Alright, what's the practical and strategic response? How does it relate to Russia's pipelines supplying Europe with gas and oil? How does it relate to stability in the Mideast and our relations in Central Asia? How does it relate to Russia's nationalizing its oil and its handling of its nuclear weapons? Who's next on the list? What should be our future behavior/attitude towards Putin? Where too on the G-8? What part should the EU play vs. the US on a solution? What do you expect from the candidates?

Okay, this is the revenge and humiliation thread. I want to hear all the dishing, how Edwards is worse than Clinton because he lied over and over and over, cause he had more sex than Bill had (like real penetration - yes, we must get graphic), cause he's likely the father and still lying about that, how Elizabeth is craven for not divorcing him, how he was craven during her bout with cancer, how Edwards supporters were wrong wrong wrong for supporting him, how Obama supporters were wrong wrong wrong for thinking he was the better more honest alternative to the Clintons, how we can't trust John around women anymore and how if we ever see him in the same room as someone attractive we must make up rumors that they're obviously sleeping together and forever roll our eyes about what a tough dog he is to keep chained to the porch.

Okay, I started the ball, let's keep it rolling.

Okay, I got trapped in a self-adulating post by NRO's Peter Wehner remarking on his prescience for thinking the Clintons were the most horrible things on earth ever since he first saw them. How was this confirmed? By recent letters from Obama fans commending him in his opinions by reiterating the nastiest language possible about the Clintons. Par for the course. But then I noticed he referred to his article back in January. Before the Jesse comment. In it, folks from The Nation and WaPo were already trashing Bill. In none too flattering hedge-your bets terms. Wow, what had the Clintons done at that point to deserve the ire? And then I thought to click on Greider's archives, where I found his posting from March 8, 2007 on Senator Inevitable. Wow, so one of the worst labels to stick on Hillary came from the supposed liberal press months before the famous Mark Penn memo.

You see, the press is just a-filled with people with grudges and tags and pithy anecdotes just waiting to trot them out at a moment's notice. They're none-too-clever, but they can recycle so much of this - from Gore to Kerry to Clinton to Obama - that they don't have to work too hard at it. So on any given day, a candidate might say "the sky is blue" and they'll start going through their archives to find a time when they said something related to blue, and if so, woe be to all, because they'll herd together like packrats and push all of their blue columns out at one time. How do they hit those deadlines? Cut-and-paste, of course. Recycle, re-use, no need to wash - no one can smell old laundry via print.

So why is Bill Clinton pissed? Because he knows some of this is still about the travel office, how reporters lost some of their perks at that time. Some is because he touched welfare, even though they can't quite say what harm came from it. Some is just because he's from Arkansas which still isn't cool. And so on. So when the time came, everyone was spring-loaded whatever he might say. And Rove-style, they hit him right in what he considered his strength, what were some of his greatest accomplishments.

And it's a bit funny, because with people complaining that Hillary helped McCain, here are Democrats and "progressives" providing fodder for the likes of the arch-and-unreasonable-conservativeNational Review who can then self-righteously use phrases like "blinded to the ruthlessness and corruption of the Clinton Machine", in sheer gall and chutzpah ignoring the exponentially more ruthless and corrupt Bush/Cheney/K Street Machine of the last 8 years. Of course NRO has no need to itemize any supposed high deeds of corruption by the Clintons - there's a trail of smears and innuendo that never panned out but is close enough for government-and-journalist work.

Sigh. Stop with ad libs like "America is …, uh, is no longer, uh … what it could be, what it once was. And I say to myself, I don’t want that future for my children." America will never be what it once was and will not be quite what we want it to be. The former is a good thing, the latter is just real life. The ugliness of America in the 1830's was huge. Don't bring it up on a campaign stump, but that's our legacy, at least the low bar from way back then. Perhaps we can't compare ourselves to The Greatest Generation (tm), but then the pitcher of martinis after work isn't making a comeback anytime soon either.

Let's just try a different formulation. Here's one for 7-year-olds: "Sometimes adults make mistakes, and they've made a lot of mistakes over the last few years. That's just a part of trying hard, of giving your best. But we learn to deal with those mistakes, to clean up after them, and thanks to kids like you, we know our future will always be better, because you'll do a better job than we did."

A formulation for adults: "I'm not proud of this administration, but I'm proud of America. Fact Check - this administration is not America. America slips once in a while, and listening to this administration is one of those times. But America gets back up on its feet and does the right thing. America learns from its mistakes, however bad, and makes sure its future is always brighter. That's the hope of America, since the beginning, and that's the hope I want to represent."

If you come away from this post learning one thing, it should be the definition and art of apophasis - affirming something by denying it. Joseph Romm does a good job of explaining why repeating something in the act of refuting it is ineffectual, and just gives a nice overview of one psychological side of public persuasion.

But you know what not to do. Don't click here.

Okay, it's perhaps not that bad, but like many I'd been pretty disgusted a few years back with the Democrats' inability to get out message points and stick to them as they fanned across talk shows. Along came 2006, and Cliff Schecter became a rather prominent Dem attack dog, and while I thought he came across a bit too Eddie Haskell and went on and on too long, you at least always knew what he was doing and what his point was (cause he repeated the damn thing 12 times, cutting off the other person and calling the other side schoolyard names). I imagine there would be blowback from his abrasive insulting technique, but I knew whose side he was on and what his point was. Matt Stoller notes that John Kerry's stint as TV spokesman for Obama may make people feel good that he's expressing Obama's views well, but in the last month he's lost the war on Iraq despite Obama's trip there to and Afghanistan - Obama has lost ground to McCain on that very war issue. Kerry throwing Clark overboard wasn't very ingenious, and in the end we have a warm-bucket-of-spit response team that may come across as adult and responsible, but in the end fails to serve its purpose: control the TV message, make sure Obama's 3 or 4 talking points prevail. The ObamaPalooza tour has come to its end. It's become an object fit for ridicule - "Obama to speak in Roman Coliseum! Obama to speak to entire population of Florida! Obama speech to be beamed from Outer Space!!!" - so that he has to find other ways of exciting the existing and new fan base - Nirvana Unplugged, the one-on-one tour, back to basics. I don't think the dribble of Veep possibilities has helped him - the suspense game has gone on too long, even for political junkies like me, and the backroom skinny over the last 2 months has done more to turn people off than engage, each new position change and Veep possibility opening a new can of disappointment for some segment. So it would behoove Obama to get a fresher, more nimble set of spokespeople for his TV presence, people who can not only refute smears but do it in a way that quickly clarifies the issues for the public. Step back from the audacious & pretentious cliff, climb down off the pedestal - the reason the attacks are working is because they resonate - and stoke up the warmth machine. Barry, the kid from Hawaii who grew up shooting hoops and hanging out, worked hard through school, settled down among people who had problems, and came up with some simple but needed ways to improve things. Ways that we can all participate in, in small simple steps. Because sometimes we're our own worst enemies - sometimes success breeds failure. Time for Image and Message Remake 101.

I realized something rather sad a few moments ago.

Whoever wins, Obama or McCain, there will likely be no investigation of the sins and transgressions of the last 8 years. We'll be either partisan Republican or post-partisan something. And no one will be brought to justice. The Scooter Libby's will scoot scot free, the hidden documents will remain hidden, we will simply move on and try to banish this dark period from our brains and feral memories.

Certainly Mr. Bayh will be in no hurry to show that he signed on to this great folly in Iraq not as an unwilling accomplice but a foolhardy abettor. Mr. Obama will have nothing to gain that he hasn't already gained by pausing over the ashes and digging into the strewn garbage of this fiasco of an administration, rubbing salt in the wounds of those he now seeks to woo.

John Conyers and Patrick Leahy will find themselves rebuffed under the paternal smile of the indulgent leader: "Boys, I understand you're miffed, for good reason even, and you have a lot of questions, but for the good of the country, for the sake of our agenda, it's time to put these things behind us and move on to our promise to the people who elected us."

Whatever promise that might have been. Seems that tilting at windmills is all we ever do anymore.

Bob Somersby over at Daily Howler once again lays out "Bob's Law", describing how the press and the Republicans portray Democratic candidates. Usually it's to make the Democrat look lightwight, effeminized, hysterical, a dandy. (Except for Hillary - there it's the hyper-hysterical harpie or a testosterone freak). So the "progressive blogosphere" responded to an ad making him look like a young shallow ditzy blonde pop star by invoking sex and race. Hmmm, that does seem like a blonde moment, doesn't it? Especially once the polls roll in to confirm that most whites didn't see it that way - you got your chain yanked once, and you yanked it yourself a second time. This, as Bob notes, is how elections get lost. Some people are now complaining that The One ad is racist - when Oprah invoked the same phrase in South Carolina at a stadium. Acting irrational and overly sensitive only plays into Republican stereotypes of progressives.

Campaigns do use negative ads, and it's a good thing. People want to understand real differences between candidates, not just what they say about the issues. If Gore had used more negative ads against Bush, the last 8 years might not have happened. We're choosing a president often based on vague issues like character and ability to choose, not just an energy package. Being a lightweight and a newbie are serious (how did Bush respond when the Chinese grabbed our plane?), reasonable charges, as is being overconfident (didn't McCain say the Iraqis would welcome us as heroes?). But the blogosphere thinks McCain should stick to ineffective boring ads because that's somehow the American way, that in the Broder world Americans dislike negativity. Well, funny that - if you read Maureen Dowd you find someone who's made a successful career out of being terminally snide and negative.

So the next time McCain comes out with a negative ad, don't respond with sticks-and-stones or "teacher, he played the racist card", come back with one more negative, but funnier, wittier, more painful by far. People came for a fight, give it to them. McCain has so much real dirt on him, so many flaws, so much ineptness, so much to laugh at - yet idiots in the blogosphere want to attack him for $520 shoes or divorcing his wife? Sure, do it, inspire his supporters and get a chuckle in your head so you can remember how you once cleverly heckled President McCain.

I am tired of people saying McCain is running for Bush's 3rd term. That is so not true.

He's running for Reagan's 3rd term. Alzheimer's - the name that may not be mentioned.

Rather than get bogged down discussing race, what Obama could have done:

Commercial

McCain, Mar 2003: I believe that this conflict is still going to be relatively short

Paris Hilton: It will work. I am a marketing genius.

McCain, Dec 2005: we will probably see significant progress in the next six months to a year

Britney Spears: I would like to be called an inspiration to people, not a role model - because I make mistakes like everybody else.

McCain, Nov 2006: the fate of the Iraqi venture would be decided in the next six months or so

Paris Hilton: I don't really think, I just walk.

McCain, Nov 2007: we’ve succeeded militarily

Britney Spears: I don't like defining myself. I just am.

McCain, May 2008: I would hope to have achieved at the end of my first term as president....by January 2013 the Iraq war has been won.

Barbie, Aug 2008: Math is tough.

Voiceover: Leadership - seeking real goals for the sake of real people. Vote Obama, 2008.

McCain: Make it a hundred - that would be fine with me.

Well, maybe more than 40 days including Sundays, which is how I think they did all that Biblical counting. At least I wasn't fasting. Anyway, somewhere back in June I was suffering through the effects of too much Unity, along with perhaps unconfronted grief based on my Hillary support as well as piano lessons at too early an age. So I wrote a brief paean (not peon, slackers in the back) to Ross Feingold for VP. Later as Republicans, prat dancers in leotards, phone sex operators and other types of conservatives began to be proffered (except the Beltway Madam, fortunely enough), I offered forth Sebelius and Clark. Well, Kerry confirmed today that Clark is off the bus by throwing him under it a 2nd time, and well, a long stop-over in Indiana planned in a few days seems too unsubtle to get around - David Letterman will be his choice. Okay, probably not, probably won't even get a twin gazebo, so as 2nd consolation prize next to Dan Quayle, we will get Evan Bayh. Now I'm happy we're at least not stooping to Hillary, because she would be part of a dynasty and she supported the war, while he's just the son of a Senator/Presidential candidate, and who happened to be on the neocon let's-go-to-war committee. And fortunately for running the government, he shares a similarly ambiguous sense of whether wiretapping was really illegal, and supported the FISA bill even stronger than Obama, voting for it back in February as well - better not to have gridlock in the executive branch, don't you think? Oh, and he supports an embargo on Iran. If someone gets a chance, please ask him if that includes a chance to "obliterate". Make sure he's not touching the button when you do. Anyway, it's good to see it's almost over - we now know with the latest drilling bit that everything is on the table, no pre-conditions or at least a flexible wide stance, and if we're lucky we'll get as much out of our compromises as we have in every other deal with Republicans over the last 8 years, denoted familiarly as "bupkus".