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.

This past weekend, at a pre-party before the annual White House Correspondents Association dinner, I spotted Terry McAuliffe, the chairman of Hillary Clinton's campaign. As always--at least as always in public--he was in an upbeat mood and greeted me heartily. So, I asked, when does this end?

"June 15," he said without a nanosecond of hesitation.

Why then? I asked. The primaries finish on June 3, he noted, and after that there will be pressure on the uncommitted superdelegates (who now number about 300) to commit to one candidate or another. It should not take too long for these undecided insiders to make up their minds and declare their intentions--even if there are some who would rather not choose between the two.

So all done by June 15? You won't contend the nomination contest beyond then? I asked.

"Oh, I'm confident we'll be the nominee," he said, smiling.

But, I added, on the night of the Pennsylvania election, you said, "We're going all the way to Denver." That suggested, I noted, that Clinton would not yield any time before then. Remarks like that, I continued, raise the prospect of a Clinton backroom operation aimed at winning over both superdelegates and pledged delegates in the weeks and months after the primaries.

"What do you expect me to say?" McAuliffe retorted. "I'm chairman of the campaign." Well, I suggested, you could have said, "We're going on to the next primaries and we're going to keep on winning." He didn't have to use the D-word. He shrugged.

So, I asked, I have a promise? June 15? "June 15," he said. You keep it alive beyond that, I noted, and it could be a nuclear war within the party. (In fact, even if McAuliffe and Clinton succeed by winning enough superdelegates in the 12 days after the primaries to trump Barack Obama's lead in pledged delegates, there still could be an intra-party apocalypse.) He didn't take the bait. "June 15," he repeated.

"Talk to you on the 16th," I said.

Can't the superdelegates stop this?

Can't the Democratic candidates stop the ugliness?

Can't the media stop enabling this catfight?

In a word, no. Writing in The Huffington Post, Thomas Edsall, noted that it is the media that are keeping Hillary alive:

In a blink of an eye, the media has jumped ship from the Obama campaign and become a crucial Clinton ally, pressing just the message -- that Obama is a likely loser in the general election -- that Hillary and her allies have been promoting for the past six weeks.

The new tenor of media coverage is visible almost everywhere, from Politico, Time and The New Republic to The Washington Post and The New York Times.

For Hillary, the shift is a potential lifesaver as she struggles to keep her head above water; without it, she would, metaphorically, drown.

I don't argue with Edsall's view that many in the commentariat have tilted toward Clinton--or, at least, against Obama. (He cites the recent work of John Judis and Joe Klein.) But besides the media, the superdelegates, and the candidates, there is someone else to blame for the messy Democratic race: those darn Democratic voters. The Clinton people keep saying, "Obama can't seal the deal" with Democratic voters. Clinton, of course, has sealed no such deal, either, since she trails in pledged delegates and popular votes. (And don't get me started about her argument that if you include Florida and Michigan she's received more votes than Obama. There was no campaigning in Florida, and Obama's name did not appear on the Michigan ballot. This sort of spin is infuriating.)

It's the Democratic voters who can't seal anything. As a group, they remain evenly split between Obama and Clinton. And a majority of them in Pennsylvania did not buy the case that Clinton is actually out of the running and that this increasingly bitter race must be brought to a swift close. What are you gonna do about voters like these? If they keep voting for Clinton, she will continue to claim the results as justification for staying in the race--even if the math is nearly impossible. And if Democratic voters in North Carolina and Indiana disappoint her on May 6, she probably will remain in the race, hoping that Democratic voters in West Virginia (May 13), Kentucky (May 20), and Puerto Rico (June 1) will provide her some protection (even if thin) against what could well be a rising cry from Democratic insiders for her to bail.

It sounds quaint, but at this moment it's the Democratic voters who are determining the shape of the race. Has Clinton been too rough in her attacks on Obama? If so, the Pennsylvania voters did not punish her. They rewarded her and cheered her on to the next contests.

At this point, many Democrats seemed resigned to six more weeks of nastiness. And most of the nearly 300 uncommitted superdelegates do not appear to be in a rush to declare a preference for either Obama or Clinton. The crunch point will come at the end of the primaries. Obama will likely be ahead in pledged delegates. And Clinton will then have to decide whether to continue a bloody campaign until the convention or admit defeat. My guess is she'll press on--almost no matter what. But what those pesky Democratic voters do between now and then will either bolster her case or weaken it. They have a big say in whether in the party goes through a wrenching (and possibly disastrous) post-primaries battle. How's that for democracy?

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.

I told you the Pennsylvania primary would not settle anything. Not that that was such a daring prediction. Here is my insta-analysis, first posted at MotherJones.com. Feel free to share your views in the comments section.

The Democratic contest has been a 50-50 proposition for months now--more precisely, a 51-49 percent endeavor or maybe a 52-48-percent face-off in Barack Obama's favor, according to the pledged delegate count and the popular vote. Hillary Clinton's 9-point win in the Keystone State (which apparently did not net her a significant pickup in pledged delegates) does not change this. In fact, her Pennsylvania triumph does not change the fundamentals of the race. Obama is still on track to end the primaries with a slight edge in pledged delegates. And Clinton is still in the race, clinging tightly to her candidacy and reiterating rationales to stay in the hunt: I have more experience; I'm better prepared to be commander-in-chief; I've withstood the worst of the GOP attack machine; I've won the big states.

Bottom line: It's not over, and the contest is not likely to end anytime soon. At HRC HQ in Philadelphia on Tuesday night, Terry McAuliffe, Clinton's campaign manager, ebulliently declared, "She is taking this all the way to Denver." But many Democratic superdelegates and insiders are hardly enthusiastic about a bitterly fought campaign that trudges through the next nine primaries (which conclude in early June) and then continues, as a media-driven contest of Democrat-on-Democrat sniping, for three months until the convention in Denver at the end of August. The question is, will these Democrats be able to do anything about it?

If Clinton is committed to going the distance, she cannot be stopped. No one--not even those mighty superdelegates--can literally force her out. She cannot win the final primaries by margins large enough to erase Obama's lead in voter-determined delegates. Everyone knows that. But she can keep on challenging Obama, doing well enough--winning some contests or placing a strong second--to justify, at least to herself and her supporters, her continued presence in the race. During that time, she can hope something happens that does alter the landscape (look, evidence that Obama is indeed a secret Muslim!), and she can also lay the groundwork for a post-primaries effort to persuade superdelegates to overturn Obama's narrow victory among pledged delegates. Yet that project can only succeed with successful assaults on Obama. Her path to the nomination depends on one fuel: fierce attacks. She can win the nomination only by tearing down Obama after the voting is done and by threatening party unity.

Clinton is obviously fine with that--at this stage. But how far is she willing to go? Her shots at Obama may have helped her win in Pennsylvania. But they were not cost-free. According to the exit polls, 42 percent of the Pennsylvania Democratic voters consider Clinton untrustworthy. (Thirty percent said the same about Obama.) Sixty-seven percent said they believed she had attacked Obama unfairly. Only 49 percent said Obama had thrown low-blows. And Clinton did not redefine her standing among Democrats. Two-thirds of Pennsylvania's Democratic voters said Clinton was "in touch with people" like them. Yet two-thirds had the same assessment of Obama. Despite all the fuss about Obama's "bitter" remark, Clinton had no edge in the candidate-of-the-people category. And 51 percent of the voters said the candidate quality they consider most important was the ability to implement change. Among these voters, Obama attracted 70 percent.

With her Pennsylvania win, Clinton can raise funds--her campaign claimed millions of dollars poured in on Tuesday night--and she can proceed to Indiana and North Carolina (which hold primaries on May 6), staying alive because she insists she is alive. Remember the Monty Python "dead parrot" bit? As long as Clinton refuses to concede she cannot win, she remains a contender--or at least a force Obama and the Democratic Party must contend with. After all, the party has no official coroner who can pronounce her gone. And--no small matter--Democratic voters do keep turning out for her. In her victory speech in Philadelphia, she depicted herself as a politician who fights damn hard on the campaign trail for you and who will fight damn hard in the White House for you. Clearly, she was trying to turn what some superdelegates might perceive as an irritant or problem--her stubborn determination--into a reason why superdelegates ought to dump Obama for her.

During the Monica Lewinsky scandal--when many pundits and Clinton foes predicted Bill Clinton's demise--the Clintons learned a valuable lesson: sometimes you just have to put one foot in front of the other and keep moving ahead, paying no heed to those who say you have no choice but to quit. They had their party--most of it--behind them during those days. And now Hillary Clinton, with significant voter support, is plodding ahead, stuck with a strategy that at his point leaves her only the nuclear option of nullifying Obama's primary and caucus victories. But, she can reason, if I am not dead, then I'm still alive--and still have a chance. Politically speaking, she is somewhere between dead and alive. The undead? The next primaries may nudge her closer to one of those poles. And, once again, they may not be decisive. But as of now, amid the glow of her Pennsylvania victory, it's up to Hillary Clinton to decide at what point might rest the bitter end.

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.

Last night, as I noted yesterday, was the annual Radio and TV dinner in Washington. George W. Bush sent his regrets, citing a higher calling than dining with 2000-plus broadcasters, journalists, and others: that is, hosting a dinner for the pope. Yes, Bush passed up the chance to make jokes about the Iraq war, as he did four years ago. Bush's stand-in at the dinner as stand-up-in-chief was Dick Cheney.

Cheney did not sling any jokes about the war. Instead, he riffed on global warming and his own lack of enthusiasm for that particular threat, noting that he prefers to refer to global warming "as spring." And, he added, it's going to get a lot warmer and then it's going to get cooler. Get it?

His routine was good enough, if predictable. But what was not entirely predictable was that night passed without serious mention of the fact that U.S. troops are now at war. Cheney made not a reference to the war and the Americans serving overseas. Not that e should have worked them into his ghostwritten gags. But there was no moment at the end when the Veep got serious and noted that as journalists and Washington players eat, drink, and make merry, this is a nation at war, with thousands of its sons and daughters, husbands and wives, brothers and sisters in harm's way.

I don't want to come across as a stuffy killjoy. But there was a frivolity at the dinner that was out of sync with...well, the real world. I'm sure hardworking broadcasters and journalists could use a night out. But there was no recognition from our national No. 2 that this country is in a moment of trouble (and that would include economic trouble). And there was no nod to the guys and gals he dispatched to Iraq, Americans who are not able to take time out to joke around at a formal dinner. Talk about no class--or elitism.

This is not a first. Following the White House Correspondents' Dinner in 2005, I wrote:

No mention of the US troops being killed in Iraq but a horse jerk-off joke--that is one way to sum up the First Couple's appearance at the White House Correspondents' Dinner on Saturday evening.

So there is now a tradition in Washington. The president or the vice president laughs it up at the fancy dinners and ignores the troops in Iraq and the war they are supposed to be overseeing night and day. No wonder I needed a drink.

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 them. While bookers and producers jiggled and jostled on the dance floor and media and political celebs dissected the news du jour (this time it was Richard Clarke's dramatic appearance before the 9/11 commission), I was able to chat with former weapons hunter David Kay and learn about some troubling developments in the intelligence community (more on that down the road). And there was free sushi.

But an awful you're-all-alone moment came during George W. Bush's comments that followed the sit-down dinner. The current president is often the honored guest at this annual affair, and the audience toasts him in what is supposed to be a sign of communal and nonpartisan spirit. And the tradition is that the president has to be funny; he has to provide us with an amusing speech that pokes fun at himself and his political foes. After all, political journalists love to see politicians engage in self-deprecating humor. Bill Clinton was quite good at these performances. Bush seems to enjoy them less. Rather than do straight standup, he sometimes relies on a humorous slide show, and that was how he chose to entertain the media throng this time.

It's standard fare humor. Bush says he is preparing for a tough election fight; then on the large video screens a picture flashes showing him wearing a boxing robe while sitting at his desk. Bush notes he spends "a lot of time on the phone listening to our European allies." Then we see a photo of him on the phone with a finger in his ear. There were funny bits about Skull and Bones, his mother, and Dick Cheney. But at one point, Bush showed a photo of himself looking for something out a window in the Oval Office, and he said, "Those weapons of mass destruction have got to be somewhere."

The audience laughed. I grimaced. But that wasn't the end of it. After a few more slides, there was a shot of Bush looking under furniture in the Oval Office. "Nope," he said. "No weapons over there." More laughter. Then another picture of Bush searching in his office: "Maybe under here." Laughter again.

Disapproval must have registered upon my face, for one of my tablemates said, "Come on, David, this is funny." I wanted to reply, Over 500 Americans and literally countless Iraqis are dead because of a war that was supposedly fought to find weapons of mass destruction, and Bush is joking about it. Instead, I took a long drink of the lovely white wine that had come with our dinner. It's not as if I was in the middle of a talk-show debate and had to respond. This was certainly one of those occasions in which you either get it or don't. And I wasn't getting it. Or maybe my neighbor wasn't.

At the end of the slide show, Bush displayed two pictures of himself with troops and noted these were his favorites. The final photograph was a shot of special forces soldiers--with their faces blurred to protect their identities--who were posing in Afghanistan where they had buried a piece of 9/11 debris in a spot that had once been an al Qaeda camp. Bush spoke about the prayer the commander had said during the burial ceremony and noted he had this photograph hanging in his private study.

So what's wrong with this picture? Bush was somber about the sacrifice being made by U.S. troops overseas. But he obviously considered it fine to make fun of the reason he cited for sending Americans to war and to death. What an act of audacious spin. One poll recently showed that most Americans believe he either lied about Iraq's WMDs or deliberately exaggerated the case to justify the war. And it is undeniable that in seeking public support for the war he made many false assertions that went beyond quoting intelligence that turned out to be wrong. (I've written about this in many other places. If you still don't believe Bush mugged the truth, check out this short guide.) As the crowd was digesting the delicious surf-and-turf meal, Bush was transforming serious scandal into rim-shot comedy.

Few seemed to mind. His WMD gags did not prompt a how-can-you silence from the gathering. At the after-parties, I heard no complaints. Was I being too sensitive? I wondered what the spouse, child or parent of a soldier killed in Iraq would have felt if they had been watching C-SPAN and saw the commander-in-chief mocking the supposed justification for the war that claimed their loved ones. Bush told the nation that lives had to be sacrificed because Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction that could be used (by terrorists) against the United States. That was not true. (And as Kay pointed out, the evidence so far shows these weapons were not there in the first place, not that they were hidden, destroyed or spirited away.) But rather than acknowledge he misinformed the public, Bush jokes about the absence of such weapons.

Even if Bush does not believe he lied to or misled the public, how can he make fun of the rationale for a war that has killed and maimed thousands? Imagine if Lyndon Johnson had joked about the trumped-up Gulf of Tonkin incident that he deceitfully used as a rationale for U.S. military action in Vietnam: "Who knew that fish had torpedoes?" Or if Ronald Reagan appeared at a correspondents event following the truck-bombing at the Marines barracks in Beirut--which killed over 200 American servicemen--and said, "Guess we forgot to put in a stop light." Or if Clinton had come out after the bombing of Serbia--during which U.S. bombs errantly destroyed the Chinese embassy and killed several people there--and said, "The problem is, those embassies--they all look alike."

Yet there was Bush--apparently having a laugh at his own expense, but actually doing so on the graves of thousands. This was a callous and arrogant display. For Bush, the misinformation--or disinformation--he peddled before the war was no more than material for yucks. As the audience laughed along, he smiled. The false statements (or lies) that had launched a war had become merely another punchline in the nation's capital.

The Democratic primary contest has been "relatively mild." So said Hillary Clinton's communications director, Howard Wolfson, on a conference call with reporters on Tuesday morning. But in the same call, he and Phil Singer, another campaign aide, continued to whack Obama for making remarks that they blasted "as elitist and condescending." Singer added that Obama is "somewhat detached" from American voters. And Wolfson noted that the whole fuss over Obama's "bitter" comments is "an important issue." But it's a fuss fueled by the Clinton campaign, which yesterday put up an ad in which supposed Clinton supporters--average Joes and Josephines in Pennsylvania--gripe about Obama's remarks.

"It just shows how out of touch Barack Obama is," says Man 1 in the ad. (That's how the campaign identified the fellow in an email to reporters.) "I was insulted by Barack Obama," says Woman 1. And in the spot--the first negative ad in the Obama-Clinton contest that attacks an opponent by name--Woman 2 says, "I'm not clinging to my faith out of frustration and bitterness. I find my faith is very uplifting." [Correction: Howard Wolfson emails to say, "This is not the first ad that mentions an opponent by name -- we ran ads in WI urging him to debate -- he responded by saying we would say anything or do anything to win."]

Gal No. 2 gets to the heart of this non-issue. At that now-infamous San Francisco fundraiser, Obama, referring to middle-class voters in areas hit by massive job loss, said,

So it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy towards people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

Obama's foes--in the Clinton camp and the John McCain camp--have accused him of saying people "cling" to guns and faith only because they are bitter. That's not exactly what Obama said. He noted that people in hard-pressed areas become bitter because they see the system failing them and they cling to their belief in gun rights and/or God (as well as other beliefs, such as opposition to immigrants or gay rights). Obama obviously knows that these beliefs--the good and the bad--were already deeply held before the mill jobs disappeared. Such beliefs, though, are presumably further embraced in difficult times. And given that some of these beliefs (gun rights, opposition to abortion and gay rights) tend to cut against candidates perceived as liberals, it can make things tougher for certain Democrats. This ain't in much dispute.

No doubt, Obama was trying to express what passes for a sophisticated point in our culture of debate-by-soundbites, yet he did so in a clunky manner that offered his opponents the chance to assert that he believes that faith and a love of guns come only out of frustration. There may be an argument for such a proposition. But I doubt Obama would accept it. As a former community organizer and longtime churchgoer (we all know that he goes to church), he hardly fits the bill as a secularist elitist. Yet the Clinton campaign pounced on these words to claim that the man whom they have already decried as not able to protect America as commander in chief is out of touch with real Americans. What a "mild" attack.

The bitter "bitter" debate is ridiculous. Days after the report came out that Barack Obama had said that blue-collar Pennsylvanians living in small towns that have experienced massive job flight are "bitter," the controversy is still the talk of the cable news shows. This is nuts. But it's nuts via design. As soon as Obama's remarks were reported, Hillary Clinton pounced, stating:

I saw in the media it's being reported that my opponent said that the people of Pennsylvania who faced hard times are bitter. Well, that's not my experience. As I travel around Pennsylvania, I meet people who are resilient, who are optimistic, who are positive, who are rolling up their sleeves. They are working hard everyday for a better future, for themselves and their children. Pennsylvanians don't need a president who looks down on them, they need a president who stands up for them, who fights for them, who works hard for your futures, your jobs, your families.

And Clinton surrogate Tom Vilsack, the former Iowa governor, teed off on Obama's observation that these Pennsylvanians who "fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration" now "cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations." Vilsack declared:

[Obama] suggests that in some way the faith of those who live in small towns is superficial. It's used as a crutch in a time of need. That's not what I know. What I know is that our faith is real and it is rooted. It is the foundation of our values system. It is what defines how we live our lives, and most importantly of all, how we raise our families. It is true. It is genuine. His comment about guns suggests that they are an instrument that we use somehow to protect ourselves from the outside world, to isolate ourselves from the outside world. When in fact, guns are a reflection of what we do with our family and our friends. It's how we pass on, through hunting, family traditions that are strong and how we form friendships that are lifelong.

Obama was simply stating what has been established dogma within the Democratic Party: when blue-collar voters' economic concerns and troubles are not addressed, they get pissed off and they vote on other issues, such as what's known in politics as the three Gs: Gods, guns, and gays. And nowadays, you can toss in illegal immigration and trade. With the exception of trade, all of this has helped the Republicans. Clinton and her people understand that.

To say one is "bitter" is no insult--especially when you affirm the reason for the anger (in this case, a government that has not responded to economic needs) and vow to make change. Clinton's equating Obama's recognition of justifiable bitterness with elitism is illogical. It's not elitism, it's empathy. Feeling their pain. Remember that? But she and her people saw an opportunity, and they went straight for the jugular. (You want an elitist remark? What about the gal who once said, "I suppose I could have stayed home and baked cookies and had teas, but what I decided to do was to fulfill my profession which I entered before my husband was in public life.") And Obama, despite Vilsack's braying, was not dismissing the basics of faith and gun ownership (what a combo!). He was merely referring to the passions and circumstances that drive working-class voters to place gun issues and social controversies (such as abortion) at the top of their list on Election Day. Vilsack knows that.

This campaign is becoming more churlish and childish by the hour. Each day the two campaigns shoot out to reporters emails that try to turn small matters into scandals. The Clinton people, in my view, are worse, but the Obama camp has not been able to stay above the fray. The pressures of the campaign do push political aides and strategists to resort to such measures. And for political reporters, any fight makes a good headline. So this dynamic ain't gonna change. The Democratic contest is just going to get more bitter--bitter through Wednesday's debate and perhaps bitter all the way to the convention.

On the run today , so no new posts. In the meantime, check out the major investigation I worked on for MotherJones.com regarding a private security firm of ex-Secret Service agents that spied on Greenpeace, other environmental groups, and corporate targets by swiping garbage, infiltrating operatives, and penetrating confidential meetings. The piece is based on internal documents we obtained and includes references to Wal-Mart, Robin Wright Penn, the NRA, Mary Kay, and the Rolling Stones.

Quick--give me two words that did not appear in George W. Bush's speech today. How about "breathing space"?

When Bush announced his so-called surge of troops in Iraq in January 2007, he said it would create "the breathing space [the Iraqi government] needs to make progress." But the government has hardly made the best of whatever "breathing space" was offered by the escalation of troops. In today's address, Bush covered Baghdad's supposed progress in two sentences.

Of course, he offered no surprises and did not veer from his stay-the-course stance. And he backed General David Petraeus so thoroughly it was if he was subcontracting out the war to the commander:

General Petraeus says he'll need time to consolidate his forces and assess how this reduced American presence will affect conditions on the ground before making measured recommendations on further reductions. And I've told him he'll have all the time he needs.

What's wrong with this? Well, first, Bush is out of here in nine months. Easy for him to say, "Take as much time as you want." More important, Bush is going overboard in delegating. Is he suggesting that as commander in chief he will accept whatever Petraeus tells him? That he will unquestioning grant Petraeus a blank check? Isn't it part of the president's job to evaluate what his field commanders tell him?

Petraeus' approval ratings must be higher than Bush's. (Roger Clemens probably has higher numbers than Bush.) So it's to Bush's political benefit to hide behind the No. 1 front man for the war. But no commander in chief ought to grant a commander--even one who can wow 'em on Capitol Hill--so much leeway.

During the speech, Bush also said:

Some in Washington argue that the war costs too much money. There's no doubt that the costs of this war have been high. But during other major conflicts in our history, the relative cost has been even higher. Think about the Cold War. During the Truman and Eisenhower administrations, our defense budget rose as high as 13 percent of our total economy. Even during the Reagan administration, when our economy expanded significantly, the defense budget still accounted for about 6 percent of GDP. Our citizens recognized that the imperative of stopping Soviet expansion justified this expense. Today, we face an enemy that is not only expansionist in its aims, but has actually attacked our homeland -- and intends to do so again....

We should be able to agree that this is a burden worth bearing. And we should be able to agree that our national interest require the success of our mission in Iraq.

Here we go again: defending the Iraq war and justifying its costs by connecting the war to "an enemy...that has actually attacked our homeland." You'd think that Bush would become tired of that old canard. Moreover, he says everyone should agree the war is worth it. Then why do 70 percent of Americans, according to polls, not agree with this proposition? The country just doesn't buy what Bush has to say. It long ago turned off to his never-ending disingenuous sales pitch. Consequently, the speechifying he did today won't matter. But maybe the next time he feels the need to make a speech on Iraq he should ask Petraeus to give the speech for him. And in that speech, Petraeus can declare: "I am giving myself as much time as I think I need. And I thank me."

Now it's back to the usual fun and games.

Yesterday, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama tried to look statesmanlike (or stateswoman-like) as each respectfully questioned General David Petraeus and Ryan Crocker. Neither senator provided much in the way of push-back to Petraeus' and Crocker's statements. Yes, they stuck to their overall criticisms of the war and their respective calls for withdrawing U.S. troops, but each had obviously calculated that the Petraeus hearings were not an occasion to raise a fuss or score points.

But today it was time to do so. At least for Clinton. At a campaign event, she said:

We need to be planning and preparing to start bringing our troops home, and I have committed to doing that within 60 days of my becoming president. Senator Obama, on the other hand, says he'll end the war, but his top foreign policy adviser said he won't necessarily follow the plan he's been talking about during this campaign. That the plan is "just words." Well, you can count on me to end the war safely and responsibly.

Once again, she was trying to depict Obama as a phony, indirectly citing remarks from ex-Obama adviser Samantha Power, who weeks ago had said that if Obama were to become president, his withdrawal plan would be reality-checked against the conditions of the time. That's logical. But the Clinton folks claimed Power had spilled a big secret: Obama didn't intend to stick by his vow to withdraw troops from Iraq. And they tried to make this a big to-do.

At the time, it didn't quite catch on as a campaign meme. (Reverend Wright came along.) But in this campaign, it seems, no allegation ever truly disappears. Clinton is trying to resurrect this charge.

The Obama campaign immediately fired back and released this statement:

Hillary Clinton's tired and discredited attack is just the same old politics that won't end this war that she voted to authorize, and won't change the fact that she has repeatedly misled the American people about her Iraq record. We're happy to have a debate with Hillary Clinton over who the American people trust to end this war, since Barack Obama is the only candidate who had the judgment to oppose the war from the very beginning, not just from the beginning of a campaign for President.

The Obama-Clinton bickering is getting old and annoying. In this round--as in many--her campaign is the more guilty party. But that aside, it's unfortunate for Democrats and war critics that these two candidates talk tougher about each other than they do about the front men for George W. Bush's war.

On Monday, I noted that when General David Petraeus, the top commander in Iraq, testified before Congress last September he wielded a chart entitled "Iraqi Security Forces Capabilities." That graphic aid hardly backed up the argument that the Iraqi forces were on the march. It showed that the level of Iraqi troops that were fully independent or that could stage operations of their own with the support of U.S. forces had dipped slightly between September 2006 and September 2007. That indicated that over the course of a year, according to Petraeus' own numbers, there had been no progress--none--in fielding Iraqi security forces that could function on their own. That seemed a rather strong indicator.

So on Tuesday morning, as I watched Petraeus' testimony before the Senate armed services committee, I waited to get his handouts to see what had happened on this front in the past seven months. As soon as he began testifying, the committee made his charts available. And--whaddayaknow?--this time he had no version of this chart. There was one chart indicating that more Iraqi battalions were now taking the lead in military operations than in January 2007. But this point was challenged by Senator Carl Levin, the committee chairman. Levin said that he was recently informed that of 110 joint U.S.-Iraqi operations of company size or greater in Iraq in the first three months of 2008, Iraqi forces assumed the lead in only ten of these missions. Still, Petraeus testified that the Iraqi forces have "grown significantly" since September, but he did not provide information on their capabilities that would allow an observer to compare current numbers to those he presented to Congress in September. Anyone care to guess why?

During his testimony, Petraeus said what was expected: the so-called surge is working, progress is real if fragile. And he said that there should be no reduction of troops beyond a return to the pre-surge levels. At the same time, the Democratic war critics on the committee missed a chance to present a cohesive and extensive challenge to Bush's war. I suss it all out here.

Mark Penn's departure from the Hillary Clinton campaign took a punch away from Barack Obama.

It's a punch that Obama had not yet used. But as the primary campaign has intensified, I've been waiting for the moment--at a debate or during a high-profile campaign speech--when Obama would turn to Clinton (literally or metaphorically) and say something like:

With all due respect, Senator, how can you say that you are a candidate who will fight the for change against the status quo of Washington and champion the interests of working Americans, when your chief strategist is an inside-the-Beltway consultant who makes millions of dollars a year helping union-busting firms, corporate polluters, various industries, foreign governments and special interests get what they want out of Washington at the expense of hard-working Americans? How can you place your campaign in the hands of a fellow who's day job is to assist corporate powers so they win special favors and special treatment? Do you not see the contradiction between your words and this action? Should voters not wonder about your close and important association with this Washington insider who rents out his influence--for millions of dollars--to corporate special interests?

Well, that's not going to happen now. The Clinton campaign tied Penn's exit--ouster?--to the recent news that he was working for the Government of Colombia, advising it on how to win support in Washington for a free-trade treaty that Clinton says she opposes. (Was this arrogant? Foolish? Dumb?) But top-level Clinton aides have been grumbling about Penn for months, with some rooting for his fall. So the Colombian connection was convenient ammo for those on the campaign who have blamed Penn's go-for-a-general-election-message strategy for HRC's troubles during the primary season. There are some happy campers in Hillaryland today--and Obama has lost an opportunity.

COUNTDOWN TO PETRAEUS: On Tuesday, General David Petraeus will again try to take Capitol Hill. I've already done a set-up (here and here). But I was thinking about last year's Petraeus show and remembered that he had a pretty easy time snowing Congress. Read this posting (of mine) from September:

Citing General David Petraeus, George W. Bush, in his so-called "wayforward in Iraq" speech declared on Thursday night, "The Iraqi army is becoming more capable."

For days, I've been carrying around with me page 13 of the 14-page slideshow Petraeus showed during his multiple appearances on Capitol Hill. (That's how nerdy I am!) And to anyone unfortunate to get stuck in an elevator with me, I've flashed this chart to show that according to Petraeus' own numbers, there has been no progress in the past year in fielding Iraqi security forces that can function on their own. Yes, I said no progress.

The chart--titled "Iraqi Security Forces Capabilities"--divides Iraqi troops into four groups: units that are fully independent (Level I); that can stage operations with support of U.S. forces (Level II); that can fight side by side with U.S. forces (Level III); that are still forming (Level IV). If you look at September 2006, you will see that there were 11,000 Level I troops and 86,000 Level II troops. Fast forward to September 2007, and the numbers are, Level I, 12,000 and Level II, 84,000. That's a slight drop in capabilities, if you combine Levels I and II.

So how can Bush--or anyone else--say that Iraqi troops are becoming more capable? For all the money and effort spent during the last year--when the Bush administration was claiming that the training of Iraqi troops was a top priority (remember, they stand up, we leave?)--there's been little, if any, return on the investment. By the way, the chart includes the national police--a force so rife with corruption and sectarianism that the Jones Commission recently recommended it be disbanded. Petraeus's chart is further evidence that the administration gameplan isn't working.

Back in September, reporters and legislators did not pay attention to this important portion of Petraeus' presentation. Will the scrutiny be tighter this time?

It's the 40th anniversary of the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr. What to say? A friend emailed me a link to what is one of the most poignant commentaries on his murder: Bobby Kennedy's remarks that night to a crowd that had come to hear him deliver a campaign speech but instead had to be informed by the Democratic presidential candidate that King had been shot and killed in Memphis.

Listening to this speech--in the middle of another hotly contested Democratic presidential campaign--it's difficult not to ask, who today sounds more like the RFK of that moment: HRC or BHO? It's not close.

Yesterday, I wondered aloud whether the members of the House and the Senate will give General David Petraeus, the top commander in Iraq, much of a grilling when he testifies on Capitol Hill next week. After all, during his previous appearance in September, Petraeus was met only with a fusillade of softballs.

I asked a senior Democratic House aide if the questioning this time will be more vigorous. He responds: "Absolutely. The recent events seem to have confirmed everyone's suspicions about the “success” of the surge. Combined with the recent statements about retaining 140,000 troops, the McCain 100 year commitment, and the salience of the “cost of war” theme of the last few weeks, and the 4,000 death figure being reached, Members are ready to challenge assertions or predictions of success."

Such challenging is long past due. One question is, will it matter? The Democrats in the Senate and House have been completely stymied by George W. Bush. They have tried many times to force Bush to change direction in Iraq. He has said no. And they have declined to go nuclear: that is, vote against general funding for the war. The Democrats don't have the votes to win that battle. And many of them do not want to be placed in a position where Republicans and conservatives can accuse them of being responsible for what could be a nasty ending to the war. Their strategic aim has been to force Bush to clean up his own mess. He has refused.

So it's unlikely that any tough questioning of Petraeus will lead to policy change. But this remains an important moment. For the past year, there's not been much popular and media attention paid to the war. In recent months, it's barely been in the news. Occasionally, you see video of the aftermath of a market bomb-blast, but the war is usually off the screen.

The public certainly does not support the war. But what's the nature of this opposition? Last night, I attended a screening of Body of War, a gripping documentary directed by Ellen Spiro and Phil Donahue (yes, that Phil Donahue) that follows the story and travails of Tomas Young, an Iraq war vet who was shot while on patrol and paralyzed from the waist down. After the film was shown, Young spoke to the audience and noted that even though close to 70 percent of the American public say they oppose this war, this only means that these Americans are willing to pick up a phone and tell some pollster on the other end that they don't fancy this war. That's not passionate opposition. Are they willing to take any action to stop it? Not really. Public sentiment regarding the war is closer to alienation than anger. After all, the costs of the war are hidden (that is, not felt) by most Americans,

The upcoming Petraeus testimony is an opportunity. The national media, for at least a day or so, will focus on the war. The dominant media narrative of the war in recent months has been that the surge is working. Now war critics and skeptics in Congress will have a brief chance to rewrite (or at least challenge) that script. But that will only happen if they are forceful in questioning Petraeus. Too much deference will lose the day for them. And the point is...to make a point: the war is not going as well as Bush claims. Doing so will help the Democratic presidential candidate--whoever wins--do battle with John McCain, a cheerleader for the war, and also help the Democratic nominee, if he or she is elected, to begin disengagement from Iraq.

It may be weeks or months before the American public (and the media) next pays any intense attention to the war. The Democrats ought to make sure they don't blow this engagement.

The Democrats in Congress have been rolled on the Iraq war. That's no news flash. Given that they long ago decided not to pull the trigger and defund the war, they were left with the option of trying to force George W. Bush to change course. He stood firm. They blinked. And when General David Petraeus, the top commander in Iraq, testified before Congress last September, the Democrats greeted him with softball questions. Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama wimped out when they had a chance to grill Petraeus. Bottom-line: Bush won political space for the war, and the meme was established that the surge was working and the war was going better. That narrative, though, had a hole in it, for a successful surge (if that is what it was) was not equivalent to a successful war. Sure, pouring 30,000 extra troops into the hotspots of Iraq would certainly cause some of the violence to decline. But that did not mean that the roots of the conflict(s) in Iraq were being addressed--let alone addressed effectively. Yet Petraeus, generally unchallenged by the Dems (who were scared to be associated with MoveOn's anti-Petraeus campaign), was able to sell the surge.

Now that sales job is wearing thin. The recent fighting between the Iraqi government and the militia of Moqtadar al-Sadr suggests that the problem in Iraq is civil war rather than insurgency. Or, at least, maybe both. Here we have the government trying to crack down on what is, as journalist Patrick Cockburn calls it, "the only mass movement in Iraqi politics." Say what you want about Sadr, he ain't no insurgent. What's our dog in this fight? What does any of this have to do with combating al Qaeda (which seems to be a small slice of the challenge in Iraq, Bush's pronouncements to the contrary)? Why back the inept and corrupt regime of Nouri al-Maliki?

The surge was supposed to create space for national reconciliation. But even Petraeus has recognized that this opportunity has been squandered. And if one Shi'ite bloc (the government) is fighting another Shi'ite bloc (Sadr and his followers), what does that tell us about progress on this front? Meanwhile, top U.S. military officials told Congress on Tuesday that the surge in Iraq and deployments in Afghanistan have stressed out the military so much that it may not be able to handle other conflicts. This assessment comes just as Petraeus is expected to tell Congress next week--when he comes back for a return engagement--that he wants to delay any de-surging.

So it's a mess. The surge may not be the temporary move Bush had promised when he announced it in January 2007. The violence is increasing. Four million Iraqis remain dislocated and displaced. The Sunnis have been armed to beat back al Qaeda in Iraq--but those arms can be put to other use. And civil war between the Shi'ites is but a flashpoint away--and only prevented recently due to the intervention of Iran, which helped cool down the clash between the government and Sadr and which seems to have more influence in Iraq than the United States.

Will members of Congress--Democratic and Republican--grill Petraeus about all this? Or let themselves once again be dazzled by charts, graphs, and confident assertions of progress. This is a good time for a surge in oversight. And if the Democrats need any help, I've prepared a list of questions that national security experts would like to see posed to Petraeus. (See it here.) But I am sure they can come up with their own queries. One only needs to read the papers and to wonder, what the hell is going on?

In an interview CNN aired on Tuesday, John McCain was asked about his temper--that is, his famous temper. It's a question that is going to come up repeatedly in the campaign--or, at least, it should. He dismissed the topic as "a very, very minor thing." He pointed to his bipartisan efforts as evidence that he gets along with others and that his temper is no impediment. Moreover, he noted that the American people should "expect me to get angry when I see corruption." In other words, he only gets fist-slamming mad for you.

That's his spin. Let's look at what close McCain observers have said on this subject. In 1999, when McCain first ran for president, the Arizona Republic's editorial board wrote:

Arizona Sen. John McCain has staked much of his claim to the presidency on his character: his status as war hero; his service to his country; his commitment to a cause, his country, bigger than himself.

These are legitimate claims to support by McCain, and worthy of voter attention and consideration.

But there are other aspects of McCain's character, less flattering, also worthy of voter attention and consideration....Many Arizonans active in policymaking have been the victim of McCain's volcanic temper and his practice of surrounding himself with aides and allies who regard politics, in the words of his paid Arizona chairman, state House Speaker Jeff Groscost, as a "bloodsport."

...McCain often insults people and flies off the handle....If McCain is truly a serious contender for the presidency, it is time the rest of the nation learned about the John McCain we know in Arizona. There is much there to admire. After all, we have supported McCain in his past runs for office.

But the presidency is different. There is also reason to seriously question whether McCain has the temperament, and the political approach and skills, we want in the next president of the United States. [My bold]

That's some endorsement from the hometown paper. To be fair, the Republic did endorse McCain this year--and (suspiciously) without saying anything about his temper. But the tales of McCain's hotheadedness are legendary. And, of course, there's his "Bomb, Bomb Iran" moment. (In a more reasonable world, a candidate would be automatically disqualified if he or she joked about starting a war.) You can expect more on the McCain temper front, for here's a serious question: can he campaign for seven months without an explosion hitting YouTube?