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.

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.

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.

I do think we've encountered one of the funniest moments of the 2008 campaign, which so far has not been much of a laugh-fest. And who would have thought that Phil Gramm would be responsible for it?

The gag was set up when Gramm, a McCain campaign adviser and cochairman, set off a to-do by saying that Americans are "whiners" and that the economy is just fine. (He called all the fuss over the current economic woes a "mental recession.") The McCain campaign threw Gramm under the Straight Talk Express, disavowing his remarks.

"Phil Gramm doesn't speak for me," McCain declared on Thursday "I speak for me."

That same day, Gramm was meeting with the Wall Street Journal editorial board. Doing what? Appearing as a McCain campaign surrogate to explain McCain's economic policies. That is, speaking for McCain.

This really is a joke.

The attention Gramm has drawn for his comments is certainly warranted. And, of course, you can judge a candidate by the advisers he keeps by his side. But there's so much more about Gramm (who has been touted as a possible Treasury secretary should McCain win) that deserves scrutiny. He was a crucial force in deregulating financial instruments that helped cause the subprime meltdown and that allowed Enron to run crazy and create the California energy crisis of 2001. And as I noted elsewhere, Carly Fiorina, the former Hewlett-Packard CEO who is a prominent adviser and surrogate for McCain, has suggested that the deregulation that was pushed by Gramm when he was the Republican chairman of the Senate banking committee is partly to blame for today's economic troubles.

So the joke runs deeper than McCain claiming that a man who literally speaks for him doesn't speak for him. It shows there's policy chaos in McCainland. After all, here's a campaign--led by a candidate who once said he didn't know much about the economy--that has one top economic adviser essentially blaming another top economic adviser for economic woes that the second top economic adviser won't acknowledge. Really makes one yearn for a McCain administration, doesn't it?

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.

These missile tests demonstrate once again that we need to change our policy to deal aggressively with the threat posed by the Iranian regime. Through its nuclear program, missile capability, meddling in Iraq, support for terrorism, and threats against Israel, Iran now poses the greatest strategic challenge to the United States in the region in a generation. Now is the time to work with our friends and allies, and to pursue direct and aggressive diplomacy with the Iranian regime backed by tougher unilateral and multilateral sanctions. It's time to offer the Iranians a clear choice between increased costs for continuing their troubling behavior, and concrete incentives that would come if they change course.

Is Obama talking too tough? Is Iran really the "greatest strategic challenge" to the United States in the region? Is Obama hyping the supposed Iranian threat in a manner that could help hawkish John McCain, whom Obama will likely not be able to out-hawk in the general election?

Military analysts told Reuters that these missiles did not pose much of a threat. But that doesn't stop them from becoming a top political story. And Obama's in a difficult political spot. If he doesn't use harsh rhetoric in bashing Iran, he will be accused of being soft. If he describes the Iranian challenge in dire terms, he could boost McCain's case for the presidency. After all, which candidate will voters assume to be more likely to use extreme measures--including military action--against Iran? Remember when McCain sang, "Bomb, Bomb Iran"?

For a more nuanced view of the Iran challenge, let's turn to an op-ed written in May by Zbigniew Brzezinski, who was national security adviser for President Jimmy Carter, and retired Lt. General William Odom, a former National Security Agency chief during the Reagan years who died a few weeks ago. The pair noted:

Current U.S. policy toward the regime in Tehran will almost certainly result in an Iran with nuclear weapons. The seemingly clever combination of the use of "sticks" and "carrots," including the frequent official hints of an American military option "remaining on the table," simply intensifies Iran's desire to have its own nuclear arsenal. Alas, such a heavy-handed "sticks" and "carrots" policy may work with donkeys but not with serious countries.....

Consider countries that could have quickly become nuclear weapon states had they been treated similarly. Brazil, Argentina and South Africa had nuclear weapons programs but gave them up, each for different reasons. Had the United States threatened to change their regimes if they would not, probably none would have complied. But when "sticks" and "carrots" failed to prevent India and Pakistan from acquiring nuclear weapons, the United States rapidly accommodated both, preferring good relations with them to hostile ones. What does this suggest to leaders in Iran?

....A successful approach to Iran has to accommodate its security interests and ours. Neither a U.S. air attack on Iranian nuclear facilities nor a less effective Israeli one could do more than merely set back Iran's nuclear program. In either case, the United States would be held accountable and would have to pay the price resulting from likely Iranian reactions. These would almost certainly involve destabilizing the Middle East, as well as Afghanistan, and serious efforts to disrupt the flow of oil, at the very least generating a massive increase in its already high cost. The turmoil in the Middle East resulting from a preemptive attack on Iran would hurt America and eventually Israel, too.

Given Iran's stated goals -- a nuclear power capability but not nuclear weapons, as well as an alleged desire to discuss broader U.S.-Iranian security issues -- a realistic policy would exploit this opening to see what it might yield. The United States could indicate that it is prepared to negotiate, either on the basis of no preconditions by either side...or to negotiate on the basis of an Iranian willingness to suspend enrichment in return for simultaneous U.S. suspension of major economic and financial sanctions.

Such a broader and more flexible approach would increase the prospects of an international arrangement being devised to accommodate Iran's desire for an autonomous nuclear energy program while minimizing the possibility that it could be rapidly transformed into a nuclear weapons program. Moreover, there is no credible reason to assume that the traditional policy of strategic deterrence, which worked so well in U.S. relations with the Soviet Union and with China and which has helped to stabilize India-Pakistan hostility, would not work in the case of Iran. The widely propagated notion of a suicidal Iran detonating its very first nuclear weapon against Israel is more the product of paranoia or demagogy than of serious strategic calculus. It cannot be the basis for U.S. policy, and it should not be for Israel's, either.

Brzezinski and Odom explicitly rejected the carrot-and-stick approach. Brzezinski is a foreign policy adviser for Obama, but it's unclear from Obama's statement how much Obama has been influenced by Brzezinski on this issue. His statement calls for aggressive diplomacy, but it also depicts Iran as an immediate danger and seems to imply Obama's support for a carrots-and-sticks approach (although without specifically threatening military confrontation). Is he raising expectations? Consequently, at some point between now and Election Day, will Obama have to be more specific in detailing those sticks?

Policy aside, can a U.S. presidential candidate get elected denying that Iran is an immediate danger and noting that the United States and the rest of the world could live with an Iran that has developed nuclear power and perhaps even nuclear weapons? (Imagine the negative ads!) This current round of what-to-do-about-Iran demonstrates that Iran will continue to be a tough call for Obama and the issue could become tougher for him to finesse.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

Which brings me to 10 Downing Street. I only recently came across the below excerpt from Jonathan Steele's Defeat: Why They Lost Iraq, which describes a prewar session that British Prime Minister Tony Blair held with outside-government experts who offered their views on what might occur in Iraq following an invasion:

On November 19 2002, four months before the invasion of Iraq, Tony Blair made a rare attempt to seek out expert views beyond the circle of his official advisers. Six distinguished academics were invited to Downing Street: three specialists on Iraq, and three on international security. George Joffe, an Arabist from Cambridge University, and Charles Tripp and Toby Dodge, who had both written books on Iraq's history, made opening statements of about five minutes each. They decided not to alienate the prime minister by discussing whether an invasion was sensible or necessary, but only what its consequences might be.

"We all pretty much said the same thing," Joffe recalls. "Iraq is a very complicated country, there are tremendous intercommunal resentments, and don't imagine you'll be welcomed." He remembers how Blair reacted. "He looked at me and said, 'But the man's uniquely evil, isn't he?' I was a bit nonplussed. It didn't seem to be very relevant." Recovering, Joffe went on to argue that Saddam was constrained by various factors, to which Blair merely repeated his first point: "He can make choices, can't he?" As Joffe puts it, "He meant he can choose to be good or evil, I suppose."

Joffe got the impression of "someone with a very shallow mind, who's not interested in issues other than the personalities of the top people, no interest in social forces, political trends, etc".

Dodge also struggled to convince Blair of the obstacles that would face anyone who occupied Iraq. "Much of the rhetoric from Washington appeared to depict Saddam's regime as something separate from Iraqi society," he remembers. "All you had to do was remove him and the 60 bad men around him. What we wanted to get across was that over 35 years the regime had embedded itself into Iraqi society, broken it down and totally transformed it. We would be going into a vacuum, where there were no allies to be found, except possibly for the Kurds."

The experts didn't seem to make much of an impression. Blair "wasn't focused," Tripp recalls. "I felt he wanted us to reinforce his gut instinct that Saddam was a monster. It was a weird mixture of total cynicism and moral fervour."

I suppose we can give Blair credit for attending such a meeting, even if he wasn't able to absorb the information presented to him by people who knew Iraq far better than he did. Bush, as far as we know, never held a similar session. Nevertheless, both Blair and Bush rushed into Iraq without seeking to understand the nation, its society, its history, its culture, and its people and without bothering to draft a serious post-invasion to-do list. This ain't news. But it's a fact that ought to be noted incessantly.

A recent article by Dafna Linzer and Paul Kiel that was posted by ProPublica, the new nonprofit investigative reporting outfit, suggested that it is. And the article cited me as one of several media people in possible breach of journalistic ethics.

At issue is Alhurra, the U.S. government-funded Arabic news organization and its practice of paying modest fees to reporters (and political operatives and commentators) who appear on the network. ProPublica, Kiel told me, had compiled a list of 150 or so Washington journalists, former government officials, and lobbyists who had received honorariums for being guests on the channel. And I am on the list. Also among Alhurra's paid commentators have been journalists from Politico, Roll Call, Washington Examiner, The Washington Times, The Des Moines Register, Texas Monthly, Haaretz of Israel, and the Financial Times of London.

Three times this year, Alhurra asked me to appear. The first occasion was on the night of Super Tuesday. I was in Chicago at Barack Obama's campaign rally, and Alhurra producer Julie Zann asked if I could join one of the network's correspondents on the riser in the back of the room and explain to Alhurra's Middle East audience the significance of the election results. Sure, I said. And, she added, I would get a fee, which turned out to be $300. Weeks later, Alhurra invited me to do commentary for four or five hours on the evening of the Pennsylvania primary. I sat in a small television studio by myself during this time, staring into a camera, and waiting to be told I was on air. For that work, I was paid $1000. And a few weeks ago, I appeared on an Alhurra talk show about Washington to explain the sort of journalism I practice and the recent scoops I had obtained. The payment was, I believe, $250 or so. (The pay stub has not yet been filed in my disorganized office.)

None of this was unusual. Of course, both commercial media and slightly-public-funded media (such as NPR) pay for some appearances and commentary. And, as I explained to Kiel, when he interviewed me for the ProPublica article, it is customary for foreign media outlets that are state-supported--such as the BBC and the Canadian Broadcasting Company--to compensate guests for interviews and commentary. I have received such payments in the past (regrettably, only a handful of times). Alhurra was playing by these rules.

Linzer and Kiel did not mention the BBC/CBC practice in the article.

Moreover, Voice of America, something of a sister organization for Alhurra, also compensates journalists who are guests on some of its programs. (VOA and Alhurra are both overseen by the Broadcasting Board of Governors, an independent federal agency responsible for all U.S. government-sponsored international broadcasting.) For example, VOA features a weekly showed called "Issues in the News," during which three Washington journalists gab about the top stories of the week. On the most recent edition of the program, Martin Schram, a Scripps Howard columnist moderated a conversation with Don Frederick, the political editor of The Los Angeles Times, and Tom DeFrank, the veteran Washington bureau chief for The New York Daily News.

Frederick told me he received a whopping $100 for the appearance. And Tish King, head of public affairs for VOA and the Broadcasting Board of Governors, says that was a standard fee. "If people are exerting themselves," she remarks, "we want to pay them at least something. We don't even arrange for cars for people to get here." And she defends the practice of compensating guests: VOA and Alhurra "need experts; that's what enriches the programming." (I wonder why the ProPublica piece did not make the connection between Alhurra's practice of paying guest commentators and that of VOA, even though I mentioned this to Kiel.)

ProPublica, working with 60 Minutes, and The Washington Post have each recently produced pieces that depict Alhurra as a mismanaged and wasteful organization. (See here and here.) I'm not writing to defend the network. And if it is indeed a waste of taxpayers' money, perhaps a journalist (in his or her role as a citizen) ought not to work with the operation. I had three interactions with Alhurra that told me little about the overall operation. But the matter of journalists accepting payment for providing commentary to Alhurra is not the easy gotcha the ProPublica piece implied.

The article noted that Kelly McBride, a media ethics specialist, believes that reporters damage their ability to be objective by accepting government money. (I am not a big fan of objectivity--or, that is, the he said/she said journalism practiced beneath the banner of objectivity that often muddies the truth--but I do profoundly believe in accuracy.) Linzer and Kiel cited no other media ethics specialists. But under this standard, should reporters (American or British) tell the BBC to buzz off? Would it be okay to appear on the BBC--and have one's profile boosted--and not accept money? Is it fine for an American journalist to accept money from a foreign state-supported media outfit, but not from one financed by his or her own government? And should journalists always say no to VOA?

As I mentioned to Kiel, I find this an intriguing issue. If the Voice of America (or Alhurra) is producing radio and television programs watched and heard (by whatever the number of people) in foreign countries, don't we want it to represent a full range of views? I noted that as long as I was granted complete editorial freedom to say what I thought, I saw nothing wrong in accepting a modest fee for what was in essence freelance work. ("I don't think anyone can accuse me of going soft on the U.S. government," I said to Kiel.) And I even believe there is something positive about a government-underwritten network using a journalist who has been rather critical of the current administration. Consider the message conveyed to overseas viewers--and, yes, one question is how many people actually watch Alhurra--if they see a U.S.-sponsored media organization providing a platform to the author of The Lies of George W. Bush? Would everything have been proper, from an ethics perspective, if there had been appearances but no fees? But could reporters then be accused of providing unpaid assistance to a government propaganda shop?

There usually is logic in a purist position. I suppose there's a possibility McBride might be right--though I don't see how my "objectivity" was harmed by these Alhurra appearances. (Is a journalist paid for appearing on NBC News or MSNBC tainted because the money comes from General Electric? Some citizens might suspect so, but media ethicists tend not to worry about that.) And perhaps there are some people who believe that a journalist can be bought by a government for a couple hundred bucks. But this does seem a stretch. So, no surprise, I don't view this as a black-and-white issue, and I have no misgivings about having provided paid-for commentary to Alhurra. And if Voice of America wants me to debate Bill Kristol--"George Bush: Greatest President Since Lincoln or a Reason To Adopt a Parliamentarian System?"--for broadcast across the globe, I'd be delighted to do so, with or without the $100.

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.

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.