-in-the-tooth Republican who wants to criminalize abortion, continue the Iraq war, and trash-talk comprehensive healthcare reform.

So it's good news for Obama that McCain is using time and money to make a play for Clinton supporters. In a patronizing move, the McCain campaign dispatched Carly Fiorina, the former CEO of Hewlett-Packard, to host women-oriented events for McCain in Ohio and Pennsylvania. As I pointed out elsewhere, Fiorina is an odd choice as an economic policy surrogate. Her stint at HP was no success. A merger went sour, thousands of workers were laid off, the stock price remained low, and, in the end, she was forced out by the board. I wrote:

In this time of economic insecurity, there's not much about Fiorina's time at HP that can be reassuring to voters (female or otherwise) experiencing financial jitters. After six years at Hewlett-Packard, she ended up symbolizing not one but at least three corporate excesses: outsourcing, M&A-mania, and golden parachutes. Workers and shareholders did not prosper during her reign, but Fiorina made millions, got a book deal, and now is a top PowerPointer for a presidential candidate. She's a real American success story--for corporate Republicans.

Does McCain think that a surrogate with ovaries is all he needs to win over still-angry Clinton supporters? Well, his campaign has also released a list of "prominent" Democrats and independents supporting McCain. Prominent? There was one name on the list of 30 that you might recognize: former Representative Tim Penny, a onetime Democrat from Minnesota who in 2002 ran for governor (and lost) as the Independence Party candidate. The others on the list were not so prominent: a city clerk in Mississippi, an alderman in Mississippi, a member of the budget committee of Palmyra (a small town in Maine). No big names. Joe Lieberman still is the mega-fish in this small pool.

This 2008 race will not be decided by Fiorina's stumping or the endorsement of city budget committee members. The general election is going to be a rather stark contest between two candidates who each will have plenty of opportunity to make the differences between them clear. Women who voted in the Democratic party will by and large vote for Obama over McCain. McCain really has little to say to them about what they care about. When it comes to women voters, moderate Republicans and independents--especially the white ones--are the ones to watch.

Recent news out of Iraq is bad for John McCain--not the news about military developments there (May was apparently the month with the lowest number of U.S. casualties since the invasion), but the political news. On Friday, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki declared that the talks on a new U.S.-Iraq security pact were deadlocked:

We have reached an impasse because when we opened these negotiations we did not realize that the US demands would so deeply affect Iraqi sovereignty and this is something we can never accept.

The U.S. and Iraqi effort to negotiate a Status of Forces Agreement--which is supposed to be hammered out by the end of July--has become increasingly dicey. The Iraqi government, as provincial elections approach, do not want to say yes to the Bush administration demand that U.S. soldiers be afforded the right to jail Iraqis and conduct military operations on their own. Nor do members of Maliki's government and the parliament fancy affording legal immunity to U.S. soldiers and contractors. After all, whose country is it, anyway?

If the talks completely collapse (which is hard to imagine) and no new agreement is reached to replace the expiring U.N. mandate covering the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq, the United States might have to withdraw. Whether the negotiations end in total failure or they produce an unsatisfactory-to-both-sides compromise, McCain could find himself in great political trouble.

Winning the Iraq war is the paramount issue of his presidential bid. But what if there is no war to win because the Iraqis either tell the United States to go home or won't allow it to conduct significant operations within Iraq? What if the Iraqis signal that maintaining a high level of U.S. troops in Iraq is not that important to them? How could McCain then continue to attack Barack Obama as a defeatist cut-and-runner who would imperil the United States by yanking troops out of Iraq? The war rug would be pulled out from under McCain.

I explain this more here. But the main point is that McCain's pro-war stance--as much as it is out of sync with popular opinion--could be further undermined if the government that he claims needs major U.S. military assistance says it would prefer, given the strings attached, to do without. McCain's presidential campaign is being held hostage by Iraqi negotiators.

The John McCain campaign would rather you think of McCain as a POW than a longtime Republican senator. In a radio ad McCain is running in South Florida, the narrator says, "As someone who has survived the harsh conditions of the Vietnamese prisons, John McCain knows that freedom in Cuba won't be achieved with concessions to dictatorships." That's a pretty dumb formulation. First, the decades-old anti-Cuba embargo that McCain (and Barack Obama) supports has done nothing to achieve freedom in Cuba. One can even argue it has helped the repressive, thuggish regime of the Castro brothers continue its dictatorial ways. (Embargo fans appear to take the position that failure is an option.) Second, McCain's stint as a POW is not relevant to this policy debate. If McCain's time in the Hanoi Hilton has convinced him that you shouldn't talk with tyrants, then why does he not call for ending all dialogue and trade with China? When it comes to freedom, the capitalist communists of Beijing are just as nasty as (if not more so) the socialist communists of Havana. But expect more of this: "As someone who has survived the harsh conditions of Vietnamese prisons, John McCain knows that American corporations ought to be taxed at lower rates."

Throughout his political career, McCain has not explicitly exploited his POW status as much as other politicians might have. He didn't really have to, given that his tale was so well known. But these days being a Bush-supporting Republican senator isn't much of a political calling card. So for McCain, it will be back to the future--again and again and again.

ISRAEL AND IRAN: CAN THEY PLAY NICE? Triti Parsi has a good piece summarizing the current state of play on Iran and noting what could go right in Iranian-Israeli relations (if there is the will):

Iran and Israel are stuck in a dysfunctional relationship that neither party can escape on its own. Here's how to break up their fight.

Last week, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC)--the powerful pro-Israel lobbying group--held its annual policy conference in Washington, and it went as you might expect. Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain roused the faithful with a call to tighten the noose on Iran and mocked those who favor a more diplomatic approach. U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice explained that negotiating with Iranian leaders would be pointless "while they continue to inch closer to a nuclear weapon under the cover of talk." Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert called for "all possible means" to be used to stop Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. A few days later, Israel's Transportation Minister Shaul Mofaz warned that an attack on Iran is "unavoidable" as long as Tehran "continues with its program for developing nuclear weapons."

As if to underscore these arguments, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad obligingly played the role of villain, predicting ominously from Tehran that Israel will "soon disappear off the geographical scene." Against this backdrop, it's safe to say that few at AIPAC were convinced by newly minted Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama's call for direct U.S. talks with Iran (though the Illinois senator did win many new friends at the conference this year). In fact, AIPAC and Israeli leaders fear that any bargain between Washington and Tehran would come at their expense and have heightened their rhetoric accordingly.

It doesn't have to be this way. Although Iran and Israel will not be signing any mutual defense pacts anytime soon, the two countries aren't destined to be implacable foes. If anything, Israel could be a prime beneficiary of a rapprochement between Washington and Tehran.

It might sound inconceivable that Iran, whose leaders since 1979 have used the most venomous rhetoric against the "little Satan," would ever moderate its stance toward Israel. Yet a careful review of the past three decades shows that Iran's hostile rhetoric is more a product of opportunism than fanaticism. Iran and Israel have even been willing to work together quietly at times, despite their conflicting ideologies.

The reason is simple: When forced to choose, Tehran invariably chooses its geostrategic interests over its ideological impulses. In no other area is the decisiveness of the strategic dimension of Iran's foreign policy clearer than when it comes to Israel. When these two pillars of Iranian foreign policy have clashed, as they did in the 1980s during the Iran-Iraq war, Iran's geostrategic concerns have consistently prevailed. Tehran quietly sought Israel's aid, and the Jewish state made many efforts to place Iran and the United States back on speaking terms....

Parsi makes a good argument that war is not inevitable. Not between Iran and Israel. And, perhaps then, not between the United States and Iran. Read the rest here.

This hey-what-happened-to-the-straight-talker line of attack on John McCain is becoming just too damn easy.

From today's Wall Street Journal"

At a roundtable with business leaders in Washington state last month, Sen. McCain expressed reluctance to support government incentives such as tax credits for wind and solar energy. He compared his stance on the matter to his position on corn ethanol. "I'm a little wary -- I have to give you straight talk -- about government subsidies," he said. "When government jumps in and distorts the market, then there's unintended consequences as well as intended."

From an article I wrote in March:

About a year after their [climate change] bill was defeated, McCain and Lieberman began drafting a new version. It was close to the original, but with one significant addition: billions of dollars in tax subsidies for the nuclear energy industry.

McCain had long been an advocate of nuclear power. "He feels strongly that nuclear power will be one of the keys to reducing emissions," says Heather Wicke, who was his environmental legislative aide at the time. But environmentalists who had worked with McCain and Lieberman on the first bill were stunned. In one meeting, lobbyists for environmental groups attempted to persuade McCain not to attach nuclear subsidies to the legislation, arguing that doing so would weaken support for the bill. "He shook his finger at us and scolded us," says one participant at the meeting, who recalls McCain saying, "You're wrong and I'm right." Wicke, now the director of policy for the Piedmont Environmental Council, notes that McCain had already made up his mind and that the session was "testy."

So when McCain said he opposed supporting funding for alternative energy because he's opposed to market-distorting subsidies, that was straight talk? Then how does he explain his attempt to hand billions of dollars in subsidies to the nuclear energy industry? A straight-talk explanation would be appreciated.

Here's the McCain-Obama face-off--at least the domestic side of it--in a nutshell. This morning the latest jobs numbers came out, and the news was bad: the U.S. economy lost another 49,000 jobs and unemployment increase half a point to 5.5 percent. Immediately both campaigns put out statements. Let's compare.

From Obama:

Today's jobs report is deeply troubling. Last month, our economy lost 49,000 jobs and the unemployment rate saw the greatest rise in more than twenty years. This is a reminder that working families continue to bear the brunt of the failed Bush economic policies that John McCain wants to continue for another four years. In the first five months of 2008, our economy has lost 324,000 jobs, and workers' wages once again failed to keep pace with the skyrocketing cost of health care, and college tuition, and gas. That's why we can't afford John McCain's plan to spend billions of dollars on tax breaks for big corporations and wealthy CEOs, and that's why I'm offering change that will provide working families with a middle-class tax cut, affordable health care and college, and an energy plan that will create up to five million good-paying jobs that can't be outsourced. That's the change the American people are looking for, and that's how we'll build an economy of shared prosperity once more.

From McCain:

Today's news about unemployment is a stark reminder of the economic challenges facing American families. As the worst single monthly increase in the unemployment rate in two decades clearly shows, Americans across this country are hurting, and we must act now to support workers, families and employers alike. This means getting our economy back on track by providing immediate tax relief, enacting a HOME plan to help those facing foreclosure, lowering health care costs, investing in innovation, moving toward energy independence and opening foreign markets to our goods. These policies will help small businesses create the jobs that families need today. The American people cannot afford more inaction from Washington. The wrong change for our country would be an economic agenda based upon the policies of the past that advocate higher taxes, bigger government, government-run health care and greater isolationism. To help families at this critical time, we cannot afford to go backward as Senator Obama advocates.

Who's got the advantage? Obama, obviously. His position is clear and straightforward: the economic situation is terrible, current policies stink, Bush is to blame, I've got new ideas ready to roll. McCain has to acknowledge the current economic problems and tout his own policies (which are Bushian), but he cannot blast Bush, though he says the country "cannot afford more inaction from Washington," which is an indirect shot at Bush. He's left defining "change" as advancing Bush-like policies, and he has to slam Obama's "change" as nothing but backward movement. That's a tough political sell. McCain better hope the economic news is better in the months ahead.

MSNBC's First Read put out a good guide to the starting place for the titanic clash between Barack Obama and John McCain:

About two months ago, we unveiled our early look at the electoral map. And this being the second official day of the general election, now's as good a time as any to see where we stand in the McCain vs. Obama race.

Base Obama: CA, CT, DE, DC, HI, IL, MD, MA, NY, RI, VT (153 electoral votes)
Lean Obama: ME, NJ, MN, OR, WA (47 votes)

Toss-up: CO, FL, IA, MI, NV, NM, NH, OH, PA, VA, WI (138 votes)

Lean McCain: AR, GA, IN, LA, MS, MO, MT, NE, NC, ND (84 votes)

Base McCain: AL, AK, AZ, ID, KS, KY, OK, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, WV, WY (116 votes)

While both McCain and Obama get to 200 when adding up their base and lean states, it's clear to see that Obama has an early edge with the map. Not only does he have a stronger base than McCain does (153 votes vs. 116), but he also has more potential pick-up opportunities. When you add toss-up and "Lean McCain," Obama has the potential for another 222 votes outside his favored states. By comparison, McCain's toss-up and "Lean Obama" comes to 185. Of course, potential sometimes means just that -- potential. At the end of the day, Obama will likely win few, if any, of those Lean McCain states. But his reach right now seems much longer than McCain's.

It is indeed interesting that each candidate comes out of the gate with exactly 200 electoral votes from their best states. (You need 270 to win.) And in a CBS News poll out today, Obama leads McCain, 48 to 42 percent in a national survey, which is relatively close. It's always better to be ahead than behind, but what will matter on Election Day is not either candidate's national lead, but how they perform in those "lean" and "toss-up" states. As we've seen in the Democratic primaries, an election in any given state can trend far from the national numbers. Though Obama generally maintained an edge over Hillary Clinton in national polls during the primaries, the results in some states varied greatly from the national average (with each Democrat occasionally whupping the other).

It ain't going out on a limb to say that when the overall trends for the general election are in the Dems' favor McCain can still win by playing hard and tight in a few critical states. He does not have to buck the national tide from sea to shining sea; he has to do it in spots.

Still, there's something rather poetic about a clean and even start to the general election. In the past day, Obama and McCain have discussed holding joint town hall meetings or Lincoln-Douglas-style debates. How grand that would be. I've always thought that rather than mount formal and stuffy debates, we ought to put the two nominees in a room with a television camera and ask them to talk. How they handle each other, how they ask questions, how they respond to questions, how they hold themselves--all that would be useful information for voters. If either talked too long, interrupted too much, avoided issues, relied on spin rather than substance, rudely violated the basic rules of the event, he or she would risk the wrath of voters. So I say, let 'er rip: McCain and Obama, one table, two chairs, a set of television cameras, no moderators, no YouTube or email questions--and the American public watching. That would be Must See TV.

McCain surrounded by lobbyists! McClellan telling the truth about Bush White House lies! Obama and Clinton tussling over what to do about the Florida and Michigan delegations! This is all important stuff. But what about policy? There's always plenty of media coverage for political developments. Policy matters....well, you know. It's the poor cousin in the house. Which is why I was delighted to receive a press release from the Democratic National Committee today that zeroed in on John McCain's stance on nuclear proliferation--which is one of the more important policy topics a president must handle.

The oppo research team at the DNC discovered that McCain has been inconsistent in articulating his policy in this area. And in the missive they zapped out to reporters they shared the evidence. In a Foreign Affairs article published last December, McCain wrote,

The nuclear nonproliferation regime is broken for one clear reason: the mistaken assumption behind the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) that nuclear technology can spread without nuclear weapons eventually following....The next U.S. president must convene a summit of the world's leading powers -- none of which have an interest in seeing a world full of nuclear-armed states -- with three agenda items. First, the notion that non-nuclear-weapons states have a right to nuclear technology must be revisited.

Yet in a speech he delivered a few days ago, McCain said,

But in order to take advantage of civilian nuclear energy, we must do a better job of ensuring it remains civilian. Some nations use the pretense of civilian nuclear programs as cover for nuclear weapons programs. We need to build an international consensus that exposes this deception, and holds nations accountable for it....I would support international guarantees of nuclear fuel supply to countries that renounce enrichment and reprocessing, as well as the establishment of multinational nuclear enrichment centers in which they can participate. Nations that seek nuclear fuel for legitimate civilian purposes will be able to acquire what they need under international supervision.

So a short time ago, McCain declared that spreading civilian nuclear technology undermines efforts to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons and he advocated a policy prescription: stop non-nuclear countries from developing nuclear energy. Yet now he says that it's fine for other nations to pursue nuclear energy, as long as there is appropriate international supervision. So which is it? Is the proliferation of nuclear technology a problem or not?

This is not a case of gotcha politics. At this point in his long career as a national security-minded legislator, McCain should have clear thoughts on this critical subject. Yet he's contradicting himself on a key issue. In addition to all the other stories in the news these days, this sure deserves front-page treatment.

Regular readers know that I broke the story about John McCain's problematic political alliance with the Reverend Rod Parsley, the Ohio megachurch pastor who has declared that it is the historic mission of the United States to see the "false religion" of Islam "destroyed." On Thursday, McCain--who had campaigned with Parsley in February and called him "one of the truly great leaders in America, a moral compass, a spiritual guide"--rejected Parsley's endorsement. The repudiation was part of a twofer: at the same time, McCain dumped fundamentalist pastor John Hagee, who had called the Catholic Church "the great whore" and who had once said that Hitler's mass-murdering of Jews was part of "God's work."

In the media coverage of McCain's pastor problems, Parsley was second fiddle. Apparently calling for the eradication of Islam is not as politically troublesome as insulting the Catholic Church and describing the Holocaust as a necessary step for the Second Coming (because it drove the Jews back to the Middle East). But footage of Parsley's anti-Islam rants--which Mother Jones and Brave New Films posted on-line as a video--was played on MSNBC and on ABC (which mistakenly described its own report as an "exclusive"). And the McCain camp decided to lump the two fundamentalist extremists together and throw them under the same bus at the same time.

The media coverage has continued to focus more on Hagee, who preaches at a Texas church, than Parsley. But McCain's excommunication of Parsley may be more politically significant. Allow me to explain the melodramatic headline above: Parsley, who leads a church in Columbus, Ohio, is a political powerhouse in the Buckeye State. He registers social conservatives as voters and then drives them to the polls, where most of them presumably vote Republican. He's been credited with helping George W. Bush win Ohio in 2004, when Bush beat John Kerry by the narrow margin of 120,000 votes.

Ohio is once again a swing state--perhaps the most important swing state. It's hard to envision either McCain or the Democratic nominee (presumably Barack Obama) winning in November without pocketing Ohio. And it's hard to envision McCain winning the state without the assistance of social conservative voters (often miscalled "values voters"). The Ohio Republican Party has been decimated in recent years by various scandals, and the state is now governed by a popular Democrat (Ted Strickland). It has become much tougher ground for GOPers. Which means that McCain truly needs those social conservatives to turn out for him.

Parsley could have helped greatly in this regard. But now McCain has lost a shepherd who could lead tens of thousands of voters to the polls for the Arizona senator. Will these voters find the way on their own? Will they be angered that McCain betrayed a man they consider to be a conveyor belt for the word of God? (McCain as Judas?) With Parsley out of play for McCain in Ohio, McCain will have a tougher time winning this critical state.

And another point: in renouncing Parsley and Hagee, McCain said that his initial acceptance of their endorsements "did not mean I endorsed their views." That may be true to a point. Yet what did it mean when McCain called Parsley "one of the truly great leaders in America, a moral compass, a spiritual guide"? That sure sounds like an endorsement. Why did McCain say that? It's doubtful that he was aware of Parsley's anti-Islam extremism or his other over-the-top views. McCain was simply pandering--mouthing words he did not really mean because that would help him get elected. If McCain is going to hail someone as a "great leader" and "moral compass," you'd expect him to know a thing or two about the fellow. Tossing off such praise in a who-really-cares manner sure ain't straight talk.

UPDATE: On Friday night, Parsley issued a statement saying he would not withdraw his endorsement of McCain. Then on Saturday he did just that.

Please, President Bush, please attack me some more.

That must be what Barack Obama is thinking after Bush's speech in Jerusalem, during which the president blasted those who want to talk to America's enemies as appeasers. Forget that the policy substance of Bush's speech was illogical--or idiotic: Bush's own administration talks to North Korea's tyrants; his defense secretary, Bob Gates, has discussed engagement with Iran; his lead military and diplomatic people in Iraq have spoken with Iranians; the government he supports in Baghdad is in close contact with Iran; and significant members of Israel's national security community support talking to Hamas. But just on the politics, the speech was a boneheaded move that ought to make John McCain howl.

Bush is about as unpopular as a president can be. If Barack Obama could run against him, he would probably win by 80 points (or maybe a few points less than that). Consider what happened when the Republicans sent Dick Cheney to Mississippi to campaign for a Republican candidate in a special House election this week. Not only did the GOPer lose in this Republican stronghold, turnout was down in GOP precincts. Bush and Cheney are a pair of lame albatrosses for any Republican candidate in 2008, including McCain. Which is why Obama and the Democrats want to depict McCain as running for Bush's third term.

Casting McCain as the Spawn of Bush is not a slam-dunk. Though McCain has become a Bush clone on Iraq and the economy, he is quite different in character and biography than W. and boasts far more personal appeal. McCain also has that supposed maverick-thing to cite (Look--omigod--a Republican talking seriously about global warming!) So a day like yesterday was a boon for Obama. While McCain was giving a speech about what his presidency would look like--that is, if he had a magic wand (victory in Iraq, prosperity at home, lower health care costs for all!)--Bush was stealing the thunder by implicitly bashing Obama as an appeaser before a foreign audience. Such a stunt is toxic and perfect fodder for cable news.

Bush probably thought, "Well, I showed him." But any Bush versus Obama narrative assists Obama tremendously. Most Americans clearly would relish voting against Bush, were they able to. If Bush makes it seem that a vote for Obama is a vote against Bush, McCain is screwed.

You'd think the White House would be aware of this. But recognizing reality has never been this bunch's strong suit. After all, the White House thought it was a good idea to dispatch Cheney to help that faltering Republican in Mississippi. One question is, will McCain ask Bush to knock if off and lay low? Another is, if McCain does, will Bush listen? Whether most Americans like it or not--and they don't--Bush is still the president. And he's probably not eager to leave the White House on all fours or through the back door. Obama ought to try to exploit that, anything to provoke Bush. Obama should be saying to Bush, "Bring 'em on."

It's getting harder and harder to take John McCain seriously. In April, he said,

To promise a withdrawal of our forces from Iraq, regardless of the calamitous consequences to the Iraqi people, our most vital interests, and the future of the Middle East, is the height of irresponsibility. It is a failure of leadership.

On Thursday, he said in a speech that if he were elected,

By January 2013, America has welcomed home most of the servicemen and women who have sacrificed terribly so that America might be secure in her freedom. The Iraq War has been won. Iraq is a functioning democracy.

That sure sounds like a promise to withdraw troops. Now, of course, McCain is asserting that his troop withdrawal will be the result of victory in Iraq. But how the hell can he make such a vow? In his speech--which lists all the wonderful things that will be achieved by 2013 if he becomes president--he doesn't say what he will do to attain this victory. Right now, it looks as if he's going to stick to the current policy. At least Richard Nixon, campaigning in 1968, indicated he had a secret plan to end the Vietnam War. And don't write in: I know Nixon never used the phrase "secret plan." A reporter devised the term, and Nixon never disabused the public of the notion. He, of course, had no such plan. And it's unclear whether McCain has a clue about what to do differently in Iraq in order to net different results than those already produced.

Meanwhile, at least one House Republican, looking to prevent a GOP electoral calamity in the fall, has said that the Republicans can't cling to Bush's Iraq war policy without being decimated in the coming congressional elections. After defeating a Republican primary opponent who had challenged his antiwar stance, Representative Walter Jones of North Carolina said it was time for his party to dump Bush on the war: "If this party does not look at options and figure out how to pursue those options, we're in real trouble."

McCain and his party are in a political quagmire. Forward-march rhetoric and hollow promises may not be enough to save them. As I've repeatedly said, the war will be back--as a political issue. And all indicators--including the GOP's three recent losses in congressional special elections held in Republican strongholds--now suggest that won't be to the Republicans' advantage.

In a speech scheduled for Monday afternoon, John McCain will essentially say, "President Bush screwed up on global warming." From the prepared text:

As president...I will not shirk the mantle of leadership that the United States bears. I will not permit eight long years to pass without serious action on serious challenges....The United States will lead and will lead with...an approach that speaks to the interests and obligations of every nation.

That sure sounds as if McCain thinks Bush was a shirker. Now did he say that during the GOP primaries? I don't recall him doing so. Wonder why he didn't blast Bush on global warming when he was courting Republican voters?

Now that McCain is fishing for independent and moderate voters in the general election, he's touting his global warming position, which is rather enlightened for a Republican. But as my colleague Jonathan Stein points out, McCain's environmental record is hardly all green. His lifetime voting record from the League of Conservation Voters: 24 percent.

A few weeks ago, I published a story that reported on how McCain sabotaged his own global warming bill in the Senate by attaching to it billions of dollars in tax subsidies for the nuclear energy industry. Even though many people--including his own environmental policy aide--warned him that doing so would do in his bill, the Senate's first attempt to redress global warming, McCain stubbornly insisted on the nuclear subsidies. Well, the warnings were right. The subsidies sank the bill. McCain's attempt to craft a legislative remedy for global warming fizzled. He then passed the buck to other senators. No doubt, he does feel strongly about the need to address climate change. Yet in that episode he was his own worst enemy. Read the full story here.

At least one conservative Republican has come out and said that John McCain ought to denounce the Reverend Rod Parsley for his extreme anti-Islam rhetoric, and that's James Pinkerton, with whom I regularly appear on Bloggingheads.tv. Pinkerton, who was a domestic policy adviser for the first President Bush and who advised Mike Huckabee during his recent GOP presidential primary contest, says that McCain should reject the endorsement he's accepted from Parsley, a pastor at an Ohio megachurch who has said that it is the historic mission of the United States to see the "false religion" of Islam "destroyed."

For more on Parsley's anti-Islam ranting and to see the reverend in his full anti-Islam glory, click here for the video of Parsley's attack on Islam that was produced by Mother Jones and Brave New Films.

Up to now, McCain has steadfastly refused to renounce Parsley, an influential political force in the swing state of Ohio. Doing so could seriously hurt McCain's chances in the Buckeye State. So Pinkerton shouldn't expect McCain to heed his advice. Here's Pinkerton and I discussing the matter:

This was first posted at MotherJones.com

Regular readers will know that I've been on top of John McCain for not renouncing the Reverend Rod Parsley, a fundamentalist preacher who has endorsed McCain and who has called on the United States to see the "false religion" of Islam "destroyed." I was the first reporter to note that Parsley was an anti-Islam extremist. I did so after finding harsh and derogatory statements about Islam in his 2005 book, Silent No More. But after Parsley's bigoted attacks on all Islam--not just Islamic extremists--were exposed, McCain refused to criticize Parsley or reject Parsley's endorsement. His campaign would not even take a phone call from me. It obviously wanted the matter to disappear, for Parsley is an important piece of the campaign's effort to win the key swing state of Ohio, where Parsley leads a megachurch and is an influential player who can drive tens of thousands of social conservatives to the polls. Before the Ohio primary, McCain and Parsley had campaigned together in Cincinnati. And the McCain campaign, no doubt, looked forward to doing the same during the general election. Thus, it was all mum on Parsley.

But there's more than Parsley's book excerpts for the campaign to dodge. I recently obtained from Parsley's church a DVD of a sermon he gave--titled, "Islam: The Deception of Allah"--in which he reiterated and amplified the anti-Islam rhetoric in his book. Joining up with Brave New Films, Mother Jones has produced a video showing Parsley in all his anti-Islam glory and McCain heaping praise on him at a campaign rally in February. Here it is:

This is not a game of gotcha politics. Consider this: what message does it send to the Muslim world if McCain requests and accepts the support of a fellow who wants to eradicate Islam and also praises him as a "moral compass," "great leader," and "spiritual guide"? It shouldn't be tough for McCain to repudiate Parsley and his statements. Yet apparently it is, for he is placing politics ahead of straight talk.

For more on Parsley's videotaped sermon, click here.

It's back to pander-politics. And unfortunately for Barack Obama, such tactics often pay off for pols.

There is little doubt that a federal gas tax holiday is bad policy. John McCain first proposed suspending the 18-cents-per-gallon tax for the summer months, and then Hillary Clinton jumped in, adding that oil companies should be slapped with a windfall profits tax to make up for the $9 billion in highway construction and maintenance funds that would be loss if the federal gas tax was waived for three months. Such a temporary measure would do nothing to address the fundamental energy problems of the nation. And Obama points out it will save the average American a mere $28 and, worse, it could cause prices to go up by encouraging more driving in a peak travel period and boosting the demand for gasoline. He's certainly right. It's no more than a Band-Aid--and, even then, not such a good stopgap measure.

But taking this egghead position has placed him in the middle, with Clinton and McCain shooting at him from different sides. Both are exploiting the moment to pound Obama further for being supposedly out of touch with common folks (i.e., voters). Clinton has been running television ads in Indiana slamming Obama for not supporting the gas tax proposal. The Republican National Committee has zapped out press releases blasting Obama for referring to McCain's gas tax plan as a "gimmick" and a "scheme."

So we're back to the perennial question: how mature are voters? Do they fall for the no-pain, quick-fix? Can they see through transparent pandering? The "First Read" gang at MSNBC had some interesting thoughts on this front:

Clinton is trying to harken back to the '90s and hammer home the "I feel your pain" aspect of the Clinton years that voters responded to so well back then. But the debate over the gas-tax holiday is an interesting one -- and it's a test of just how closely voters are following the campaign. Will voters respond simply on the pocketbook front and demand this gas tax holiday, despite all the downsides that many experts have outlined about the idea? It's the old "if it feels good, do it" (that Clinton and McCain have seen succeed for so long during times that pocketbook politics have dominated the debate) versus the intellectual argument Obama is trying to have (that usually is praised by, well, intellectuals but dismissed by rank-and-file voters who want their tax cut or gas prices cut). Clinton is trying to own this issue big time -- even running TV ads about it and constantly criticizing Obama for not supporting the gas-tax holiday. Obama's criticism of McCain's plan and Clinton's are accurate. The only problem is it leaves voters saying, "Ok, it's a gimmick; so what's your proposal? This feels like Clinton v. Tsongas '92. But the electorate acts as if its more informed than it was 16 years ago, and also could be a bit more distrustful of government handouts than in the past. Regardless, one could argue that the Clinton-Obama debate over this issue sums up their candidacies and potential presidencies. In this environment, which do voters prefer?

So as Obama has been tied up by the Wright business (and doing his best to respond to the recent Wright eruption), Clinton has been hoping to trump him in the I'm-more-like-you category. That is, like you, I'm damn pissed off by these freckin' high gas prices--can you believe what it costs to fill up?!!!--and I've got something to do about it right now. Her unsaid message: While Obama is dealing with all that black stuff, I'm fighting for you and am willing to kick the oil company in the teeth to save you a couple of bucks a week.

Will it work? Indianans and North Carolinians will tell us on Tuesday.

On Tuesday, John McCain's silly-named "Call to Action" tour hit health-care-land, and he traveled to Tampa to tout his Bush-like health care proposal. At the center of his plan is a proposal to provide tax credits to individuals ($2500) and families ($5000) that they can use to buy insurance.

A few weeks ago, Elizabeth Edwards blasted McCain's plan for not covering preexisting conditions, including illnesses experienced by Edwards (breast cancer) and McCain himself (melanoma). McCain, in his remarks on Tuesday, tried to address Edwards' criticism:

Critics argue that when my proposed tax credit becomes available it would encourage people to purchase health insurance on the current individual market, while significant weaknesses in the market remain. They worry that Americans with preexisting conditions could still be denied insurance. Congress took the important step of providing some protection against the exclusion of preexisting conditions in the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act in 1996. I supported that legislation, and nothing in my reforms will change the fact that if you remain employed and insured you will build protection against the cost of treating any preexisting condition. Even so, those without prior group coverage and those with preexisting conditions do have the most difficulty on the individual market, and we need to make sure they get the high-quality coverage they need. I will work tirelessly to address the problem. But I won't create another entitlement program that Washington will let get out of control. Nor will I saddle states with another unfunded mandate.

Translation: Edwards is right, and I now have no concrete proposal for addressing her criticism. Folks with preexisting conditions are just going to have to tough it out while McCain works "tirelessly."

What I'm curious about is how far those tax credits will go in helping individuals and families obtain decent coverage. Democrats routinely slam this level of assistance as insufficient. And that's what you'd expect them to say. What about a less partisan source? In February, on The Health Care Blog, Robert Laszweski, the president of Health Policy and Strategy Associates and former top executive at Liberty Mutual Insurance Company took a look at McCain's plan, and here's what he wrote about the tax credits:

The real question is, will McCain's plan give you enough to buy health insurance? With the average cost of employer-provided family health insurance at $12,000 a year a $5,000 tax credit will often come up way short--especially for higher age people and those who don't have the benefit of an employer contribution. High deductibles and [Health Savings Account] plans will help but families who don't have employer contributions should be prepared to pay at least a few thousand extra dollars.

He calls for the states to develop a "risk adjustment" bonus for high cost and low-income families to supplement tax credits and Medicaid funds. But just who will pay for this (the states alone?) and how it would close the cost gap is not explained....How will he deal with age rating, medical underwriting, and preexisting conditions? If McCain does not develop an individual health insurance market everyone can access, no matter how old they are or how sick they are, his scheme will fall way short.

In other words, no. McCain's plan offers too little for too many. So if your budget is tight or you've already been smacked by a bad disease, McCain's Call to Action tour will pass you by.

As part of his silly-named "Time for Action" tour, John McCain on Thursday hits New Orleans to discuss what still has to be done to help the residents of the area, which has yet to recover fully from Hurricane Katrina. In a long press release about the trip, McCain's campaign notes, "Recovery from Katrina has been a slow struggle." But the release--which details the history of New Orleans--does not note who's partly to blame for that struggle: George W. Bush and his administration. Nor does it mention the Bush administration's failure to respond adequately to the hurricane and flood. And while the press release hails the rise of charter schools in New Orleans and the establishment of an anti-crime coalition of various community groups, there is a another conspicuous absence: no mention of any action McCain has ever taken to help the people of New Orleans. Time for Action? Hasn't the time for action long passed. Rather than a history lesson about New Orleans, McCain ought to tell local residents what he has already done to assist them--if anything.

Though he might not want to remind them what he was doing the day the hurricane hit:

Yes, he was partying with Bush, holding a small celebration of McCain's 69th birthday in Phoenix. Instead of Time for Action on that horrific day, it was Time for Cake.

Pennsylvania? Predictions? I don't do predictions. But I will hazard this guess: the race will not be over after the Pennsylvania results are posted. In fact, I think Hillary Clinton is in the race--no matter what--until at least the end of the primaries in early June. And perhaps longer. If she does not fare well in Pennsylvania and the next primaries, the call for her to quit will get louder within the Democratic Party. But my hunch is this: she won't listen. Now on to today's posting....

On Monday, John McCain tried to expropriate the glory of a civil rights hero. On Tuesday, he stuck his head in the sand.

As part of his so-called "Time for Action" speaking tour, McCain on Tuesday rolled into Youngstown, Ohio, to give a speech at a local university. In the address--according to a text released before the event by his campaign--McCain tried to empathize with the displaced workers of the Rust Belt:

We hear people talking a lot these days about new industries on the rise and new skills in demand. But they're not the industries you grew up with, and they're not the skills many workers have spent twenty or thirty years learning on the job. People in the know like to discourse about the new global economy -- it's always "global" this and "global" that. But sometimes it seems that the map of the world they are using has only capitals, financial centers, and port cities. And where are the places like Canton, and Lima, and Akron, and Youngstown? Where's the heartland, where men and women know how to make things, and how to do the job with pride?

So what's he gonna do? McCain talked about the usual Republican fare: cutting taxes. He also touted his plan to make health care "more portable and affordable with generous tax credits." (Jonathan Gruber, a professor of economics at M.I.T. says that McCain's proposal is "fine except for the poor and the sick.") And McCain hyped his modest plan for helping "responsible sub-prime borrowers who played by the rules." He declared he would cut wasteful government spending and go after corporate welfare. He mentioned reforming the unemployment insurance system and job training programs.

But he ignored one critical matter: trade. There was not one word in the speech about trade agreements. He tried to sound the populist, bashing those who use the word "global" without paying attention to Middle America. But McCain said nothing about job dislocation caused by trade deals. Nor did he say anything about outsourcing and runaway factories. There was little in his speech that would discomfort the corporate class. Sure, tax cuts and better job-training programs. Who's against that?

McCain's speech was artfully crafted. But when he has to go up against a Democrat who does recognize that trade deals, overseas outsourcing, and runaway factories are part of the problem, McCain, with this narrow approach, is going to look more like a corporate-class Republican than a heartland populist. One wonders why McCain even bothered trekking to Youngstown to woo "the men and women of Youngstown [who] know what it feels like to be counted out," if he counts out big chunks of the crisis they face.

On Monday morning, John McCain traveled to Selma, Alabama, to give a speech about patriotism and courage--that is, to expropriate the patriotism and courage of a Barack Obama supporter.

Speaking at the site of a critical civil rights clash. McCain described in detail that turning point in America's history:

Forty-three years ago, an army of more than five hundred marched across the Edmund Pettus Bridge; an army that brought with them no weapons, which intended no destruction; that sought to conquer no people or land.

He went on to cite, in much detail, the heroic actions of John Lewis, who led that protest and who today is a Democratic congressman supporting Obama:

At the head of the column, dressed in a dark suit, white shirt, tie and tan raincoat, marched a twenty-five year old son of Alabama sharecroppers, John Lewis. They had planned to march from Selma to Montgomery, but they knew they would never reach there. They had been warned they would be met with force, and at the crest of the bridge, they were. Until then, they had marched in silence, with dignity and resolve, men, women, children and old people. All was quiet, even the angry crowd that watched the marchers. But everything was alive with apprehension, with the expectation that something momentous and terrible was imminent.

On the other side of the bridge, row upon row of state troopers in blue uniforms and white helmets, many on horseback, prepared to charge and stop with violence the peaceful army, intent only on conquering injustice. John Lewis took the first blow, a baton thrust to the stomach that shoved him back on the marchers behind him. He took the second blow, too, a hard swung club to his head, leaving a permanent scar where it struck. Blood poured from the wound, darkening his raincoat. He tried to struggle to his feet, and then collapsed unconscious, his skull fractured.

McCain went on to note that millions of Americans "watched brave John Lewis fall." He referred to Lewis and his comrades as "the best kind of patriots." He quoted Lewis. ("When I care about something, I'm prepared to take the long, hard road.") He cited Lewis' adherence to Martin Luther King Jr.'s concept of the "beloved community."

All this was to make a political point for McCain: "I will be traveling to places in America that aren't enjoying the prosperity many other parts of America enjoy, but where people are walking a long, hard road to make sure that their children will know the opportunities that other American children possess." McCain noted he would listen to these Americans "and learn from them about what government is doing to help their efforts and what it does to hinder them."

But what about McCain's own ideas? He had nothing specific to say about what he would do to help these people. But he had more to say about Lewis:

In America, we have always believed that if the day was a disappointment, we would win tomorrow. That's what John Lewis believed when he marched across this bridge. That's what he still believes; what he still fights to achieve: a better country than the one he inherited.

It was as if McCain was trying to wrap himself in the bloody shirt of John Lewis. McCain, of course, was not part of the civil rights movement. In fact, in 1983, he was one of 77 Republican House members to vote against the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday. He has never been close to Lewis, according to an associate of Lewis. He did not tell Lewis he would be making this speech, and he did not invite Lewis to attend the event. Lewis learned about the speech from reporters. (And, as of this writing, Lewis has yet to comment on it.) Given Lewis' high-profile support of Obama, McCain's speech--which was far more about John Lewis than John McCain--was rather odd. After all, the "better country" that Lewis now fights for would be led by a President Obama.

Yet McCain dissed Obama:

Hope in America is not based in delusion, but in the faith that everything is possible in America. The time for pandering and false promises is over. It is time for action. It is time for change; the right kind of change; change that trusts in the strength of free people and free markets; change that doesn't return to policies that empower government to make our choices for us, but that works to ensure we have choices to make for ourselves.

That's hardly John Lewis' vision of America (let alone Obama's). By the way, the goal of Lewis' civil rights movement was to pass federal legislation to protect the rights of oppressed Americans--yes, to expand and empower government. So Selma is hardly the appropriate locale for McCain to be strutting his libertarian stuff.

Toward the end of his speech, McCain said,

I am here because it is a place where great Americans once fought to do just that, and I'm going to places where they are still fighting for change; to make us a better country. I am going to meet and learn from patriots.

Maybe he can learn a little history from them--and also learn that he ought to be selling his own exploits to bolster civil rights and social justice in the United States (if he has any), not exploiting those of others.

Tonight is the Radio and Television Correspondents' Association Dinner--an annual formal affair that is the cousin to the White House correspondents' dinner. And this reminds me of one of my (own) favorite columns, which came about four years ago when I attended the dinner and watched in amazement as George W. Bush made jokes about the missing WMDs in Iraq (that is, joked about the purported reason for which he had sent Americans to war and, for some, to death). But what was most amazing was that everyone around me was laughing at Bush's routine. And laughing. And laughing. Never in my two decades of working in Washington have I felt more alienated--and, perhaps, more angry. Of the thousands of people in the room--which included hundreds of working journalists--I was, I believe, the only one to immediately write a piece questioning Bush (and his audience). That episode remains one of the more telling and revealing moments of modern-day Washington. (Talk about elitism.) And I believe it should not be forgotten. So I've posted that column below.

And on the subject of misplaced humor, I recently suggested on NPR's Diane Rehm Show that in a decent world John McCain would have been disqualified for running for president when he answered a question on the campaign trail about Iran by jokingly singing, "bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" (to the tune of the old hit "Barbara Ann") My point: anyone who would make light of launching a war--and killing people with bombs--should not be given the power to do so. As I made these comments, Tony Blankley, a PR man and columnist for The Washington Times leaned toward the microphone. Do you want to defend McCain's joke? I asked. Yes, he said, insisting that we had to allow for humor in politics.

Humor in politics? That's the job of Jon Stewart. Or Stephen Colbert. (Or me--to a much, much, much lesser extent when I do standup, once every year or two.) But laughing at a president or a presidential wannabe about wars they start or can start? That's truly amusing ourselves (and others) to death--to reference the late Neil Postman's 1985 book, Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business. I hope this time around--at the Radio and TV dinner--Bush sticks to less deadly fare when he tries to win giggles from the well-fed journalists and broadcasters in the room.
------

MIA WMDs--For Bush, It's a Joke
March 25, 2004

Only in Washington.

Last night I was at the Radio and Television Correspondents' Association Dinner. It's a formal-and-fun affair where thousands of media folks assemble at the Hilton for a fancy dinner and fab pre- and post-parties. I'm not going to denigrate such soirees. I enjoy t