Complaints about the MSM abound these days.  One of those most amazing things about them is their incredible ability to repeat something someone says enough times to make people take it to be truth.
Prime example.  The surge IS working.  This perception is growing in America, and I worry that it may become an issue in an election where both the remaining Democrats want to get out.  Problem being, of course, that there seems to be little fact to back up this statement of "The surge is working." This has been bothering me for awhile.
Matthew Yglesias addresses the media's influence on that here.
A quick glance (seriously - this is a pretty long list but only a fraction of what's out there.) at the latest news out of Iraq:
The fingers of four South African contractors sent to US Authorities.
Here's a recent perspective on the war from an Australian paper.
This one's a real gem: Titled, "Us Commanders: al-Qaida in Iraq to Stay", in which a man who served as #2 in Iraq notes: "The U.S. and Iraqi government intent is to chip away at al-Qaida until it is reduced to "almost a nonentity."
Another Christian leader in Iraq targeted: kidnapped and murdered.  
From the English paper The Telegraph, describes how Iraq has changed in the past five years.  Hint: it's titled "A Nation in Pieces."
Latest security developments. 
Oh, here's some good news!  The Parliament voted on three laws!  Finally!  But wait.  Even Petraeus and Crocker (the 2 top officials) seem unsure it will actually be implemented.  And they pushed back voting on the parts of the laws that are actually contentious.  
An interesting article from Rolling Stone written by a fluent Arabic speaker.  Much has been said about the surge producing a decrease in violence.  Kind of seems like it may have more to do with the fact that al-Sadr extended his Shiite milita ceasefire for another six months (till Aug/Sept) and that we are paying and arming the Sunnis who go by the name of "The Awakening".  
Latest death count.  Sigh.  I can't seem to find a count for those injured, but I'm sure it's not a number the government routinely publishes.  And only 28% of the country knows roughly how many casualties there are of the war.  
In addition to the already widely known poor treatment of vets, this is one of the most disturbing articles I've read yet.  Nothing is said or done about the lasting psychological effects of war on the young men and women coming home from Iraq.  Even if we were to get out of Iraq tomorrow, the effects of this ill-conceived war will echo throughout our lifetimes.
The surge HAS lowered the level of violence from the time when it was worst.  But, it's still at about the same level it was in the spring of 2005 - about 60 attacks a day on American troops and Iraqi civilians.  60 attacks a day, in my book, is no grand success.  In addition: “While security has improved in Iraq, a permissive security environment has yet to be achieved,”  One of the primary goals of the surge being, of course, creating space for political and economic efforts.  And then to top it all off, Petraeus now says, "Iraqis not making sufficient progress."
Yeah.  A resounding success.

This is pretty random, I know.

I watched Primary Colors the other night.  I know full well it's a fictionalized account of the 92 Clinton primary run, but you really can't watch it without wondering just how close to reality it is.  If you haven't seen it, or haven't seen it in awhile, it's definitely a good one to watch in light of the current election.
 In the midst of this heated election, many of us can't help but give in to anger against the candidate we oppose.  I guess that's just the nature of competition. But that movie kind of reminded me that it's not as cut and dry as I've been looking at it lately.  It reminded me that I do think the Clintons honestly want to help people, and really do care about them, yet don't seem to see the harm in trampling a few to get there.  I suppose it's the old argument as to whether means justify the end.  
You can't help but notice the many ironies between the movie and the current election.  For one, it made me think that the young and idealistic Clintons would have adamantly supported Obama, were they not his opponents.  It also makes me wonder if they ever sit back right now and wonder how they ended up the opponent of someone talking about hope and change, when that's essentially what Bill ran on in 92.  Some of the scenes I found most ironic:
In the beginning, Henry (based on George Stephanopoulos), is asked why he's going to join the campaign, and says: "I wondered how it would be to work with someone...who actually cared about...I mean...It couldn't always have been the way it is now.  It must have been different in my grandfather's time.  You were there.  You had Kennedy.  I didn't.  I've never heard a president say "destiny" and "sacrifice" without thinking, "bullshit."  Okay, maybe it was bullshit with Kennedy, too, but...but people believed it.  And I guess, that's what I want.  I want to believe it.  I want to be part of something that's history."
To why he doesn't want to go negative, Governor Stanton says, "So I don't give that bastard the power to make me the bastard."
At the end, they've found massive dirt on their opponent.  The Governor and his wife start discussing which newspaper to contact, and Kathy Bates' character starting yelling at them, telling the story of how disappointed they were when McGovern lost.  She reminds them of a conversation they had back then, "We have to do dirt, too.  And you said, No.  Our job is to end all that.  Our job is to make it clean.  Because if it's clean, we win.  Because our ideas are better."
To which the Governor's wife responds, "That was a long time ago, Libby, you said it yourself.  We were young.  We didn't know how the world worked.  Now we know."
I got no epiphanies out of watching it or anything, and I'm still angry as hell about the latest campaign tactics.  More than anything, it just left me wondering how to reconcile the contradictions of the Clinton's lives.  (And all politicians, and people for that matter.  But that's getting way more existential.)

"Obama is the hope and future of the Democratic Party, not Hillary, and everyone knows it. He is the one bringing new energy and voters. He could be a Democratic Reagan, invigorating the party for 25 years. If the Clinton people knee-cap Obama, it would be like killing Santa Claus Xmas morning in front of the children. The children won't forget or forgive."
-Republican, Alex Castellanos, who was a senior media consultant in both of George W. Bush's campaigns and in Mitt Romney's failed bid for the nomination.

The pundits took quite a bit of time last night to point out that Obama got about a quarter of the "white vote" yesterday in Mississippi. The implication being, of course, that he can't carry whites. I must be crazy, cause I kind of interpreted it as he can't carry racists. I'm sure some of the whites that voted for Clinton did so on the basis that they believe she is the better candidate, but I'm also sure some were simply voting against the black guy. 
First of all, if anyone really expected him to carry the majority of whites in Mississippi, that's certainly a fairy tale. Remember Mississippi Burning? It was based on the real-life murders of 3 civil rights leaders, which happened only 45 years ago. In other words, in the lifetimes of people who are still voting. The pundits of course, were wary of pointing out the inherent racism that still exists in states like Mississippi. I know fully well that there are bigots and racists in Connecticut, Maine, and Colorado as well, but there still exists a greater saturation of it in the deep South. 
So aside from that, the numbers that I found to be the most interesting out of the Mississippi exit polls are this:38% of the voters in Mississippi have a favorable view of John McCain. 57% of those people voted for Clinton.59% of them have an unfavorable view of John McCain. 73% of them voted for Obama. 
I'm no expert, but that seems to me to say that the people who would be more likely to vote for McCain in the general are Clinton voters. Nevermind the fact that Mississippi hasn't gone blue in 35 years (Nixon v. McGovern, when Nixon essentially claimed winning Vietnam was near if he was President). The odds of it going blue this year are pretty small, but the only way it is likely to go blue at all is in a McCain Obama matchup. Obama would need turnout among almost 100% of the black electorate, and according to Chuck Todd, about a quarter of the white votes. Not probable, but the fact that it's even a possibility is kind of amazing in itself. 
So, that's my take on last night's results. Let me know what you think.

I just have to wonder, how anyone can actually view the statements made on Hillary Clinton's The Fact Hub as fact, when they are on a list that includes this statement as fact:
"After Texas and Ohio, Obama Campaign Mimics Ken Starr."  
Seriously?  That's a fact?  It would appear Webster is misinformed, in that case.  Here is the definition of fact: a piece of information presented as having objective reality.  Objective, of course, being defined as: a condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers, or expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations.
And what objective evidence does the Clinton campaign assert to back up its fact, you ask?  The original quote from Howard Wolfson, of course: 
"When Senator Obama was confronted with questions over whether he was ready to be Commander-in-Chief and steward of the economy, he chose not to address those questions, but to attack Senator Clinton. I for one do not believe that imitating Ken Starr is the way to win a Democratic primary election for president." 
Seriously?  What next? Would it not be equally absurd if the Obama campaign added to their factcheck site: "Hillary Clinton is a monster." I for one, think they are both wrong for calling names.  But I really don't care that much.  But to see either of those statements asserted as fact is, well, funny.  In a sad kind of way.

Cal Thomas wrote this week, in "Nothing is Inevitable in this Race", of John McCain that "he can own the issue of national security." To that I say: Why? Why does he own this issue? Because he served in the military, and endured undeniably horrific experiences as a POW? Because he says he's "tough on the war on terror"? John McCain is absolutely an American hero. His story is an incredible one. He suffered horribly to serve our country. His service was honorable and incredible, hands down. But I find it a bit of a stretch to say that for those reasons, he will own the issue of national security. For one, he has no more executive experience than any of the remaining candidates. The so-called 3 am phone call will be a first for them all, one I know they will all be adeptly capable of handling. Whether you agree with how they will handle that call depends on your world view. A National Intelligence Estimate in 2006 reported that "the continued U.S.-led invasion of Iraq has increased the threat of global terrorism by spurring radical Islam." In 2005, 52% of Americans believe the war in Iraq has made us less safe, compared with only 40% of Americans who believed it has made us safer, and countless intelligence agencies have corroborated the views of the majority of us. The 9/11 Commission Report found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and Al-Qaeda. Now of course, there is a noted "collaborative relationship", as John McCain so kindly pointed out to Barack Obama a few weeks back. Obama was 100% correct in pointing out to McCain that was not the case prior to our invading Iraq. And so now we will have two candidates with markedly different views on how to keep America safe. John McCain asserts, on his website, that "A greater military commitment now is necessary if we are to achieve long-term success in Iraq." (So now we're going to surge on top of the surge??) On the bright side, he acknowledges that Iraq is something that cannot be solved only with military force (a concept our current administration did not adequately plan for): "While it is crucial to focus military efforts on insurgents, particularly against Sunni fighters using violence to strengthen their political position, John McCain believes there must be a greater emphasis on non-military components promoting economic development and representative, accountable governance." He goes on to note, "The war in Iraq is at a crossroads and the future of the entire region is at stake - a region that produced the terrorists who attacked America on 9/11 and where much of the world's energy supplies are located." At least he admits he wants the oil. Oddly, his page offers no proposals on how to approach energy, and the page on environment is vague, at best. On his National Security page, among other things, he notes that we must increase the size of the military. " For too long, we have asked too much of too few - with the result that many service personnel are on their second, third and even fourth tours of duty in Afghanistan and Iraq. There can be no higher defense priority than the proper compensation, training, and equipping of our troops." From all accounts I have read, the military is having, to say the least, a hell of a time recruiting new people, so I'm not quite sure exactly how he proposes to do this. Now here's some information from Barack Obama's website, the one who apparently has yet to cross some undefined threshold somewhere. "The best way to press Iraq’s leaders to take responsibility for their future is to make it clear that we are leaving. As we remove our troops, Obama will engage representatives from all levels of Iraqi society – in and out of government – to seek a new accord on Iraq’s Constitution and governance. The United Nations will play a central role in this convention, which should not adjourn until a new national accord is reached addressing tough questions like federalism and oil revenue-sharing." So, he's going to re-engage our allies in securing the area and focus our efforts on the political, diplomatic, and humanitarian areas in which we have been, well, lacking. What a crazy notion. "Obama will launch the most aggressive diplomatic effort in recent American history to reach a new compact on the stability of Iraq and the Middle East. This effort will include all of Iraq’s neighbors — including Iran and Syria. This compact will aim to secure Iraq’s borders; keep neighboring countries from meddling inside Iraq; isolate al Qaeda; support reconciliation among Iraq’s sectarian groups; and provide financial support for Iraq’s reconstruction." "Obama believes that America has a moral and security responsibility to confront Iraq’s humanitarian crisis — two million Iraqis are refugees; two million more are displaced inside their own country. Obama will form an international working group to address this crisis. He will provide at least $2 billion to expand services to Iraqi refugees in neighboring countries, and ensure that Iraqis inside their own country can find a safe-haven." He's also made a point that all the candidates have made, and yet for some reason Hillary Clinton has attacked him on this. Samantha Power, in addition to the now infamous "Monster" comment, noted that Barack’s stated plan to withdraw two battalions a month from Iraq is "the best estimate at this time, based on consultation with military. It is a firm commitment to shooting to get all the troops out in 18 months" In attempting to paint him as a flip-flopper, I have to say, she's making herself look foolish. If you honestly want a President who will not reconsider current information in making a decision on how to proceed in January of 2009 (almost a year from now), then you might has well just write in GW Bush for a third term. Personally, I find everything the woman says in the BBC interview to demonstrate a thorough, intelligent, educated and perceptive view of foreign policy. See for yourself, and don't take the words many have taken out of context to be the whole story. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tVzJtXab3p8 Hillary Clinton notes on her website: "As president, one of Hillary's first official actions would be to convene the Joint Chiefs of Staff, her Secretary of Defense, and her National Security Council. She would direct them to draw up a clear, viable plan to bring our troops home starting with the first 60 days of her Administration." But Senator Clinton, for whatever fault you may have with her, is not stupid. She knows full well the conditions in Iraq can change as rapidly as the wind, and there are certain conditions in which we may not be able to start bringing them home in the first 2 months of her presidency. That said, I believe both the Democratic candidates do want to start bringing the troops home and pursuing avenues of "success" other than military ones. So, back to John McCain "owning national security." I for one, would love to engage in a debate over who's views have a better chance of making the world a safer one. I don't deny that his military experience will be beneficial in that field, but not to the point where it overshadows the fact that many Americans are in fact, divided on how to best keep us safe. And not just us: the military brass as well. Keep in mind, this is a man who said of the inital invasion, "I believe we can win an overwhelming victory in a very short period of time." Well, I for one, find that judgment...underwhelming.