Eagleton?

Gov. Palin on the Iraq War (just out from Philip Gourevitch The New Yorker)

"I'm a mom, and my son is going to get deployed in September, and we better have a real clear plan for this war. And it better not have to do with oil and dependence on foreign energy."

On Obama's strength in Alaska ...

"Something's kind of changing here in Alaska, too, for being such a red state on the Presidential level. Obama's doing just fine in polls up here, which is kind of wigging people out, because they're saying, 'This hasn't happened for decades that in polls the D' "--the Democratic candidate--" 'is doing just fine.' To me, that's indicative, too. It's the no-more-status-quo, it's change."

Another dubious firing in Palin's past.

Tom Gross, writing at National Review Online ...

Critics are already trying to damn Sarah Palin for her perceived lack of foreign-policy experience, but what they are not allowing for is something more important -- that she has the right basic attitudes and sense of priorities. She understands that aggression has to be resisted and commitments have to be honored.

Cindy McCain is offended.

"I'm offended by Barack Obama saying that about my husband," said McCain's wife Cindy. When asked if Obama went too far in his criticism of McCain, Cindy responded, "I do. I do. I really do."

This is the one who says you can't get around Arizona without a small plane.

Audio of Gov. Palin talking about the Iraq War in an interview from two weeks ago ...

David Frum: "It's a wild gamble, undertaken by our oldest ever first-time candidate for president in hopes of changing the board of this election campaign. Maybe it will work. But maybe (and at least as likely) it will reinforce a theme that I'd be pounding home if I were the Obama campaign: that it's John McCain for all his white hair who represents the risky choice, while it is Barack Obama who offers cautious, steady, predictable governance."

Seems that earlier this week, Stephen Branchflower, the investigator heading up the state probe into Gov. Sarah Palin sent an email to others involved in the investigation, telling them that it was time to schedule a deposition of the governor.

McCain advisor Charlie Black on questions about Sarah Palin's foreign policy competence. "She's going to learn national security at the foot of the master for the next four years, and most doctors think that he'll be around at least that long."

I get bravado. But is that a reassuring way to put it?

The Post's James Grimaldi got an exclusive interview with Walter Monegan, the canned Alaska Public Safety Commissioner at the center of Palin trooper-gate scandal. And he basically says Palin is lying in her assertion that while some of her aides contacting Monegan about firing her brother-in-law, that she herself did not.

The key passage ...

Monegan, 57, a respected former chief of the Anchorage Police Department, said in an interview with The Washington Post's James V. Grimaldi on Friday that the governor repeatedly brought up the topic of her ex-brother-in-law, Michael Wooten, after Monegan became the state's commissioner of public safety in December 2006. Palin's husband, Todd, met with Monegan and presented a dossier of information about Wooten, who was going through a bitter custody battle with Palin's sister, Molly. Monegan also said Sarah Palin sent him e-mails on the subject, but Monegan declined to disclose them, saying he planned to give them to a legislative investigator looking into the matter.

Palin initially denied that she or anyone in her administration had ever pressured Monegan to fire the trooper, but this summer acknowledged more than a half a dozen contacts over the matter, including one phone call from a Palin administration official to a state police lieutenant. The call was recorded and was released by Palin's office this month. Todd Palin told a television reporter in Alaska that he did meet with Monegan, but said he was just "informing" Monegan about the issue, not exerting pressure.

"She never directly asked me to fire him," Monegan said.

The wiggle-room here, as you can see, is what it means to 'pressure' as opposed to 'inform'. But look at how Palin described what happened (from an August 14th article in the ADN) ...

Palin, who has previously said her administration didn't exert pressure to get rid of trooper Mike Wooten, also disclosed that members of her staff had made about two dozen contacts with public safety officials about the trooper.

"I do now have to tell Alaskans that such pressure could have been perceived to exist although I have only now become aware of it," Palin said.

...

The majority of the calls came from Palin's chief of staff at the time, Mike Tibbles, according to information gathered by the state attorney general's office. Attorney General Talis Colberg and Palin's husband, Todd, also contacted Monegan about the trooper.

Palin said she'd only known about some of the contacts and never asked anyone on her staff to get in touch with state public safety officials about Wooten.

"Many of these inquiries were completely appropriate. However, the serial nature of the contacts could be perceived as some kind of pressure, presumably at my direction," she said.

Okay, so first Palin claims there was no pressure. Then she learns of these calls. And while many of them are entirely appropriate, some are not. And she can see that the "serial nature of the contacts could be perceived as some kind of pressure, presumably at my direction."

And yet, according to Monegan, she herself was doing exactly the same thing she later professed to be so shocked that others were doing. So how credible is it that she wasn't directing her staff to pressure Monegan when she was doing the same thing herself? And what difference does it even make? It seems quite clear that all of this emanated from Pallin and that she was actively in it. So she abused her power as governor and then almost certainly lied about her involvement. Why did McCain pick her?

At TPMMuckraker we've been on the Palin/Trooper-gate story for a while. And we've just reported that the investigation by the state legislature is scheduled to report its findings in the first couple days of November.

This is a perilous story for Palin and McCain. I flagged some of the details earlier in the day. But this is the kind of story, the kind of investigation, where it is highly unlikely that Palin hasn't made public false statements about her involvement in what happened. I think that's generous. As always in cases like this, the question is whether anyone can prove it. There are a couple investigations -- one under the auspices of the state legislature and another of the state Attorney General, which she either supported or 'requested'. That latter investigation already surfaced taped phone calls that forced Palin walk back her original denials and admit that her aides had pressed for the firings, just without her knowledge.

Using the power of the government to settle scores with estranged relatives or associates is far from unprecedented. There are probably several similar investigations going on in other states as we speak. But I doubt very much that they were prepared for the heat of full bore national media scrutiny on this one. And in this case you not only the underlying act, which is sleazy, but the high probability that Palin is lying about her role.

Late Update: And special bonus: after the firing that got her administration into trouble, Palin replaced him with another guy who'd recently been hit with a credible sexual harassment accusation. Palin later admitted that she knew about the complaint in advance but denied that she knew of the letter of reprimand he'd received.

He lasted two weeks on the job.

I mentioned earlier that Gov. Palin is in the thick of her own very Bush era scandal over her attempts to have her ex-brother-in-law fired as a state trooper, using her clout as governor. Now we've learned she's invoked the Alaska version of executive privilege to withhold emails dealing with the case. Our report on the latest on the case will be coming up shortly.

Ruth Rosen takes a look at Sarah Palin's group (she's a prominent member) Feminists for Life.

I noted below that Palin comes in with bubbling scandal in her home state. And with her choice, McCain, with one stroke, undercuts the best argument of his campaign: Obama's purported lack of experience for the job. But there's another part of this. Andrew Sullivan captures it ...

One more thing: this was a bit of a F-U pick, a personal, totally idiosyncratic, gut-level, aggressive piece of opportunism. Yes he can! And yes, it does underline his maverick, out-of-the-box brand. It makes me like his empathy for gutsy young women, even former beauty queens (is there footage of her contest out there?). But it also makes me less comfortable with the idea of him as commander in chief. It seems a less steady choice than Biden.

Along with experience, the intertwined claim of superior judgment has been McCain's central argument for his candidacy. I've heard dozens of prominent Republicans making this argument over recent weeks. I'd be very curious to hear their off the record thoughts on McCain's job at this moment.

What does this say about John McCain's judgment? Steadiness in key decision-making moments?

Fournier's take on Palin: "Analysis: Palin's age, inexperience rival Obama's"

As mentioned earlier, Gov. Palin is embroiled in her own trooper-gate scandal up in Alaska. In short, she's accused of using her pull as governor to get her ex-brother-in-law fired as a state trooper. The brother-in-law is embroiled in an ugly divorce and custody with Palin's sister. And after his boss wouldn't fire the brother-in-law, she fired the boss. Palin originally insisted there was nothing to the story. More recently, she was forced to admit the one of her top deputies had pushed to get the guy fired.

Here's one our recent reports on the story. And we'll be bringing you an updated report shortly.

Here's the local TV news report ...

Yes she does have foreign policy experience, says Fox's Steve Doocy. Alaska is right next to Russia!!!

So now we've learned that Sarah Palin is McCain's choice for vice presidential nominee. I have to say, it's a daring pick but I think a very weak one. I'm perfectly happy with it. Palin is in the midst of a reasonably serious scandal in her home state. Her brother-in-law is a state trooper who is in the midst of an ugly custody battle with her sister. And she's accused of getting the state police to fire him. Recently she was forced to admit that one of her aides had done this, though she insists she didn't know.

Next, John McCain's central and best argument in this campaign is that Barack Obama simply lacks the experience to be President of the United States. And now John McCain, who is a cancer survivor who turns 72 years old today, is picking a vice presidential nominee who has been governor of a small state for less than two years and prior to that was mayor of a town with roughly one-twenty-seventh of the constituents that Barack Obama represented when he was a state senator in Illinois.

Whatever you think of Barack Obama's qualifications to be President, Palin is manifestly less qualified. And that undermines the central premise of McCain's campaign.

From the McCain Store ...

(ed.note: Special 'Is Our Children Learning' edition.)

Late Update: The McCain folks appear to have corrected the punctuation.

Seems pretty clear now that John McCain is about to pick an outside the box contender for veep. At least if it's true, as now appears to be confirmed that it's not Pawlenty or Romney. Earlier in the week we picked up a supposedly good tip that Colin Powell was being actively vetted. The rumor got mentioned on CNN as well. But Powell's spokesperson told us definitively it wasn't true.

Late Update: ABC seems to have it confirmed that Sarah Palin is still in Alaska. And that's a long plane ride unless they're going to go supersonic from Achorage to Dayton.

Later Update: On second thought, the ABC report strikes me as soft.

I'd forgotten writing this. But TPM Reader MU just sent me this post I wrote on July 28th, 2004, describing watching Barack Obama's keynote address from the convention floor.

This is the last reaction clip we're going to post tonight. It's Alex Castellanos' response on CNN. To understand the significance, you've got to know a bit about who Castellanos is -- a longtime, street-fighting Republican political consultant with a reputation that compares to Lee Atwater's in terms hard-edged political warfare. I believe he's also informally working with the McCain campaign this cycle, as a sort of outside advisor.

Chuck Todd said below he thought Obama's speech had left the McCain camp speechless. My own take was that the tone of the statement from the McCain campaign was like someone who'd had the wind knocked out of them.

In that context, Castellanos' response was very telling. He made no attempt to put the speech in any positive context for McCain. Midway through this clip he sounds like an Obama surrogate. And he concludes by saying that "whoever didn't get picked for Republican VP today may be a lucky Republican."

In case, you're tuning in late, here's my initial reaction.

Todd's referring to this statement put out by the McCain campaign.

I thought this was a very strong speech. About exactly what was needed. It was a strong speech. He made the case for himself; he laid out clear policy goals; and he aggressively set forth the stakes of the campaign. He made the case against John McCain while not attacking his character -- which makes a clear contrast with McCain's aggressively personal, denigrating campaign strategy.

I've heard a few people say that he seemed to hold back from giving the soaring speech he might have given. But I suspect that was intentional and I think a good decision. Meta-themes and tonality form the deeper structure of political communication. And the aim of this speech was not eloquence but strength.

I've said myself that Obama's campaign needs to be more aggressive. They need to hold the initiative, and attack, attack, attack. But attacking doesn't mean bludgeoning -- at least not necessarily. It means making the case and defining the argument. Not running a campaign by reacting -- well or not -- to your opponent's attacks. As Paul Begala said in our interview with him a couple days ago, it's not about rapid response but rapid attack. Personally I might prefer an even more aggressive tack from Obama's surrogates. But I think here Obama himself had the balance just right.

I also think he made the right decision to directly (and, in the case of the 'celeb' meme, explicitly) confront the smears, particularly the attacks on Obama's Americanness and patriotism. The tone didn't strike me as defensive or outraged (which is a different side of defensiveness) but more one of what I might call assertive contempt.

At the end of the day, a convention is the most orchestrated -- you might say, the most contrived -- event of modern political theater. So the moments after its conclusions can give a very illusory impression. But taken that impression on its own merits, for this moment, John McCain looks very, very small. Both in stature and as a person.

Taken as a whole, each day in progression, successive speeches hitting different notes and building in sequence, this convention was very strong.

Meanwhile, the AP hops back on the tire swing.

TPMtv reports live from on the ground at Invesco Field after the speech:

Though I may just want to watch ...

And we're off ...

10:18 PM ... Watching how the background actually looks, the Greek temple nonsense seems awfully silly.

10:23 PM ... I think -- not just in the speech but in the lead-up over the course of the afternoon -- the impression of this event, holding it in a stadium, is one of a mass event, an open event, a popular event, not one of grandiosity as many of the critics claimed. (I would structure that sentence better; but I'm trying to listen to what he's saying at the same time.)

10:26 PM ... "It's time for them to own their failure."

10:42 PM ... "John McCain stands alone." Very good on framing (sigh, hate the phrase) the debate over Iraq in which everything is trending toward Obama's position.

10:47 PM ... An echo of the 2004 keynote that put him here.

10:50 PM ... I think he's doing a good job inoculating against next week's attacks (and responding to the earlier ones) without appearing defensive or reactive.

It's easy to remember that had a full vote count taken place down in Florida, we might be in the final months of the Gore administration. A lot of what ifs. And in this tear in Al Gore's speech, he tells us what would have been different -- it was a passage in the speech that clearly came from a deep well within ...

Click here to view the whole speech.

If you're bummed about not getting a ticket to watch the Obama speech at the Invesco Center, you'll be happy to know they're still giving away tickets for John McCain's veep announcement tomorrow at the aptly-named 12,000 seat Nutter Center.

Okay, while we're waiting for the main event, how about a parlor game we can believe in? Given the options, which McCain veep choice should Dems be rooting for?

TPM Reader KB writes in: "Whom to root for? Pawlenty or Romney? I know that Romney can be easily mocked, but he seems more crisp on the attack. Would be nice to avoid that and go with the nothingburger Pawlenty. Plus, if Romeny gets passed over Rove and K-Lo will be heartbroken, and Halperin's sources would have been wrong. Honestly, I'm torn."

My answer was Romney. As much as Pawlenty strikes me as a wet mop, folks in Minnesota say he's deceptively lame. Better a pol than he looks. On the other hand, Mitt comes prepackaged with aggressive anti-McCain quotes; he's a complete freak; and he also has twenty houses. A fringe benefit is he's laid off a significant portion of the electorate. Of course, if we really want to dream, we can hope for Lieberman. But of those two, I'd say Romney.

What say you?

Late Update: Intrade seems to have little doubt it's Pawlenty.

In honor of Tim's possible coronation, here's our famed Tim Pawlenty, wake me when he's done, clip reel ...

Jon Cohn has continued to follow the saga of John Goodman, the McCain health care policy advisor, who has said that the ability to go to an emergency room is as good as having health insurance.

First, the McCain camp denied that Goodman was an advisor. Then, after being confronted with evidence to the contrary, they went on to issue what amounts to a non-denial denial and a repudiation of Goodman's emergency room statement. Here's the statement to Cohn in its entirety ...

Mr. Goodman volunteered his advice to the campaign in the past. However, his philosophy on health care--and especially on the urgency of the problems faced by 45 million uninsured American's--are clearly out of step with John McCain. Earlier this summer the campaign informed Mr. Goodman that his advice was not required and requested that he not identify himself as being associated with the campaign in any way, including as a volunteer. John McCain could not disagree more strongly with Mr. Goodman. John McCain believes that addressing the problem of the nation's uninsured is one of our most pressing national priorities. That's why the McCain health plan will, for the first time, bring health coverage within reach of every American.

Count me as highly skeptical. He's repeatedly been cited as an advisor. And as I said below, I don't think that citation gets put on a WSJ editorial without the campaign's consent, tacit or explicit. Also note that according to Jason Roberson, a business reporter for the Dallas Morning News, Goodman told the DMN that "he helped craft Sen. John McCain's health care policy."

Clearly, the McCain campaign wants this guy thrown overboard ASAP. But the sketchy nature of the McCain campaign's denial makes it clear that he was an advisor of some sort. And the citation in the WSJ, again, makes the denial highly dubious. More significantly, as Cohn notes in his reporting, the idea that Goodman's views are not in line with McCain's policy proposals is just not true to anyone who is well-versed in health care policy. They're actually right in line. As Jon notes, the problem is that Goodman stated explicitly what is implicit in McCain's plan, and that of other health care policy proposals that define the 'problem' in the health care debate as people having too much insurance coverage.

And what about Goodman saying he helped write the policy? Was he lying? Let's have a bit more on that.

TPM reporters score prime Invesco field press seats, pledge to die before relinquishing them.

Times to report Bush and sidekick haven't spoken since May.

Hmmm, wonder who would leak to the Times that McCain and Bush aren't chummy anymore? Have to put on my thinking cap for that one.

(ed.note: Alternative title for this post "Exile in Sidekickville".)

Theda Skocpol: The Election of Our Lives

We've yet to have the McCain campaign return our calls about campaign advisor John Goodman's suggestion that everyone in the USA actually does have health care insurance in the form of access to emergency rooms where no one in need of immediate medical care can be turned away. But they're now telling TNR's Jon Cohn that he's actually not a McCain advisor.

Really?

Needless to say, we did some looking around before we put up our feature story.

On August 18th, the Dallas Morning News referred to Goodman as "a health policy adviser to McCain's campaign." Yesterday, on the 27th, they referred to Goodman as a McCain advisor "who helped craft Sen. John McCain's health care policy."

Policy wonks can sometimes puff themselves up by giving people the impression they are advisors. Or a paper can get it wrong. But much more telling is the July 30th OpEd Goodman wrote (sub.req.) in the Wall Street Journal in which he is identified as "an unpaid adviser to the McCain campaign."

Given the Journal's role as the forum of record for statements of Republican campaigns and Republican policy wonks, there's simply no way that representation did not have the McCain campaign's sign-off.

I'm still curious to know more about what role he played in crafting McCain's health care plan. As the Journal states, he is an unpaid advisor rather than a member of the campaign staff. And I have no doubt they now don't want him as a named advisor. On that I don't need convincing. But I'm afraid, just saying he's not an advisor won't cut it. Absent some good explanation of why he has repeatedly been identified in the press as a McCain advisor, he and his claims about emergency rooms as de facto health care insurance are all theirs.

Late Update: My old friend Jon Cohn doesn't like getting fibbed to by the McCain camp. Jon got in touch with the reporter from the DMN who has the goods.

Why is TPM paying all that money for our TPM group health plan? It turns out everyone in America has insurance automatically, according to John McCain health care policy advisor. All you have to do is show up at the local emergency room for your coverage ...

From the Dallas Morning News ...

But the numbers are misleading, said John Goodman, president of the National Center for Policy Analysis, a right-leaning Dallas-based think tank. Mr. Goodman, who helped craft Sen. John McCain's health care policy, said anyone with access to an emergency room effectively has insurance, albeit the government acts as the payer of last resort. (Hospital emergency rooms by law cannot turn away a patient in need of immediate care.)

"So I have a solution. And it will cost not one thin dime," Mr. Goodman said. "The next president of the United States should sign an executive order requiring the Census Bureau to cease and desist from describing any American - even illegal aliens - as uninsured. Instead, the bureau should categorize people according to the likely source of payment should they need care.

"So, there you have it. Voila! Problem solved."

Interesting addendum to the Kerry speech story. I hear on good authority that he wrote the whole thing himself.

TPM Reader RT has an idea ...

They will get him hot under the collar precisely because they are his friends, because they are not getting over the top or into the gutter, because they know full well what they are talking about when they talk about his transformation. And because he knows they're right in everything they're saying about him.

Guess we shouldn't be so surprised that John McCain got hot under the collar with Time reporters when they pressed him to define honor in a political context.

TPM Reader GR reports in from the field ...

Just a small FYI about Kerry's speech. Kerry is running for re-election here in Mass. A couple of weeks ago he swung by my little town of North Adams and gave what was an odd stump speech. It wasn't about him or his primary/general election opponent. His speech, given while standing on a chair in a local restaurant, was very similar to what he gave last night at the DNC. It was almost exclusively about Obama and how odious John McCain's Bush-esque transformation has become. Only few moments were spent on the subject of increasing the the Democratic majorities in congress, and zero time was given to the subject of John Kerry.

I got the sense that 2008 public Kerry is very different than the man I had voted for in 2004. He was full of determined righteousness and he wasn't going to take it any more. Sigh. If only....

Hillary's, Bill's and Biden's speeches were great, each in their own way. Democrats had the night they'd been waiting for tonight. But you probably didn't see John Kerry's speech because most of the networks cut away to feature their yakkers. As I said earlier, in its own way, I think it was the best speech of the convention, certainly the best speech I've ever seen John Kerry give. If you haven't seen it, do yourself a favor, set aside 13:13 and watch ...

I find it very difficult to believe that John McCain would want to make my dreams come true by picking Joe Lieberman as his Vice Presidential running mate. But this article in the Politico and this column by Robert Novak seem like warning flares that tells some GOPers are worried he might.

Late Update: TPM Reader YF adds this ...

Hilarious. Just now on PBS David Brooks told us that the OBVIOUS answer to the Dems successful mantra of McCain = Bush is for McCain to choose as his VP, get this, Joe Lieberman. This seems to me a clasic example of beltway insiderdom. David, who thinks the McCain currently running is the same guy he knew in 2000, thinks it would be great if he partnered with the Lieberman he knew in 2000. THAT would have been a game changer but David seems genuinely oblivious to the fact that Lieberman is now seen as George Bush without the intellectual complexity.

Personally I hope he DOES choose Lieberman. If they win they'll start bombing Iran in February but at least ONE person can tell John if they are bombing Sunni or Shia.

Best moment tonight was Biden's "keep your enemies closer" embrace in which he proclaimed McCain his true friend- "a lot of people say this, i mean it"- and then proceeded to refer to him as "John" multiple times as he tore him limb from limb. Gorgeous political jujitsu. Just what the doctor ordered, and has the benefit of being true.

Late Update: Here's what YF was referring to (scroll down to "Pressure on McCain").

10:39 ... That may be the most on-message flub in convention history.

10:53 PM ... I didn't really have a lot of real-time comments. But that was a great speech. Nicely delivered. And went to the key points -- pumped up Obama and made the case against John McCain. Exactly what was needed.

Not exactly the topic of the evening. But David Kurtz just caught up with Sen. Pat Leahy (D-VT) on the convention floor and asked him about the latest developments in the subpoenas of Harriet Miers and Josh Bolten.

One mention: He made clear. He went be done with them even after they leave the White House. "I remind them. I'll still be chairman next year."

Most of the nets aren't showing it. But John Kerry's giving a really good speech on the foreign policy front. Knocking McCain for standing on an aircraft three months after 9/11 and calling out 'next stop Baghdad.' He's going through the list of McCain's foreign policy goofs, how even Bush's Iraq policy is now embracing Obama's policy prescription. He's really got fire in him on this. If you get a chance, watch this.

I thought Hillary's speech was great; Bill's too. But in its own way I think the speech I just saw John Kerry give is the best one I've heard at this convention. And I do not have any doubt that it's the best I've ever heard from him.

(ed.note: I don't think a lot of people saw it, so we're going to bring you video of Kerry shortly.)

Late Update: Here's the text. We'll have the video shortly.

Tom Brokaw agrees: You can't criticize John McCain because he was a POW. The word has come down from on high.

Waiting for Bill to start ...

"I love this and I thank you ..."

9:07 PM ... Something about that crowd brings him back to life.

9:12 PM ... Yep, that's Bill.

9:15 PM ... Hillary's speech takes on a different look when you see it as a complement to Bill's.

9:25 PM ... Well, good speech. Very solid speech. Classic Bill. Sort of reminds me of the weird anguish of last spring, thinking we'd never see this guy again. He did what he needed to do. And he got things moving in a direction the convention needs to go.

9:28 PM ... Also good that he said one thing -- John McCain's an "extremist." We need to hear that again and again, because it has the virtue of being true.

Our David Kurtz on the convention floor as Hillary calls to make Obama nominee by acclamation ...

More here.

Our newest contributor at TPMCafe, Bernard Avishai, shares his thoughts on the state of the campaign.

Brits worried about McCain's judgment too.

Word's out: Bush's 2004 Greek temple.

Here's Mark Blumenthal's (formerly 'mystery pollster' and the guy behind pollster.com) take on an on-the-record briefing top Obama staffers gave on how they see the state of the campaign, the polls, where they're focusing their attention, etc.

I think I'll have to pass it on without comment. But you should give it a look.

Rudy: Not time to have a president (like lifelong member of Congress John McCain) without executive experience ...

Late Update: Rudy criticized McCain's lack of executive experience only a few short months ago. --gs

Jake says McCain's lying in his new Iran ad too.

Sullivan has more details.

Wolfson whacks back at Matthews and Olbermann.

Back in 2004, I sat down for an at-length interview with Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) in his office on Capitol Hill. The context of the time was the 2004 presidential election, John Kerry, and the foreign policy particulars of four years ago. But I think it's still a very valuable prism to understand how he thinks about foreign policy. Biden is going to do plenty of interviews about foreign policy questions over the next two months. But it will be in the context of his running as the Democratic vice-presidential nominee. So obviously he'll be more careful, more scripted, less willing to think outloud about Iraq, Afghanistan and the differences between Democratic and Republican foreign policy thinking. Take a look.

I don't want to get in the way of reporter colleagues who can't help getting spun by their Republican sources. But we do all know that virtually every American civic building is based on Greek Revival architecture, right? And that the Obama backdrop actually looks like -- whether intended or not, I don't know -- the Lincoln Memorial. (Remember, they're both Illinoisians.) Perhaps because Obama's speech is on the 45th anniversary of King's 'I Have A Dream' speech.

Reprinting an Andrew Sullivan post in its entirety ...

The op-ed in today's WSJ by the McCain duo of Lieberman and Graham is far more important for this election, it seems to me, than parsing the dynamics of the Clinton-Obama marriage. What they are laying out in very clear terms is the agenda of a McCain presidency. The agenda is war and the threat of war - including what would be an end to cooperation with Russia on securing loose nuclear materials and sharing terror intelligence, in favor of a new cold war in defense of ... Moldova and Azerbaijan. I'm sure McCain would like to have his Russian cooperation, while demonizing and attacking them on the world stage, but in the actual world, he cannot. Putin and Medvedev are not agreeable figures, and I do not mean in any way to excuse their bullying. But this is global politics, guys, and these are the cold, hard choices facing American policy makers.

And in this telling op-ed Lieberman and Graham simply do not even confront them. It's all about a moral posture, with no practical grappling with the consequences. It's the mindset that gave you the Iraq war - but multiplied.

John McCain is making it quite clear what his foreign policy will be like: tilting sharply away from the greater realism of Bush's second term toward the abstract moralism, fear-mongering and aggression of the first. Not just four more years - but four more years like Bush's first term. If the Democrats cannot adequately warn Americans of the dangers of a hotheaded temperament and uber-neo-con mindset in the White House for another four years, they deserve to lose. If Americans decide they want a president who will be more aggressive and less diplomatic than the current one, then they should at least brace for the consequences - for their economy and their security.

In my view, the fear card has only one truly compelling target in this election: McCain.

He puts it very well. This danger has actually got me to thinking that should McCain win in November, the likely strong Democratic majorities in Congress will need to begin making a concerted effort to rein in the war powers of the president to keep the country safe between 2009 and 2013 -- far more than most of us might normally be comfortable with. I know that sounds hyperbolic. It's not. And people need to understand this. For better or worse, the reality of the danger for the security of the country that is posed by a McCain presidency is not coming through. So the Democratic Congress would likely be the only bulwark against the gambit of his advisors and his own instability. What McCain is pushing for is much more stark than most Democrats, let alone independents and moderate Republicans understand. Hopefully, we won't need to face these choices.

From the Politico ...

Leahy told Vogel yesterday the media has given McCain a free pass on flubs including mixing up Middle East geography, Shiite and Sunni Muslims, and referring to Russia's relationship Czechoslovakia -- a country that hasn't existed for 15 years.

"It was the same way with Ronald Reagan in the last few years he was president," Leahy said, referring to the belief that Reagan experienced early signs of Alzheimer's disease late in his presidency.

CBS: Body language analysts agree! Hillary's heart wasn't in it.

An anonymous reader points out, it's a bold move after the unfortunate experience with hand-writing analysis.

TPM Reader AM: WTF ...

KA says, "Hillary barely touched McCain last night. After all of your pleas for democrats to "attack, attack, attack" why are you letting Hillary off the hook?"

I've got a Masters in Political Science so I'm not a complete ignoramus - but my instincts seem to be at odds with so many others on this and many other issues.

I went to sleep last night thinking that Hillary had made an excellent speech and that Obama would be very pleased. Pleased at what she said to unify the party and what she said to attack McCain. You seemed to agree. Then I wake up this morning and a major talking point is that she didn't do nearly enough because, amongst other reasons, she didn't say he'd be a good CinC. Then KA says she didn't go after McCain hard enough.

I read all the stuff about McCain and his houses and thought "This is really going to hurt McCain!" So, what happens? Obama goes backwards in the polls...

I watched Obama in Berlin and thought "That was great. It makes you proud to be an American!". What happens? His favorability ratings go down...

I watched Obama and Biden in Springfield and thought "Gee that was great. That should bring a little bounce in the polls!" The opposite happens....

What's going on? Every thing that I think should be a plus for Obama turns out to be much more complicated. I'm a little worried about tomorrow night. 80,000 cheering people. Fantastic speech. Great spectacle. Am I going to wake up on Friday morning and find that all of these so-called positives are bad for Obama?

Sullivan understands how dangerous a McCain presidency would be. It's Bush foreign policy squared.

From McClatchy ...

Avoiding a potential confrontation with Moscow, a U.S. Coast Guard cutter ferrying humanitarian aid to Georgia steered away from the Russian-patrolled port of Poti on Wednesday and docked in this quieter southern harbor instead.

The U.S. decision came as Russia sent a naval task force armed with anti-ship and anti-aircraft missiles into the waters off of Abkhazia on Wednesday on a "peace and stability" mission, the Russian Itar-Tass news agency reported.

Disgruntled TPM Reader KA ...

Hillary barely touched McCain last night. After all of your pleas for democrats to "attack, attack, attack" why are you letting Hillary off the hook? Begala and Carville have also been criticizing the dems for not attacking enough, but nary a word from them about Hillary's failure to take on McCain beyond "No way, no how, no McCain." MSM expectations are everything, it seems, and by that standard she did fine, I guess. But, she did not attack McCain in the way Carville and Begala led me to expect or in the way you led me to hope. I guess it's left for Biden to do that.

It's not settled yet but it appears that Rep. Don Young (R-AK) may have pulled out his nail-biter primary against challenger Sean Parnell. He's now up by just shy of 150 votes out of 84,000 cast. That's with about 98% counted.

Go Don!

From TPM Reader TL ...

There is a wonderful debunking of the right's take on Joe Biden in Rosen's op-ed piece on today's NYT. The crying shame of it all is that the gentlemanly unwillingness to descend into the miasma of rank political expediency will lose both Biden and Obama the election. The Republicans would have aired all of Clarence Thomas's dirty laundry until he withdrew his name. They did it against Goldberg Fortas and would do it today if they could, just like they would impeach Clinton again--Bill or Hillary--if given the chance. But it is not just the lack of political shame on the part of the Republicans, but the media's willingness to judge the two parties by different standards that makes it all possible. That, according to Richard Perlstein's book, also dates to the Goldberg Fortas era. The party of principle versus the party of slime, an oversimplification perhaps, but not that far off the mark.

I'm not sure I'd say it's an issue of 'principle' precisely. But I've actually given a lot more thought over the last few months to the ways in which this pattern is one that is not at all limited to the United States, but shows up between center-left and center-right parties, or often hard right parties, in various times and places at least through Europe and I suspect in other parts of the globe as well. Rather than something in the Democratic party I think this is rooted to the role of authoritarianism in each party's make up.

(ed.note: I and several readers have been scratching our heads trying to figure out what Reader TL was referring to about Arthur Goldberg. I think he's referring to the controversy over Abe Fortas. So I've broken with customary convention and edited TL's email to reflect that.)

BideMentum!

Just thought I'd say that.

The Intrade trading markets has Mitt Romney at 65% chance of being McCain's veep.

We can hope.

On other hand, I saw where there actually appears to be a big push among several of the more whacked people in the McCain world to pick Joe Lieberman. We can dream.

Fournier spins for McCain.

TPMtv talks to Harry Shearer, Arriana Huffington, Rep. Ike Sketon (D-MO) ...

From TPM Reader RR ...

I was a pretty fervent Hillary supporter during the primaries (fervent enough to have had an email exchange with you), but as a yellow dog Dem first and foremost, it is not as if I needed to heal, or needed Hillary to ask me to support our nominee. All the same, her speech this evening made a difference. In all the media hype about disaffected Hillary supporters, what has been ignored are all the former Hillary supporters - and, I suspect, a good many Dems who supported Obama through the primaries - who are not disaffected, but who have not been feeling the voltage as we head into the general election. A close election is to be expected, but instead of Obama opening some daylight, in the last couple of weeks McCain has been pulling even. Your recent commentaries have reflected the sense of lost traction. The dread feeling started growing on me that we Dems have nominated another high-minded loser.

That has no bearing on my support as such, but it does matter when it come to fire in the belly. Given that there are no differences to speak of on issues or principles, I supported Hillary in the first place for purely strategic reasons: the perception that she is a fighter. Nothing creates enthusiasm like the smell of victory in the air, and that is what has been oddly lacking since Obama won the primaries. In the short term, hearing Hillary has fired me up, but more important, I hope it is a message the Obama team will absorb. If they do, he and we will win. Jeez, the guy came up in Chicago. It's time for him to start showing a
little Chicago, and Hillary has set an example for him to follow beginning on Thursday.

Late Update: TPM Reader PJ responds ...

In response to your reader 'RR' who would like to see a little more fire in the belly from Obama....

I've been hearing more or less this same chant from a lot of people who think that Obama hasn't provided sufficient voltage thus far. But I think we need to consider what a high hurdle Obama is trying to cross here-- he is a young black guy who hopes to be President in a nation that has been electing middle-aged white men since 1776. That's a really big deal, and given that he will face significant resistance because of the color of his skin, Obama cannot afford to come across as an angry firebrand. Looking balanced and sober and responsible is exactly what Obama should be doing. The electorate needs to be reassured that he doesn't represent a threat; if he projected even a hint of 'angry black guy' his campaign would be sunk.

I think Obama's selection of Biden as VP makes it clear that his campaign is going to take the gloves off, and with Hillary, Schweitzer, and others standing by to help with the dirty work, I'm confident that Obama's campaign will have the requisite edge and forcefulness. IMHO, Axelrod and Plouffe have played this perfectly thus far.

That was quite a speech. It occurred to me as she built to the conclusion in the last few minutes, that the pre-2008 Hillary Clinton would not have been capable of that speech. That's not a dig. But she grew incredibly as a candidate over the course of this campaign. And this was an immensely powerful delivery, and a richly woven together speech. The beginning seemed fine but not remarkable. But it slowly built into something very powerful.

I'll try to think through some more thoughts. But I'd like to hear yours.

Lotta clapping

10:57 PM ... The speech has been fine until now. But this 'who were you in this for?'. That resonates.

11:01 PM ... 'Four more years of the last eight years'. Not bad.

11:03 PM ... Twin Cities, Sidekick. All good stuff.

Can we just have Brian Schweitzer give all the speeches?

Please?

I'll do anything.

TPM Reader MN ...

Tell them to stop. They have to stop saying that McCain is just "more of the same"!

I'm a marketer, and it's through those eyes, to some degree, that I view politics. In marketing, you won't sell anything if say your new product is just as good as it was -- you say it's better and improved. So, in politics, in the sort of inverse marketing that one does on one's opponents, you don't say your opponent (McCain) is the same as the earlier product (Bush): you say he's worse.

This is a serious issue, and a huge lost opportunity for the Democrats. The damage done by Bush has been, to some degree, mitigated by the fact that when he began his first term after the Clinton administration, the country was in very good shape. But when Democrats say that McCain will be "more of the same failed policies" they're wrong: it'll be much worse, because he'd be starting in a deep dark hole that has been dug by Bush. More of the same actually means seriously ... dangerously ... inferior.

Beyond that, saying "more of the same" has no bite at all. It's all gums. Saying, "John McCain will make things worse" means something tangible. Plus, it has the benefit of being, as you have observed, eminently true. McCain wants to do what Bush has done, but more so.

If you want something to focus on, think about this. McCain is surrounded by, given his ideas by, the hardest core neoconservatives in Washington. These are the folks who now think of Bush was a sell-out, a softie. And add to that McCain has a history of key decisions during outburts of extreme anger. Not a reassuring combination.

Should have had Sen. Casey do the keynote because that speech was pretty good -- notwithstanding most of the networks not covering much of it. But I think the advance billing for Warner's speech lowered expectations so dramatically -- that the actual thing itself wasn't that bad. But I was expecting pretty bad.

Why did the Democrats let Fox News be in charge of the camera feeds for all the news networks?

Can't get my head around that one.

At the moment, Fox News has cut away from Mark Warner's keynote address to show Sean Hannity and Rudy Giuliani talking about Bill Ayers.

AP 'factchecks' Bob Casey ...

SEN. ROBERT CASEY JR.: "John McCain calls himself a maverick, but he votes with George Bush 90 percent of the time. That's not a maverick. That's a sidekick."

THE FACTS: McCain voted with President Bush 90 percent of the time from January 20, 2001, to when Congress left Washington on its annual August recess, according to a study by Congressional Quarterly. But McCain wasn't always a staunch Bush backer. In 2005, his support for Bush's position on legislation reached a low of 77 percent; last year, when he launched his latest bid for the GOP presidential nomination, he voted with Bush 95 percent of the time.

Shorter AP: Not McSame!!!

Matthews and Olbermann take a few moments to bat around Howard Wolfson ...

From TPM Reader AR ...

I'm hearing Bob Casey from the convention floor on my radio, and I think this line of his should become the Democrats' new mantra: "John McCain says he's a maverick. But he's voted with Bush over 90% of the time. That's not a maverick. That's a sidekick!"

Now that's a classy insult. And it'll get under McCain's skin.

At TPMCafe we're hosting a conversation about the future of the Democratic Party. Michael Cohen gives us his take on what Hillary needs to do in her speech tonight.

Chris asks Clinton advisor Lisa Caputo what will become of Clinton's secret plan to reclaim the White House if they campaign for Obama and he gets elected ...

This doesn't have any consequence for the present election. And it's a painful topic to even get into. But Andrea Mitchell was just interviewing David Bonior, who was John Edwards campaign chairman. And she asked him whether he'd spoken to Edwards since his admission. Bonior said he hadn't. And his explanation, which followed, was very raw. Not angry. But usually in such cases, someone in his position will make some perfunctory nod to wishing him and his family well. But none of that. I don't really have any comment. And I definitely don't fault him. But it was a very powerful testimony to the professional and interpersonal wreckage Edwards has left behind him.

We'll have the video in a moment.

Did you hear this criticism?

Here's what Fox is saying ...

Last night there was some criticism of Michelle Obama for not saying more about our men and women in uniform, those fighting on the ground for us in Iraq.

Think I missed that one.

Late Update: Here's the video.

When Mitt Romney says that it was "hard work" that got John McCain all those houses that he got for marrying Cindy Hensley, what does he mean exactly?

From The Hill ...

Former Secretary of the Navy Richard Danzig, a senior national security adviser to Barack Obama's presidential campaign, said that he has never seen Obama lose his temper, even in situations of "exceptional stress."

By comparison, Obama's GOP rival John McCain is known for "losing it." Danzig said McCain is known for forming an opinion or a decision quickly and then "digs in." McCain's volatile temper is well known to Beltway insiders, but Democrats at their convention are trying to make this known to the larger audience, as part of a tug-of-war about who between the two candidates is prepared to be commander-in-chief.

From ABC ...

In a presidential race marked by references to preparedness in the face of the 3 a.m. call, the revelation that presumptive Republican nominee Sen. John McCain has taken the sleeping pill Ambien during his travels raises concerns that the rare side effects of the medication could impair his judgment.

"Taking more than the recommended dosage of Ambien or combining it with other sedative-hypnotics -- for example, alcohol -- may result in amnesia, fugue states and sleep walking," said Dr. Peter A. Fotinakes, medical director of the St. Joseph Sleep Disorders Center in Orange, Calif. "Used appropriately, Ambien is a relatively safe medication."

Though rare, such side effects associated with Ambien have made headlines.

From TPM Reader KW ...

I think most people missed it if they weren't watching on line or on CSpan, but Jim Leach deilvered a masterful speech about why, as a Republican, he has endorsed Barack Obama. If you didn't see it, check it out on YouTube:

I know he sounds like Kermit The Frog and looks like a College Professor (which he is ;-)) -- but this is the sort of speech that inspires me -- careful, factual, and comprehensive, without being dry.

Full disclosure -- until he lost in 2006 to Dave Lobesack, Leach was the congressman for my district here in Iowa. He was well-liked in his district, and did a sterling job at the sort of direct constituent relations that never make headlines. But people in our district wanted his seat to move across the aisle for numerical reasons. In fact, one heavily played Dave Lobesack advert stated "Jim Leach is a good man, but he's part of a Republican Majority." (not the exact wording, but the closest I remember).

Top McCain foreign policy advisor lobbied against terrorist gun ban.

Kos agrees with Sullivan that Night 1 of the DNC was not the night for a sustained attack against John McCain. Like Sullivan, Kos's argument is that people are already persuaded that Bush was a disaster and McCain is four more years of Bush. The problem is convincing people that Obama and his wife are an acceptable/trustable alternative -- knocking back the damage created by McCain's sustained attack on Obama's Americanness, patriotism, etc.

Notwithstanding what I said last night, I think this is a very good point. And in many respects that is an apt description of the strategic challenge facing Obama. If people can be convinced that Obama meets a threshold level of trustworthiness and experience for the job, McCain's finished. Because his campaign has tacitly admitted that he has little positive argument to make for his candidacy that voters are eager to hear.

My concern isn't so much about Night 1, it's my perception that the Obama campaign has ceded the initiative to McCain for the last four to six weeks, and that Obama's campaign needs to get to work tearing down McCain's concocted Mavericky, old soldier image. So, sooner the better, though if it's coming soon and will stay on a sustained basis, then maybe it's fine to have day one like that.

But I also need to make clear what 'attack' means. I end up having to write some version of this explanation every election cycle. Attack is not synonymous with primal scream. It doesn't mean frothing at the mouth screaming. In fact, the best attacks undermine with ridicule and humor. But being on the attack means taking the fight to the opponent, making him or her respond -- in so many words, taking and holding the initiative. In the context of a political campaign that means not responding to attacks but taking and holding the initiative by defining both your opponent and the question at the heart of the campaign Of course, attack can mean slashing attacks on the opponent's character too. But that's only one approach -- and not the one everyone, especially the presidential candidate himself, should take.

McCain again accuses Obama of loving himself, hating America.

Last night was John McCain's thirteenth appearance on the Tonight Show. Even more times than Pam Anderson and Dr. Phil.

GOP operative who brought us George "Macaca" Allen and slave-labor-loving Colorado senate candidate lauds GOP "Ministry of Truth" set up to attack Obama at DNC.

Maliki signing oil deals with Russia and China.

AP finally pushing back against Obama exoticism meme?

When the evening ended following Michelle O'Bama's speech about her husband, and some cute family unity with Barack Obama seen via satellite, commentators on both CNN and Fox judged that too little had happened on the first night.

"I thought it was a beautiful speech, beautifully done," said Fox's Chris Wallace. "But I can't help but feel after the first night of the convention that it was largely a wasted night."

Thought we had some great speeches tonight. But I did not hear much about President Bush or John McCain. Maybe this wasn't the night for it. Maybe this was Kennedy and Michelle Obama. But they need to go there. See what Begala said in the interview David did with him earlier this evening.

Late Update: A number of readers have written in to say, No, Michelle's speech was what the night was about. It wasn't the night for attack, attack, attack. Andrew Sullivan expands on the point -- reacting to James Carville, not me. His argument is that the country is convinced Bush was a disaster. They're pretty convinced that McCain would be more of the same. The real weapon the Republicans have on the table right now is simply burying Obama in so much sleaze, xenophobia and slurs that he becomes unelectable. In that sense, humanizing Obama, discrediting the attacks through an affirmative message, is the key to sealing the deal for Obama. I see that argument. To a significant degree I agree with it. And if this just wasn't the night for attack, attack, attack, that'd be fine. I just need to know it's coming and that -- even if mainly in the hands of surrogates -- it won't stop until election day. Listen to Begala. It's not about responding quickly to the attacks. It's about making McCain respond to Democrats' attacks.

Presidential campaigns have an almost countless number of surrogates -- a dozen or more for every issue, large and small. Today I've chatted or exchanged emails with various folks in the Obama campaign. And I've been asking them, are these surrogates -- the ones for military issues, the one for foreign affairs -- are they going to be taking this to John McCain? Sure, they're going to vouch for Barack Obama and they'll say the McCain campaign is wrong when they attack him. But are they going to affirmatively go after John McCain -- on his history of poor judgment, how little he understands about the foreign policy threats facing the country, how risky it would be to let him become commander-in-chief, his history of voting against veterans' benefits and then lying about voting against them.

Democrats are used to presidential campaigns that don't fight back. But really fighting back sucks only slightly less than not fighting back. It's like being in a war and having your strategy be to defend yourself when the other side attacks you. Or your strategy for winning the world series is dynamite fielding.

Just like in every other kind of battle, you can only have any real hope of winning by taking the initiative and holding it. Not just going on the attack but defining the whole conversation. David Kurtz just interviewed Paul Begala down on the convention floor. And he put it exactly right. This isn't about answering their attacks. It's about the Democrats making the McCain folks answer their attacks. So far, I'm not seeing it. But now's when the election really starts.

Here's Paul and David ...

Paul makes another good point. If this is about the Hillary forces and Obama forces each analyzing each others actions, endlessly ad infinitum, there's no chance the Democrats are going to do better than just get along. Where these two sides are really going to come together is over making the case against John McCain. He's the clear and present danger.

Very hard to know what to make of this. But the Rocky Mountain News is reporting that local law enforcement believe they may have stumbled upon a possible Obama assassination plot. The details seem very sketchy. And they may be jumping to conclusions. But the Secret Service is now involved.