The US agreement with Poland on missile interceptors that Rice is going to sign seems particularly ill-timed.  It accomplishes the worst of both worlds--it is clearly a provocation to the Russians.  But it does nothing to address the current situation in the Caucasus.  

If Russia, this time, withdraws from its current position, where will it stop?  

Will troops remain in South Ossetia and/or Abkhazia?  If so, what then from the US and from the West? 

Over the weekend Bush has already, with his likely usual degree of effectiveness, told the Russians to get out of South Ossetia and Abkhazia.  That seems to me the sort of public remark that probably was--and should not have been--offered without anything like the sort of careful, thought-through answers to the "what next" questions this Administration is notorious for not engaging in.

Georgia's actions in South Ossetia--and it pains me to say this as someone who knows and counts as friends quite a few Georgians as a result of our stay there last year--should cause a reconsideration of whether it is a good idea for NATO to let Georgia into the alliance in accordance with the current accession timelines.

Saakashvili is reckless.  He is a hothead.  In his passion for reclaiming Abhkazia and South Ossetia he is very much reflecting the passions of the people he represents.  There is a good morsel of illusion that is tied up with Georgian national pride when it comes to Abkhazia.

I don't think it is just fine for Russia to take these territories by force.  What leverage does the West have with Russia that it is prepared to use in the cause of getting the Russians out of Abkhazia and/or South Ossetia?  So far it has been confronting tanks with words and we know how that can go.  I have yet to see even an unrealistic, let alone a realistic, plan or even idea for how Georgia might be able to bring Abkhazia into its orbit, even as a semi-autonomous territory. 

The Georgian government has no influence there over the day-to-day affairs of its people, and has not had any for many years now.  The people living in Abkhazia now overwhelmingly do not want to become a part of the rest of Georgia.  It is difficult to see why they would want to and how or why that might change any time soon.  The real question is what degree of autonomy will the people living there now have vis-a-vis the Russians going forward, it seems to me.  

South Ossetia is more complicated because of its far greater proximity to Tbilisi.  The current locus of criminality, drug and terrorist transit in and through Ossetia--<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/16/opinion/16bronner.html?ex=1219550400&en=2200af2b236ff15b&ei=5070&emc=eta1">reported on by Michael Bronner in the August 15 NYT</a>--also needs to be factored into that situation. 

To the extent the US and the West believe that Georgian accession to NATO would permit ultra-nationalist Georgian leaders like Saakasvhvili to try to use the West as part of its Abkhazia fantasy and South Ossetia aspirations, NATO should think long and hard before leaving itself susceptible to such a possibility. 

Letting Georgia into NATO entails a defensive military commitment should the former be attacked.  For those who have no pro-Russian or pro-Georgian bias it is exceedingly difficult in many of these border flareups with the Russians over the past 15 years to determine which side instigated many of these various attacks.  Georgia, if part of NATO, can be expected to play up Russia's, and play down its own, responsibility for future border flareups, which strike me as likely, no matter where the Russian withdrawal stops.

Abkhazia is a distraction for Georgia now.  It is effectively gone.  It is very much in Georgia's interests for it to move on and focus on the many things it needs to do to continue building its society.  The people I know who were in Georgia in the 1990s and were back last year say the country, for all its challenges and problems, has made enormous strides forward in many areas, in infrastructure improvements and much-reduced levels of governmental corruption, for example. 

It's just as convenient for Georgian politicians to play the nationalist card vis-a-vis the Russians in Abkhazia as it is for politicians in any republic whose people are frustrated with the too-slow pace of positive change.  That doesn't mean it serves Georgia well at this point.  And certainly the West should not let itself get pulled into fighting that lost cause, or facilitating or enabling Georgian-initiated confrontation with the Russians.   

As I said, South Ossetia is a different and, it seems to me, a more complicated matter for both the Georgians and the West.

UIAMS.  Obviously the situation is highly fluid.  As I write, there are early reports that Russia is beginning to withdraw, as it said it would do beginning today.  We'll see.  

 

The mothership linked to <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/06/AR2008080602510.html">
David Broder's column</a> today on the recent negative tone of the presidential campaign.

Does Broder ask McCain if he regrets asserting that Obama would rather lose a war and win the election?  No.

Rather, he asks Obama if Obama regrets not having accepted McCain's proposal on summer town hall meetings. 

He leaves it to Obama to make the obvious point that responding to an opponent's turning down a specific offer on joint appearances with sleazy charges doesn't cut it. 

Instead of a "boys will be boys" double standard his words and actions enable a "Republicans will be Republicans" ethic that says when Republicans resort to sleaze, well, politics ain't beanbag after all. 

Beyond issuing a classic he said/she said pass on the negative tone issue, will Broder raise the pointed questions of whether McCain, through repeated flipflops on virtually all of the positions he had taken earlier which showed independence, has forfeited both his claim to being any sort of a "maverick" and turned himself into a world champion hypocrite when it comes to the "good character" he preaches to others? 

I mean, really, is that a controversial statement?  Or simply a wholly documentable statement of fact? 

With today's column, Broder shows contempt for the concept of personal responsibility on the part of presidential candidates for the tenor of their campaigns. 

Will McCain distance himself from and seek to stop the sleaziness of surrogates, his campaign, and himself (when he seeks to make himself the victim with a false charge that Obama accused him of, or implied an accusation of, racism, for example)? 

Why should he? 

When David Broder, the Dean himself, who seems to see a Paragon of Journalistic Ethics when he looks in the mirror every morning, doesn't call him on it, it's doubtful anyone else will, either. McCain gets to have it both ways: benefit from a sleazy campaign while getting a free pass from the in-the-tank media on his full flight from the maverick aspects of his prior record, and on the character issue.  (Presumptively superior CIC credentials is another such area.)   

Obama and McCain recently offered distinct definitions of patriotism.  McCain said it means doing what's best for your country no matter what.  Obama said it means having faith in one another as Americans.

Many here are aware of a long-running survey question that has been asked using identical wording and offering identical answer choices going back to at least the early 1960s: "How much of the time do you think you can trust the government in Washington to do what is right--just about always, most of the time, or only some of the time?" (prefaced by instructions asking the respondent to think about government in general)

Forty-five years ago or so, something like 60-65 percent of respondents said either all or most of the time they trusted the government to do the right thing.  With short-term fluctations such as just after 9/11 (64% answered just about always or most of the time on 9/25/01-9/27/01), that figure has plummeted to where far less than half of respondents give either of those replies.

I am wondering if a parallel question, along the lines of the following, has been asked in any reputable survey going back many years: "Do you trust a typical fellow American citizen to do the right thing just about always, most of the time, or only some of the time?" 

If any of you reading this are aware of such a question and data collected on the responses over the years I'd be interested and appreciative if you could share that information.

I would like to be able to look at a graphic overlay of the responses over the decades to these two questions to see whether they tend to move in parallel or not.

Social trust is of course vitally important for the health of our country, and for the success of a progressive political agenda.  I find Obama's choice to make this the focus of his definition of patriotism interesting in that McCain went for the abstract definition while Obama gave a more interpersonal definition. 

I suspect more Americans would find McCain's definition familiar and comfortable.  Not sure who, in addition to one of my college professors, said it's a whole lot easier to love one's country than it is to love an individual human being, warts and all. 

But that outlook may be pertinent in how many Americans today think about the idea of patriotism and what it means.  To the extent Obama means to move patriotism away from the realm of comfortable, currently undemanding and too often cheap abstraction, and make it both more real and more demanding, that seems to me all to the good.

While I think Frank Rich is a bit overstated in his worries about the "complacency" of the early-summer Obama (as well as McCain--I don't think McCain is clued into reality enough to merit the charge of being "complacent": "complacent" compared to what?) campaigns, his column yesterday <a href = "http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/06/opinion/06rich.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=Frank%20Rich%20Wall-E%20for%20President&st=cse&oref=slogin">"Wall-E for President"</a> is otherwise worth the read. 

I saw it Saturday with our 10 year old son.  I would say it isn't "just" an exceptional "kid" movie but an exceptional movie, period. 

Especially for us adults, because we have to act now in order for the next generation even to have a chance.  They won't be able to avoid hearing all about the environment and energy issues even if they might want to.  For those, adults and kids, for whom "An Inconvenient Truth" is still a little too left-brain oriented, scary, or bleak, this is a worthy alternative.

Also, between the angst created by gas prices and the growing awareness about global warming, you know the public mood has changed when Exxon runs TV ads featuring two of its late-career scientists talking into the camera about the groundbreaking research they are doing on alternative technologies. 

<a href = "http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/07/080707fa_fact_hersh">Seymour Hersh reports</a> that Congress last year agreed to a request from Bush for a major increase in funding for covert operations in Iran aimed at destabilizing the current regime.

This seems an entirely predictable Republican strategy to:

*pursue actions in Iran on its way out the door which might not necessarily be approved of by the public given the Administration's utter lack of foreign policy credibility and demonstrated incompetence.

*try to create a wedge issue dividing Obama and McCain, with the hope that either Obama bites and comments publicly and with disapproval on the covert action, or if the Administration does bomb in the runup to the election and Obama opposes that action.  The hope on the Republican side would be that, even with all that has happened, enough voters will once again rally around the flag to tip the election to McCain.

Among the more obvious questions which suggest themselves:

Should Obama comment publicly on the Hersh report (either pre-emptively, or if asked by the media)?  If so, what should he say? 

What, if anything, should he say about the possibility of the Administration bombing Iran in these closing weeks of the campaign?  

If Obama were to come out forcefully, pre-emptively and in a very public way against bombing Iran absent specified  conditions, how would such an approach play and affect his chances in November?
 
If the Bush Administration does bomb, claims success of course in destroying nuclear infrastructure, what is the Obama campaign's response?
 
More broadly, what should be the Obama campaign's strategy to pre-empt or defeat such a Bush Administration strategy?

Well, as a northern Virginia (inner DC suburbs) resident who previously lived in Maryland and had thought of myself as a "Maryland person" and not a "Virginia person", I have to say how delighted I am that Virginia's cup runneth over of late with quality elected officials and candidates galore.

Yesterday Democratic primaries were held for the northern Virginia Congressional races.  In the race that was probably most in doubt, the Chairman of the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors (akin to the county chairperson in, with about a million residents, one of the larger counties in the United States), Gerry Connolly, defeated former Congresswoman Leslie Byrne for the Democratic nomination for the seat about to be vacated by the influential Republican Rep. Tom Davis, who is retiring. 

Although there may well have been other factors involved, I take the fact that Senator Jim Webb endorsed Byrne in this primary as a possible sign that he is working to address concerns about his attitudes towards women--either because he is seriously interested in the VP nomination or because he may have continuing national political ambitions going forward.

The Democratic Congressional nominee in my CD, Judy Feder, is a terrific candidate.  She ran against the entrenched long-term Republican incumbent Frank Wolf in 2006 and did better than any other of Wolf's previous challengers. 

My wife and I hosted a gathering where interested friends and neighbors had a chance to meet her.  It was a substantive discussion, almost all about issues she would be dealing with.  She came off as what she is--not only well-informed but approachable and engaging.  She's been working hard on this race going back to last summer and has greater name recognition to build upon this time.   

I touched bases with each of them privately afterwards and they were uniformly impressed and enthusiastic about her candidacy.  My wife may have been the most impressed.  She rarely gets excited about politicians or candidates.  As Hillary Clinton's fortunes waned Feder's candidacy now has my wife jazzed and eager to reach out to her local network.

If northern Virginians are going to unseat Frank Wolf this is the year to do it.  Feder will not be favored to win, but this is a great and, in this year's emerging political context, quite doable chance for a pickup in the House. 

Feder would vote the right way on a wide range of issues on which Frank Wolf has been voting the wrong way over the years.  In addition to contributing money my wife and I are going to try to find as much time as we can to help Feder and Obama as November nears.  Mark Warner is about as sure a thing as one finds in politics to win in a landslide for the Senate seat to be vacated by Republican John Warner, and needs our help far less, I judge.

So if you happen to have politically interested and sympathetic friends or relatives in northern Virginia, please spread the word to consider helping out Judy (as well as Obama, of course) in whatever way they can!

I would like to extend my kudos to Vice President Cheney for <a href="http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/198276.php">doing his part</a> to make a thoroughgoing Democratic landslide more possible this fall with his recent remarks about West Virginians. 

What other help can we look forward to receiving from senior Administration and former Administration officials in the runup to November?

I'd like to ask our West Virginia denizens if they have information or views on whether these Cheney remarks are getting a lot of play in the media there, whether they are the subject of water-cooler discussion in the workplace, and what if any is the potential for the remarks to aid
Democrats in not just the presidential campaign but in other offices being contested there?  Any juicy quotes available from West Virginian Republican party officials expressing their disgust or dismay at the Vice President you would care to share?

We've been hearing for years now from the Republicans about all of the supposed wine-and-cheese Democratic snobs who think they are better than the great unwashed masses of regular people and look down with great cultural and intellectual condescension and disdain towards them and their day-to-day lives and concerns.

I plan to keep this Cheney comment in my hip pocket for ready reference the next time I hear that charge made again.  In fact, I may not wait to use it for purely defensive purposes.

Well, of course outing a CIA agent as a sitting President and Vice President would clearly be OB.

But, I digress.  Where to draw the lines on candidate speech?

The major party nominees are of course briefed regularly on national security developments during the GE campaign.  Disclosure of any specific information coming from those briefings that is not in the public domain would presumptively be reprehensible and very possibly disqualifying all by itself, although I hesitate to say definitely so, as it might be possible to imagine a hypothetical scenario where that might not be the case.

From a political--not necessarily an ethical standpoint-- making assertions about the other presidential candidate which are no harsher than ones which have been made in the past by nominees of one's own party are likely to be politically defensible on those grounds.  If Dick Cheney can argue that Bill Clinton dangerously neglected the readiness of our military forces or words to that effect, then it is not treasonous for Barack Obama to say that about the Bush/Cheney Administration's policies.  

What Bush said about Obama yesterday is in a different category because it makes accusations about Obama's intentions and mindset, as opposed to the consequences of his votes or past policy statements. 

To say the US military has been weakened by over-extension of our troops in Iraq would be a statement about the latter, about the consequences of a policy decision.  To say your opponent is an appeaser is an example of the former, a statement about his or her intentions, values and mindset.  Anyone can make a policy decision of questionable merit.  But to accuse one's opponent in the way Bush did yesterday is a bald accusation that "the country would not be safe with you as our President and Commander in Chief," a far more sweeping charge. 

So I am relieved to learn that Obama is going to be addressing Bush's remarks directly at a campaign event in South Dakota today.

It would seem to me to be entirely appropriate for Obama to make a forceful case that it is the policies of the Bush/Cheney Administration, which Senator McCain has embraced with only minor exceptions (the torture bill's language being far too ambiguous and tepid to reverse this devastating policy), which has severely damaged our nation's security and ability to lead for a safer and better world.  The simple fact is that other nations no longer *respect* our leaders, our power, and our moral authority because the Bush Administration has damaged US military readiness and moral credibility to a degree unprecedented in our history.  An Obama Administration will move to reverse disastrous Bush Administration policies and begin to restore and rebuild the respect for our country in the world resulting from the weakness, including the lack of resolve and focus on al qaeda, of  the Bush Administration's values and policies.

Electing John McCain will not help restore the level of respect for the United States around the world which our country and our times require.  His is a hopelessly out of touch view of the world.  We will begin to restore our level of military readiness only as we redeploy our troops in Iraq, a choice which Senator McCain opposes any time soon.  More broadly he simply lacks the vision of moral strength and leadership these times demand of us, for the good of both our country and our world.  The best route to enhancing our safety and security is through the swift restoration of military readiness and American moral authority and credibility.  And this can only come about with the true change in leadership that an Obama Administration alone would represent.    
  




     

  

Do yourself a favor.  Buy and read a copy of Drew Westen's The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation, which is just out in paperback.  

Westen has gotten the attention of shakers and movers within the Democratic party--Howard Dean, Bill Clinton, Robert Kuttner, and the Obama and Clinton campaigns reaching all the way to the very top among them, as he describes in the postscript to the paperback edition in an appropriately graceful and modest way. 

As a clinician and researcher, Westen is eminently qualified to apply what has been learned about how the human brain functions to one of his passions, electoral politics.  A committed Democrat who is every bit as frustrated as most of us have been with our party's propensity to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in too many elections, Westen explains in easily accessible terms results of many psychological experiments which have great relevance for how Democrats communicate with voters. 

He analyzes selected communications--TV ads and speeches in particular--from recent Democratic and Republican campaigns, in light of these findings.  And--in what for me are the most fun but also the most regret-inspiring sections--he tells you what he would have recommended that the candidates say. 

Wow!  For all of you out there, and I am certainly one of them, who is sick and tired of being sick and tired of having Republicans drive campaign narratives and define us instead of having us define ourselves as who and what we know we stand for, this book will give you a stimulating and practical guide on how you might make your own advocacy efforts more effective.  

As someone who has been engaged in public affairs and politics for 25 years now, after reading this book, I conclude there were things I thought I knew about campaigns that I now think I did not know. 

In particular, as one who was earlier urging Obama to be more specific on his policy proposals (partly because I, personally, as a very atypical voter, wanted to know more specifics), I now conclude I was simply wrong about that.  Obama was right to ignore the MSM calls along the same lines for more policy specifics. 

When past Democratic presidential candidates have acceded to such urgings and satisfied their Inner Wonk, that has been an electoral kiss of death.  I have thought of myself in recent years as something of a recovering wonkaholic who occasionally lapses into bad old habits in contexts where I should be thinking differently about how and what I am communicating.  I realized while reading Westen's book this was one such incident.   

Obama will of course need to be able to get more specific on his policy proposals, and I am hopeful that he will, at the appropriate time and in the appropriate forum and way. 

Michael Tomasky cuttingly described Democratic political professionals in his NY Review of Books review of Westen's book as "insular and arrogant", with "an explanation for everything". 

As to whether the Democratic political pros will go beyond going through the motions of appearing to heed Westen's message and actually apply its lessons--and whether, if they fail to do that, major candidates will have the self-assurance to fire or simply not hire them in the first place--well, I defer to one of my newly acquired heroes.  As the Phillip Seymour Hoffman character in the movie "Charlie Wilson's War", "Gust", says to Wilson: "Yeah, well, we'll see..."

*The <a href="http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/05/09/west_wing_actors_confirm_accou.html">        highly credible reports</a> coming out now that McCain did not vote for Bush in 2000 should be used to attack his integrity, character and credibility--the very strengths he asserts as the basis for his candidacy.  The issue isn't whether he did or didn't vote for Bush.  It's the questions these reports raise about his honesty.  He should be challenged by the Democrats to say whether he did or did not vote for Bush in 2000.  He's in trouble either way on that one.  If he says no, his basic honesty needs to be discredited.  If he says yes, his current embrace of Bush makes him a phony, a hypocrite and anything but the Straight Talk Express he makes himself out to be.  Rather, he's just another ambitious pol who's willing to say or do anything to get elected.

*I nominate as a must-read campaign season book <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Political-Brain-Emotion-Deciding-Nation/dp/1586485733/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1210347030&sr=1-2">
The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation</a>, by Drew Westen.  Just about all of us, I think, would benefit from going to school on what's in that book and apply its lessons in our role as surrogates during the GE campaign.

*This has nothing to do with the presidential election, but I wonder if Al Gore believes in retrospect that NAFTA was a mistake?  After all, in his debate with Ross Perot he played a key role in getting it passed.  He's been powerfully right on so many of the big issues of the day since Bush took office.  What are his views on trade policy today? 

My good Clinton-supporting Florida friend wrote me this morning that it's "time to rethink all this":

"Clinton has now won NH, NJ, NY, CA, PA, OH, TX , MA, FL, MI, MD - all  the states worth counting and the states we need to win in Nov. .  Now subtract from Obama"s lead all those southern states like SC  and others like KS where the democrats stand no chance in Nov and where do we stand?
 
Time to end the love affair - it just didn't work out - and encourage Obama to accept the second spot on the team.  Team America."

I replied as follows:


"Well, again, we may have to agree to disagree on this as fellow patriotic Americans who want what is best for our country. 
 
First, I no longer am optimistic about Hillary's ability to unify the party should she somehow win the nomination.  Her scorched earth tactics have so severely alienated so many within our party that the chances of that happening are increasingly unlikely as I see it.  I know her supporters say Obama has been no less hard on her.  But I just disagree with that.
 
Second, from the fact that Hillary has won the Democratic primary in these large states, most of which we are going to need to win in the general election, literally nothing follows about whether Obama or McCain wins those states if that is the matchup.  We are going to see a whole lot more polling data rolled out in the coming weeks on how Clinton-McCain, vs. Obama-McCain, plays out in many large and swing states. 
 
Because it is almost inconceivable, from a straight mathematical perspective, that Clinton could head into the convention with a pledged delegate lead over Obama, the Clinton campaign's chances to create any sort of real argument for her candidacy will rest largely on what that data shows--and how strong an argument they can make from it that they are the better choice for the nomination. 
 
That data, posing the direct matchups questions, at least poses the relevant question.  In advance of knowing what it says, though, I want to lay down a marker now by saying that the campaign against McCain has not even begun yet.  And the Republican campaign against either Clinton or Obama is in its early stages, although we can make educated guesses as to what the major themes are likely to be in either case. 
 
So while the polling data in these coming weeks probably should be (and in any case will be) looked at I am not sure what strong conclusions we are likely to be able to draw from it.  

I am taking it as a given that, *if* there were a compelling or strong case that Hillary would have the better chance to beat McCain than Obama, and particularly if the best available data and arguments suggest that she beats McCain and Obama loses to McCain, most ordinary citizen Democrats would want to know that, at least, and would consider it relevant.  (I would.)  I do *not*, however, assume that the most committed supporters of each candidate would be moved by any arguments made by the other side at this point, regardless of what the near-term polling data looks like.  And I don't think that is necessarily an irrational point of view, for the reasons I mentioned earlier, that we have barely seen the beginning of efforts by either side to define the opposition candidate."

Had Obama had a good last month I think my reply would have been simpler, along the following lines: Look, Hillary can't lead in pledged delegates going into the convention.  That's the process and those are the rules.  There is no way of nominating the candidate with fewer pledged delegates that does not lead to a deep split within the party, with untold devastating consequences likely to affect the chances for any sort of progressive change in our country for years to come.  So I hope you'll get behind Obama now.

In any case, if the best available information at this point that becomes available in the coming weeks suggests Hillary wins and Obama loses to McCain, I think under the circumstances I would still come down on nominating Obama assuming, as is almost a sure thing, he enters the convention with a pledged delegate lead, for two reasons. 

First, one doesn't need to be an Obama supporter to believe that the future of the Democratic party and the prospects for progressive change in our country over the next couple of decades can be influenced decisively by how many of the Obama supporters stay engaged after this election cycle.  It's a much younger demographic.  If we nominate the candidate with fewer pledged delegates I fear that much of that energy could well dissipate and the opportunity that lies in front of us could well be squandered for good.  And another opportunity like this may not come along any time soon. 

The argument on the other side on that is easy enough to see and state: the future is now, the differences between Clinton and McCain are large, and a McCain win could lead to a tipping point from which we might find it almost impossible to begin to right our country's course.  So if it looks as though Hillary, and only Hillary, can slay the McCain dragon, we should choose not to enslave ourselves to a nomination process whose first purpose should be to nominate the Democratic candidate with the best chance to win in the fall.

Second, and more fundamentally, though, I am highly skeptical about how strong a case could be made, even in theory, for nominating Clinton on electability grounds based on the direct matchup vs. McCain polls we will see in the large states in the coming weeks, because of where we are in the campaign cycle at this point.  

But I will listen to what both the Clinton and Obama campaigns have to say on that.

Some I have seen (all available from www.Cafepress.com, among surely many other outlets)  

Middle-Class White Guys for Obama

I Hated Bush Way Before It Was Cool

Latte-Drinking, Prius-Driving Democrat for Obama

Bitch is the New Black (Tina Fey wins the award for closest-to-instantaneous journey from her mouth on SNL to the bumper sticker production line)

Any Democrat '08

Another Bright Blue Dot in a Temporarily Red State

I've seen the following one, but am not sure where it is available:

If You're Not Completely Appalled, Then You Haven't Been Paying Attention
(this one predating the '06 Congressional elections and, alas, every bit as applicable today)

The one I have not yet seen, similar to the immediately previous one, but want to see and put on our car, is:

One Small Blue Dot in a Soon-to-be-Blue State
(this would have a silouette of Virginia, my adopted state, somewhere on the sticker).  
 
I am thinking of trying to peddle production of a modest quantity of the latter or some close version of it to either the Virginia Democratic Party or the Fairfax County (DC burbs) Democratic Party, to see if it catches.  If you like the idea and have a connection to the Supreme Bumpersticker Decisionmaker at either place, please feel free...couldn't hurt if they hear it from more than one person.

Please feel free to share actual bumper stickers you have already seen and like, or ones you would like to see, in this thread.  (or something, anything, really, that you think might help lighten the mood around here!)

I'd like to second Josh's recommendation to read Spencer Ackerman's article at TAP, "The Obama Doctrine".   I'll toss out a few random observations in case this post stays up long enough for someone to see it and want to respond to any of these points:

It should be clear that Obama is more hawkish on al qaeda than Bush.  Or, perhaps it might be appropriate to say that, unlike Bush, his strategy of destroying al qaeda stands a much better chance of success, and with the additional crucial advantage of not making it more difficult for us to attain other important foreign policy objectives.  Some of the many and growing number of military folks who really do "get" that when it comes to counter-insurgency, success requires the broadest and deepest possible political support from civilians, and who have a developed, practical sense of what that entails for operational details of how one engages in such a struggle, are going to have to be featured prominently in the campaign in order to bolster not only the credibility, but the utimate practical superiority, of Obama's versus McCain's approach on destroying al Qaeda.

At an abstract conceptual level, Ackermans' characterization of the Obama Doctrine strikes me simply, and common-sensically, as liberal internationalism done right.  On the old tpmcafe in 2004-2006, many discussions addressed this topic. Among those who believe doctrine is relevant and potentially useful (many evidently do not) in the conduct of foreign policy, some took liberal internationalism of the sort Ikenberry was proposing as entailing that we should have gone to war with Iraq had we to do everything over again post 9-11.  That was not the case as Ikenberry was opposed to the Iraq war.  Another person who considers herself a liberal internationalist, Anne-Marie Slaughter, evidently was in favor of it even in retrospect (although she would have done it far differently and was adamantly and passionately against the disastrous Abu Ghraib policies), as were many Democratic party foreign policy establishment folks who likewise consider themselves liberal internationalists.  The unsurprising point is that "liberal internationalism" has more than one version and means quite different things to different people.

I do not believe the American people are going to consent to, let alone support, a foreign policy which devotes large new resources to promoting the security and dignity of non-Americans when the safety net in our own society is as tattered as it is and where insecurity is increasingly widespread and devastating to American families.  See Jacob Hacker's The Great Risk Shift for detailed analysis.  Jared Bernstein's All Together Now makes the conceptual point by contrasting a "we're all in this together" versus a "you're on your own" domestic economic and social philosophy.   I believe the call of Robert Kuttner and a growing chorus of others for a new New Deal, responsive to the economic and social realities of today, has to be an essential part of any progressive/liberal revival.  But I also believe it is essential if there is going to be sustainable political support for substantial new resources for a foreign policy centered on dignity-promotion as part of a much more enlightened counter-terrorism approach (as in, one that might serve to help rather than harm our country).  And this is far beyond what I have heard Obama say so far, although Kuttner finds grounds for hope in Obama's recent Cooper Union speech on the financial crisis.  One of the former tpmcafe America Abroad contributors, Ernest Wilson, tried to generate discussion about what he saw as the crucial connections between American foreign and domestic policies.  This may have been part of what he had in mind.

Taking the dignity-promotion agenda on its own terms, I don't get a sense from Ackerman's article on crucial conceptual details in the Obama team's approach to what is after all a hugely ambitious, sweeping agenda.  What would they propose to do differently?  Among these issues, about which I would like to hear more from Ackerman or others, are:

1. Does the Obama team lean towards major reform of existing US and international policies and institutions which address various components of the dignity-enhancement agenda?  (various types of foreign aid, trade policies, international health policies, security assistance of various sorts, etc.)  After all, it isn't as though there have been no efforts heretofore to address these various issues, either by the US or parts of the international community.  What major lessons does the Obama team draw from those experiences?

2. If we take security and basic nutrition and health as basic points of departure, who within an affected nation or region gets to define the sequence and priorities of other components of a "dignity-enhancement" approach?  (Civil/political rights?  Economic development?  Democracy?  Defined how?)

3. I sure hope they think in terms of country or area-specific policies.  This may involve drawing some new strategic maps for policy planning purposes, ones which in some cases will not strictly follow national borders as they now exist.  Are there particular countries or regions which they believe deserve strategic priority for resources?

4. What might an example of a country-specific dignity-promotion strategy look like?  How would it differ from approaches that have been used in the past?

Finally, good for Sarah Sewall for rolling up her sleeves and getting her hands dirty with operational details and choices involved in counter-insurgency practices.

Here's something that might help you think about something else--Amy Sullivan's welcome new book The Party Faithful.

I found it a fascinating look deep inside a world which the mainstream media for the most part seems afraid to touch or simply does not seem to understand well, the world where organized religion and politics intersect.

It is no secret that Democratic party presidential candidates have been hurt by shaky support among Catholic voters and abysmal support among white evangelical Christian voters for most of the period from 1972 on.

Catholics, once a solidly Democratic constituency, have preferred the Democratic presidential candidate only in 1996 and 2000 in the seven elections since 1980. And not since Jimmy Carter carried 58% of the white evangelical vote has that group favored Democrats, with no other Democratic nominee since then garnering more than 33% support among this very large demographic.

Sullivan, an evangelical Baptist and a liberal Democrat, maintains it did not and does not need to be so. National editor for Time and formerly editor of the Washington Monthly and a Capitol Hill staffer, she explains how Democrats have missed opportunities to do far better with both groups without compromising our principles--and of how the party is lately showing signs of rapid progress in working its way up that learning curve. 

(When I refer to not compromising "our" principles, I should simply state that I would like to see the Democratic party not exclude or try to silence prolife/anti-choice politicians who are more aligned with Democrats on many other issues.  And I would like to see the party take steps, as it indeed has without a lot of fanfare, to act on the "rare" part of Bill Clinton's "safe, legal and rare" stance on abortion.  A tough question I would like to hear Sullivan's response to is her view as to whether Democrats should, while trying to implement non-coercive policies which would reduce the number of abortions, seek to make it possible as a practical matter to obtain a legal abortion for those women who want to make that choice in the wide swaths of the country where it is very difficult to find providers willing to perform legal abortions.) 

John Kerry, who lost the white evangelical vote 78-22, did not learn that there were evangelical Democrats until after the election. His campaign's approach: "We don't do white churches", even though 40% of evangelicals are politically moderate. Sullivan describes the recent broadening of priorities beyond abortion and gay marriage within the younger generation of politically active evengelicals to include attention to issues such as Iraq, poverty and AIDS in Africa. Many among this new generation of evangelical activists feel used and taken for granted by the Republican party and have put their support up for grabs based on which party can deliver on this expanded range of concerns.

Sullivan likewise believes that Democrats can, and need to, engage Catholic voters on a much broader range of issues and not assume, incorrectly, that Catholic voters are only concerned with abortion and gay marriage.

She explains that many Catholic voters are influenced by Church teachings in support of the concept of the Common Good and that this outlook may align better with Democratic party approaches on many economic/social justice and foreign policy issues.

But, fearful (not without reason) of being disrupted by anti-abortion rights protesters and a vocal, visible minority of communion-denying far right-wing Catholic officials, many Democratic politicians have declined to engage Catholic audiences.

In this regard, I was moved by the account of Rep. Rosa DeLauro's refusal to disengage from her Church, no matter how much her Church has given the back of its hand to her and other pro-choice Catholic Democratic elected officials. DeLauro has been among the leaders seeking to put in place policies which would reduce the number of abortions without overturning Roe v. Wade.

Sullivan describes some of the strategies that, so far applied on a small scale, have already borne impressive results with both groups.

At 220 pages the book is a brisk read. Sullivan's sources are impressive. She left me feeling like a fly on the wall as she recounted one vivid anecdote after another involving major players ordinary citizens like me have no, or limited, access to.

Marked by a lively reportorial style, a passion for illumination in lieu of condemnation, and sensible positive suggestions for how Democrats and liberals can pick up support among religious voters without losing their souls, The Party Faithful is a winning and hopeful window into that world where politics and religion intersect. As someone who has been trying to educate myself about this subject in recent years, I learned a lot from it.

Snippets from the front lines, aka peoples' homes:

A report from Pennsylvania, a suburb west of Philly.  My brother-in-law is a diehard Fox-washed Bush supporter who has been contributing to McCain, calling him a "Democrat" who he nonetheless sees has the best shot at winning this fall.  Despite voting for B Clinton twice (!) he feels in retrospect that was a big mistake and he despises both Clintons.  He thinks the Democrats would be making a big mistake to nominate Hillary, that Obama is the much tougher opponent. 

His wife, my sister-in-law, who is about 45, is an independent who leans Dem.  She has been highly critical of recent Dem nominees such as Gore and Kerry.  She was supporting Edwards.  She's now supporting Obama.  She says this country's morale is in the pits and that we really need the kind of lift an Obama win would give us.  She is someone I consider a strong, smart, tough-minded independent woman who has been very successful in her work life as an environmental state government official and now consultant.  She intensely dislikes Hillary and feels that if Hillary were elected it would be tainted, as she believes Hillary would never have walked into the US Senate from New York over Nita Lowey had she not been married to a very powerful man.  She wants the first woman president to be "untainted" in this way.  She said if Hillary were nominated she would not vote for her but would probably vote for McCain, who she both likes and respects. 

She feels too many of the actions Hillary has taken over the years have been about preserving her political viability for the presidency--about her fortunes, in short, not about what might have been best for our country.  She questions whether Hillary at this point sees any difference between what is best for her political fortunes versus what is best for the country.

You can imagine we have some spirited holiday dinnertime exchanges.

My wife, although she has growing doubts about Hillary's electability versus McCain, versus Obama's, will be voting for Hillary today in Virginia's primary.  She is feeling a bit glum about Hillary's chances at this point.  Also a  strong woman with a successful work history she is drawn to Hillary as a woman who has endured a heap of abuse over the years. 

This morning I read her a snippet from EJ Dionne's column.  Writing about some Hillary supporters in outer suburban DC (northern Virginia) EJ wrote: "They also rebel against the idea that they are not part of the cool, privileged masses for Obama. One of the signs at the Manassas rally defiantly touted 'Well Educated High Earners for Hillary.'

My wife smiled.  "That's me," she said.  After earlier supporting Edwards, I voted for Obama, and hope he is the nominee.  But I smiled, too.  Having felt uncool, or at least feeling more an outsider than an insider my whole life, I seem to identify more with uncool people.  The other day when I referred to myself as a nerd our 11 1/2 year old daughter said to me "Daddy, you are not.  You don't look like a nerd."  I smiled back and said to her "Yeah, you have to get to know me a bit."