I just got word that none other than Senator Barack Obama is George W. Bush's clandestine National Security Adviser--Stephen Hadley is just a beard.

How can this be, you may ask?  Well, dear reader, it's all very simple. 

Back in the primaries, Senator Obama made-- what was considered extremely controversial at the time--a claim that as President he wouldn't wait for a dithering Musharraf to act if actionable intelligence presented itself about the whereabouts of  high value Al Qaeda targets.  He would act, decisively, to remove those targets, unilaterally if necessary.  Not too many months later, lo and behold, Bush orders air strikes in Pakistan against Al Qaeda targets, striking the enemy dead.  Hoo Yaa!

During this same time in the primaries, Obama makes another fantastical claim, one that was used to paint him as naive about the ways of our world, by saying he would meet with Iran and other nefarious figures in the region, without preconditions.  The outcry was deafening!

Now we have word that Bush is dispatching the third highest ranking diplomat to meet with the Iranian leadership.  A move considered an abrubt change in Bush foreign policy.  A move that Bush himself mocked as a form of appeasement recently before the Israeli Knesset.

Yes folks, it's true.  Bush has been soliciting and accepting foreign policy advice from none other than Senator Barack Obama.  The so-called naive latte-sipping neophyte from Illinois.

McCain, not to be outdone, has recently appropriated some Obama foreign policy vis-a-vis Afghanistan, and is now advocating increasing troop strength in this volatile country.  McCain doesn't know where these troops will come from yet, but my sources inform me that he's scheduled a call with Obama later in the day to flesh it out.

So, there you have it!  The scoop du jour! 

I've written about how David Brooks gets it.  Well, his colleague at the WAPO doesn't.

In an OP ED posted today at the WAPO,  Michael Gerson argues that McCain is the true "moderate" because he's bucked his party on substantive issues in the past.  On its face, this seems like a fair point, but I would argue that the measure of one's "moderation"--depending on what you mean by that word-- is not limited to this manufactured metric.  I applaud McCain when he advocates "moderate" views.  For instance, he once challenged Bush on torture.  This was evidence, according to the likes of Gerson, that McCain is a "moderate" since he was kicking the goads, so to speak.  Now, not so much, since McCain has moved closer to Bush on the issue.

I applaud McCain when he advocates for a sympathetic "moderate" view on immigration.   This obviously angered the base of his party.  Now, not so much, since McCain would, as President, veto his own immigration bill.

I applaud McCain on his previous campaign finance positions.  These were fairly moderate in tone and he achieved bi-partisan consensus.  Now, not so much as we see how he cleverly exploits loopholes in his own campaign finance legislation, like using his wife's plane for campaign events at discounted rates.  Or his gaming of the public financing system.

What, pray tell, does Obama have to "support", in Gerson's mind, to break this party orthodoxy metric to establish his "moderate" bona fides?  Gerson alludes to Obama's support of "partial birth" abortion as a possiblity.  However, Obama has taken a pragmatic approach and made clear that he would support banning the procedure if it had sufficient safeguards for the health of the mother.  The legislation in question didn't.  I don't think Obama bucking his party to support legislation that didn't adequately protect the health of the mother as an appropriate jumping off point to be considered a "moderate", although Gerson disagrees.

Gerson points to Obama's opposition to John Roberts as missed opportunity to flex his "moderate" muscles, but that is hardly a policy issue, per se, rather then a concern about the temperment of a Chief Justice who will sit on the court for a lifetime.

All in all, Gerson's article is weakly argued and based on  false assumptions.  What he does demonstrate is how out of touch many republican party positions are that require a "moderate" John McCain to push back on.  This doesn't indicate "moderation" on the part of McCain, but common sense.  However, as time has shown, McCain has sacrificed his common sense for the GOP nomination. 

Barack Obama is the true moderate in this race.  He's advocating a sound energy policy.  His economic policies are fair, pragmatic, and timely.  His health care plan is comprehensive.  His approach to terrorism and the war in Iraq will make us safer. 

Michael Gerson simply doesn't get it.

In today's NYT's OP ED , David Brooks sum's up a rather brutal editorial with this gem:

"All I know for sure is that this guy is no liberal goo-goo. Republicans
keep calling him naïve. But naïve is the last word I’d use to describe
Barack Obama. He’s the most effectively political creature we’ve seen
in decades. Even Bill Clinton wasn’t smart enough to succeed in
politics by pretending to renounce politics."

This is something I've known since the beginning.  I've never thought the whole Maureen Dowd "Obambi" meme was particularly perceptive.  Obama has a killer smile and a killer instinct. 

The republican's are portraying Obama as "naive" and "inexperienced".  But this naif from Illinois managed to take down, seemingly effortlessly, the most ruthless brand in politics: The Clinton's.  If the republican's think they can paint Obama as Adlai Stevenson, or McGovern, or even the second coming of Jimmy Carter, then they've got another thing coming.

Obama is the most dynamic, intelligent politician to grace the stage in generations.   For all the hand wringing in the primaries that he won't be able to stand up to the republican slime machine is just plain wrong.  David Brooks gets it.  It's time for the GOP to get it too. 

The old guy just can't get a break.

My grandmother used to say, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".  Today McCain took my grandmother's maxim to heart and dusted off the 2004 Bush/Cheney play book.  Because Obama has the Audacity to Hope that the Constitution applies to all people, McCain's camp trotted out the tired trope that Obama somehow believes that the GWOT is nothing more than a "police action".  A line of argumentation used successfully against Kerry during his campaign run.  All because he pointed to the successful trial and incarceration of terrorist suspects in 1993.  How dare Obama suggest that the current legal black hole concerning the fate of the alleged terrorists in Guantanamo be foreshortened by reason and sound jurisprudence?

After the McCain camp opened this can of worms, Obama responded forcefully that he wouldn't be lectured by the same idiots that decided that the perpetrators of 911 were secondary to some neo-con wet dream of democratic utopia in the middle east--okay, so I'm paraphrasing here ;-)  All in all, Obama's response was an upper cut that clearly sent McCain's dentures into the stratosphere.

The McCain camp then released an "environmental" ad touting his independence from the poll-afflicted Republican Millstone also known as The President of the United States. Just to flex his atrophied muscles on the environment, McCain changed course and suggested that the federal government should lift its moratorium on off-shore drilling - a move that is sure to send the hearts of the environmentally concerned independents he is courting all pitter-patter.

To top off his day, this same Republican Millstone decided that he too supports the idea of lifting the federal moratorium on off shore drilling, thus demonstrating all too clearly that McCain's independence from He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named is nothing but a sham.

A bad day for McSame, a great day for Obama!

Remember when Kerry in 2004 said, “The
war on terror is far less of a military operation and far more of an
intelligence-gathering law enforcement operation.”?

This seemed
like a sensible analysis at the time, but in true Rovian form, it was
used by Bush/Cheney to portray the Senator from Massachusetts as
effete and out of touch on the most pressing issues facing our
national security.

Now fast forward from 2004 to 2008, yesterday to be precise, when Obama, in an ABC interview with Jake Tapper, said the following:

“...And, you know, let's take the example of Guantanamo. What we know is that, in previous terrorist attacks -- for example, the first attack against the World Trade Center, we were able to arrest those responsible, put them on trial. They are currently in U.S. prisons, incapacitated.”

McCain's henchman Randy Scheunemann quickly retaliated with:

“Barack Obama's belief that we should treat terrorists as nothing more than common criminals demonstrates a stunning and alarming misunderstanding of the threat we face from radical Islamic extremism. Obama holds up the prosecution of the terrorists who bombed the World Trade Center in 1993 as a model for his administration, when in fact this failed approach of treating terrorism simply as a matter of law enforcement rather than a clear and present danger to the United States contributed to the tragedy of September 11th. This is change that will take us back to the failed policies of the past and every American should find this mindset troubling.” (emphasis mine)

Here's a Bush speech in 2004 attacking Kerry's statement on the war on terror:

“THE PRESIDENT: Some are skeptical that the war on terror is really a war at all. Senator Kerry said, and I quote, 'The war on terror is far less of a military operation and far more of an intelligence-gathering law enforcement operation.'

AUDIENCE: Booo!

THE PRESIDENT: I disagree. I disagree. Our nation followed this approach after the World Trade Center was bombed in 1993. The matter was handled in the courts and thought by some to be settled. The terrorists were still training in Afghanistan. They're still plotting in other nations. They're still drawing up more ambitious plans. After the chaos and carnage of September the 11th, it is not enough to serve our enemies with legal papers. (Applause.) With those attacks, the terrorists and supporters declared war on the United States of America -- and war is what they got. (Applause.)”

You got to love how the White House includes the audience reaction in their transcripts.

Notice any similarities in the arguments?

Not only is McCain running for a third Bush term, he's re-running the 2004 campaign all over again.

And comes to the unsurprising conclusion that he is.

The most shocking thing about the article is the lede:

Is McCain Like Bush?  It Depends on the Issue

Depends?  DEPENDS?! (insert Depends joke here)

The analysis in the reporting is quite revealing: Either John McCain and Bush are in complete agreement--the economy, the war in Iraq, health care, judicial appointments, and Gitmo.  Or McCain is moving towards Bush on issues where he had formally shown a measure of resistance to the Republican Borg: Torture and executive power.

It's a shame McCain has to sacrifice the remnants of his Maverick image by declaring that he would vote against his own Immigration bill!  A bill that even George W. Bush supported.

Then again, he had to show his independence from Bush in some way, why not Immigration?

Si se puede!

Brian who?

That would have been my response if you had asked me yesterday.

Right now on CSPAN the Governor from Montana is holding court talking about everything from foreign policy to energy policy, and boy oh boy is this guy good!

For all the talk of the usual V.P. suspects, this guy should be on Obama's shortlist.  He can talk about complicated issues in a folksy, Huckabeean way that I think is positively powerful!

You want that illusive Appalachian Working White (TM) vote, put Governor Schweitzer on the ticket.  I've said it once, but I'll say it again: God this guys good!

The always superb Charlie Savage,
formerly of the Boston Globe and now at the NYT's, is doing some
excellent reporting tonight on McCain's flip-flops.

The evolution of The Maverick from free-thinking republican to Bush sycophant is now complete.

McCain is now buying into the broad expansion of executive powers advocated by the Bush administration that he has previously been critical of.

This should be required reading for TPMer's, as it exposes the achilles heel of The Maverick's campaign.

This is what happens when you sell your soul to run for the White House.

Enjoy!

Last night was exciting!  I admit I got sauced. If you can't get drunk and celebrate the victory of the candidate you've been supporting for so long, then when can you...

Hours before the nomination was claimed, I posted on TPM that Hillary would graciously and unequivocally concede her hard-fought race.  I was pilloried as naive.  My reason for coming to this conclusion was simple: I used the words of the candidate herself.  She has stated that she will support the democratic nominee.  Considering that Obama had met the metric necessary to clinch the nomination, I believed that Hillary would acknowledge this fact and embrace Obama.  To those who claimed I was naive: you were right.

She said in her speech that she had won the most votes.  She argued that her "18 million" supporters were not going to remain "invisible".  When asking herself a question, and then answering it--an action my mother always said was a sign of schizophrenia--she said she wanted to win the war, provide "universal" healthcare, and fix the economy.  Apparently in contrast to her opponent and the Democratic party who don't share these goals.

I think there were many ways that Hillary could have made the speech better without necessarily conceding the race.  Instead she chose a confrontational tact.  She decided to undermine the legitimacy of the presumptive nominee.  She decided to stoke the flames of unrest among her supporters.  She chose to fight on after her opponent has already left the ring. 

Hillary can still redeem herself, but the timing is short.  She can not wait a week to lick her wounds.  She has a few days, at most, to concede gracefully and begin the process of healing the party.  To fail to do that weakens herself and the party she claims to support.

Twenty four hours ago I claimed that Hillary would do the right thing.  Now I'm not so sure.

Wasting more space
in today's NYT's opinion real estate, is another broadside swipe at the presumptive Democratic nominee by
the illustrious William Kristol.

Kristol took his magical monocle and applied it to the commencement speech given by the pinch hitting Obama at Wesleyan University. Now, you know that Kristol isn't reading Obama's speech as an exercise in fair mindedness. Or to learn something. Or to better appreciate Obama's character. No, no, no dear reader! Never that! He reads his speech and then thinks: How can I turn this speech into a political attack that emphasizes the developing right-wing memes regarding Obama?

After offering obligatory praise on the substance of the speech, and the effectiveness of its delivery, our hero Billy discovers a horrible oversight in Obama's laundry lists of avenues to service. That's right folks! William “Bloody” Kristol-- the man who has never deigned to serve his community or his country in uniform, finds it downright unseemly that Obama should neglect to mention military service in his much vaunted list! Oh, the shame! Obama just can't help hating our troops, even when giving a commencement speech at an “elite”school.

Kristol goes on to bloviate about what a wasted opportunity it was for Obama to broaden the horizon's of the commencement class by failing to propagandize military service. Perhaps Obama didn't want to push the idea for military service since it would include participation in an illegal and morally bankrupt war in Iraq? Or maybe, just maybe it didn't register as the sort of service that Obama was reaching for—community service, which is traditionally understood as doing acts of goodness for your community in your community. But of course, in the bizarro world inhabited by Kristol, being an occupying force in a foreign nation and maintaining peace at the point of a gun is community service.

Obama's speech on service focused specifically on helping those in America—in communities hard hit by poverty or natural disaster, or job loss, etc. Although he does speak of the “Peace Corps” which isn't specifically domestically oriented, the gist of Obama's call to service is domestic based. Here's a sample of Obama's remarks:

“It’s because you have an obligation to yourself. Because our individual salvation depends on collective salvation. Because thinking only about yourself, fulfilling your immediate wants and needs, betrays a poverty of ambition. Because it’s only when you hitch your wagon to something larger than yourself that you realize your true potential and discover the role you’ll play in writing the next great chapter in America’s story.”

There is much more of the same in Obama's speech. He's talking about NATIONAL service. That is, service to this nation, in this nation, beginning in one's community. This is a “sin” of omission to the likes of Kristol, who of course, sums up his political attack masked as opinion by casting aspersions on Obama's patriotism:

“Obama failed to challenge — even gently — what he must have assumed would be the prejudices of much of his audience and indulged in a soft patriotism of low expectations.”

That's right. In Kristol's universe, a speech about humanitarian based local community service must include military service. To fail to do so is implicitly unpatriotic.

Kudo's to Kristol for taking a speech on a call to national service, and making it an argument for how Obama's unpatriotic. Way to go!

With polls showing historic lows of
public support for our war in Iraq, John McCain feels the issue is
his ticket to victory in November.

In an AP article today, McCain is touting his quantity of visits to Iraq as a new metric in his “experience” argument against the Illinois senator. This is reminiscent of Hillary's “Commander In Chief threshold”-- the Rubicon of manufactured metrics. Anyone who has seen this picture of McCain strolling through a “bucolic” Iraqi marketplace sporting a kevlar vest with an armed military guard at the ready knows how silly his arguments of progress sound. The NYT's outlines the security measures used to protect McCain during this foray into the wilds of Baghdad thusly:

“The delegation arrived at the market, which is called Shorja, on Sunday with more than 100 soldiers in armored Humvees — the equivalent of an entire company — and attack helicopters circled overhead, a senior American military official in Baghdad said. The soldiers redirected traffic from the area and restricted access to the Americans, witnesses said, and sharpshooters were posted on the roofs.”

It's a shame that more American's can't experience the “progress” made in Iraq under such conditions. If a bird had so much as shit on McCain it would have been shot.

One has to ask how being insulated in an American security bubble and talking exclusively to military propagandists qualifies as an objective assessment of the situation in Iraq.

Of course, McCain doesn't stop there. It's not enough to pillory Obama for his lack of photo-ops on Iraqi soil at taxpayer's expense, McCain insists on insulting our collective intelligence by saying, as quoted in the AP article:

“For him (Obama) to talk about dates for withdrawal, which basically is surrender in Iraq after we're succeeding so well is, I think, really inexcusable.”

What is inexcusable to me is that McCain himself is now talking about withdrawal dates! The Chutzpah! When McCain was facing a backlash for his “100 Year” comments, he came out with a speech declaring victory will be ours in Iraq by 2013! The money quote:

“By January 2013, America has welcomed home most of the servicemen and -women who have sacrificed terribly so that America might be secure in her freedom.”

The last I checked, establishing a date constitutes setting a time line. Cutting through the rhetorical bullshit, the difference between McCain and Obama on Iraq is that Obama promises that our troops will be mostly home in 16 months, whereas McCain promises they will be mostly home in four years.

It is also interesting to note, based on the AP article, that McCain spent his Memorial Day speeches and statements attacking Obama and defending his decision for not expanding troop benefits under Webb's version of the GI Bill. Here's how Obama's camp responded to McCain's incessant attacks:

“"Senator Obama thinks Memorial Day is a day to honor our nation's veterans, not a day for political posturing."

Amen. This encapsulates why Obama is the better choice in November. Not only is his reality- based foreign policy approach vastly superior to McCain's, but he knows when to turn off the partisanship—however briefly—to be just one of us honoring the troops and memorializing their sacrifice. Can the choice be any clearer than this?

The Washington Post is reporting
today that Hillary is no longer in it to win it. It's nice to see
that she's rejoining the reality-based community. Why—pray
tell—soldier on when you are racking up debt,
losing credibility by making outrageous comparisons
about the DNC's decision to sanction FL and MI and the Civil Rights
movement, and alluding to nightmarish
events in our collective past?

The reason: to win the popular vote. That's right folks! It's about bragging rights. I've been all for Hillary staying in until the final primary on June 3. In fact, I remain convinced that it is appropriate that she do so. But apart from salving a bruised ego, what precisely is to be gained by being crowned winner of the popular vote? Setting aside for the moment that there is no clear standard for gaging the popular vote totals of caucus states, thus making the claim more dubious that it already is, what is the point?

The supers are not going to be persuaded by the shoddy formula used determine the popular vote, and will continue to support the metric determined at the outset of this process—delegates.

The flip side of Hillary declaring herself the popular vote winner using her tendentious math is that it will serve to undermine the legitimacy of Obama's nomination. Obama is going to have a difficult time as it is healing the wounds caused by this bruising process without this sword of Damocles hanging over his until November.

A graceful exit is what is called for. As much as I despised the campaign of Mitt Romney, I admired the fact that when confronted with the reality of his loss, he suspended his campaign. No long good byes. He went home, licked his wounds, then after an appropriate period of mourning, came out swinging for McCain. After June the third, I pray that Hillary follows in Mitt's footsteps.

Recently
McCain unceremoniously divorced the pastor he courted for over a
year. Like all marriages of convenience, McCain was after the
dowry--a dowry worth thousands of votes in the hotly contested Texas
republican primary. Before this story fades into the general
election campaign fog, it should be noted that Pastor Hagee is a
lobbyist. No, not one of those limousine driving “K” street
types that haunt the halls of power in Washington D.C. Pastor Hagee
has learned the joys of telecommuting, and phones his favors in long
distance.

Hagee founded and leads Christians United For Israel (CUFI). Lots has been written about this group recently, but what hasn't been discussed is that this organization's goals are flatly opposed to U.S. policy objectives in the Middle East. For the past many years the stated goal of U.S. policy vis-a-vis Israel is a two state solution whereby Israel and and the Palestinians co-exist as two independent entities. CUFI envisions things a little differently. Well, a lot differently actually. Not only do they believe that divvying up God's real estate is wrong, but that such an action will bring about God's wrath. The land of Israel, including the Palestinian territory, is for the Jews. The CUFI site links to a site about Christian Zionism (which Hagee is a proponent of, and CUFI is an instrument of). This site outlines their philosophy regarding Israel:

“ The Bible is very clear that the Jewish people were given the land of Canaan by God Himself. He gave the land to Abraham and to his descendent's through Isaac as an everlasting possession (Genesis 12:1-3)... ”

Please note that this passage says that the land was given to the descendent's through Isaac. This is important, because according to Hagee's theology, the Palestinians are descended from Ishmael, Abraham's bastard son born from Hagar. Hagar and Ishmael were not included in God's covenant with Abraham. What Hagee intends to do with the millions of Palestinians isn't clear, but what is clear is that he and his group do not advocate the course of action embarked upon by U.S. Middle Eastern policy. Based on this fact alone, one has to wonder why more media scrutiny wasn't brought to bear on McCain's much sought after endorsement.

CUFI hosts an annual convention in Washington D.C., where elected officials mix it up with the CUFI faithful. The attendee's are mostly republican, but Joe “Zell” Lieberman made a speech there last year. One of CUFI's stated goals is to enable its members to “personally speak with their elected officials to express concerns for Israel ’s security and their support of Israel ’s right to the land by Biblical Mandate.” Biblical Mandate is the operative phrase. It brooks no debate.

Hence, John McCain's former pastor is a lobbyist whose group is actively lobbying congress on position's contrary to the stated Middle Eastern goals of the Bush administration, and presumably, a McCain administration as well.

Many were likely dismayed--but not surprised--when Joe "Zell" Lieberman wrote an op-ed screed in the WSJ pouncing on the burgeoning republican meme that Obama is "inexperienced and naive".

Well, dear reader, our pal Joe Biden has responded.  In today's WSJ, Joe has eviscerated Saint Joe's arguments and demonstrated how Obama's approach is vastly superior than the one put forward by Bush-McCain.

On Bush's legacy, Biden writes:

"On George Bush's watch, Iran, not freedom, has been on the march: Iran
is much closer to the bomb; its influence in Iraq is expanding; its
terrorist proxy Hezbollah is ascendant in Lebanon and that country is
on the brink of civil war...Because of the policies Mr. Bush has pursued and Mr. McCain would
continue, the entire Middle East is more dangerous. The United States
and our allies, including Israel, are less secure."

Mr. Biden not only effectively ties the millstone of Bush around McCain's neck, he also points out the obvious: that beyond McCain's taunting rhetoric aimed at Obama, he has no real plan on how to deal with Iran himself.  Again, Biden:

"Beyond bluster, how would Mr. McCain actually deal with these dangers?
You either talk, you maintain the status quo, or you go to war. If Mr.
McCain has ruled out talking, we're stuck with an ineffectual policy or
military strikes that could quickly spiral out of control."

How indeed.

If you would like to read the rest of Biden's devastatingly effective counterpoint to the republican talking points, it can be found here.