Is it just me, or is there an element of "it's like deja vu all over again" going on here?  Specifically, some speculate that the reason Saddam Hussein let the the world believe he had WMDs when, in fact, he did not, is because he could not bring himself to concede that he'd been bluffing all along.  Hence, the elaborate ruse, giving the appearance of having greater might and capabilities than actually existed.  So, what are the chances that Iran -- with its desire to emerge as the local super power in the region -- has adopted the same strategy?  Just a thought . . .

The tone and volume of what passes for political or social discourse these days (and, largely, at least since the early days of the Clinton presidency) suggests plain, old-fashioned intolerance, reactionary and self-centered priorities, and bigotry in all its forms, not merely racial. The scandal is not that it is out there, but the extent to which those with their own personal agendas abet and encourage its proliferation without blunt and aggressive challenge from American conservatives (that is to say, those with an abiding devotion to democratic principles). With Mr. Obama's election, however, the facade of false civility and respectful debate is finally stripped away, exposing these parasites for what they really are: 21st Century, home-grown Brown Shirts. One heard a great deal of bleating and chest pounding about "American values and traditions" during last weekend's million mad-man march. What strikes me as noteworthy -- but, into which I, perhaps, read too much -- is the subtle turn of the phrase. That is to say: "American" has replaced "democratic" as the lead-in to "values and traditions". It may be hyper-sensitive parsing, but I suggest that the angry mob and its cheerleader enablers have dropped all pretense of adherence to, or promotion of, democratic values and traditions. Their conduct and speech betray what is becoming increasingly apparent: these are decidedly not people who are interested in preserving, let alone promoting democracy in any form. As a result, for the first time since the late sixties it is possible to imagine that the Union may, indeed, be at risk.

Here I am, scanning the headlines on TPM, and I read "Putin May Run for President in 2012". Then I wonder: first, would he really have a shot at the Republican nomination; and, second, assuming he prevails, will he pick Sarah Palin as his Veep?
The former is, of course, a good bet since, after all, he is rigid, backward-looking, and believes in an overbearing, secretive and amoral domestic security apparatus. That is to say, he would appeal to a lot of current Republicans, and would be a huge hit with the GOP's last U.S. pres- ... I mean, vice-president.
On the question of whether he would pick Ms. Palin? "Are you nuts?", I think to myself.  It's a natural!  First, they are practically neighbors. In fact, it's a good bet that Mr. Putin can see Sarah Palin's house from his country. Since Ms. Palin once claimed that she knew all one needed to know about international affairs because, after all, she could see Russia from her back yard, a Putin-Palin ticket would seem, well, destined. (Not to mention that "Putin-Palin" sounds pretty snappy. Just think of the jingles and slogans it will inspire.)
But, alas, it would never happen. Ms. Palin would have to break promises and turn her back on speaking, campaign and policy commitments to run again.  And, if there is one thing we know about Sarah, it is this -- she would never place her own ambition and self-interest ahead of previous promises and commitments.
So, Putin -- if he really does run and get the nomination-- will just have to find someone else to be his GOP running mate.
Hmmmm ... I wonder what Joe Wilson will be doing in 2012.

That words have meaning is too often overlooked by speakers who throw words around without regard for the consequences of their use.  On the other hand, some are all-too aware of the meaning of the words they select, intending disingenuously to imbue their message with a positive glow that belies it.
As president Obama steps into the lair with the lions of the insurance, pharmaceutical and medical lobbies, we can only hope that he is not so determined to achieve sweeping "reform" of the U.S. health care and insurance systems that he forgets the difference between it and "change".
The Merriam-Webster On-line Dictionary defines "reform", in part, as:
1 a: to put or change into an improved form or condition b: to amend or improve by change of form or removal of faults or abuses2: to put an end to (an evil) by enforcing or introducing a better method or course of action3: to induce or cause to abandon evil ways <reform a drunkard>

One of my most vivid recollections from the Nixon impeachment proceedings was the look on the face of then-Congressman Paul Sarbanes when the roll call reached him on the first Article.  As he voted in the affirmative, Sarbanes' entire demeanor -- his countenance, if you will -- betrayed not partisan delight, self-righteousness, or self-importance; it betrayed the crushing weight of the congressman's appreciation for what his vote -- and the vote of the majority of the House Judiciary Committee -- signified.  
In stark contrast to the smug, gleeful crew that cast their votes for the impeachment of Bill Clinton 25+ years later, Sarbanes seemed almost dazed, not able to believe what was going on, or the role he was playing in the moment.  As he uttered his assent, it was as though he could barely get the word out.  The sheer effort required to say "yes" (or "aye" -- I do not recall which) was almost too much for him.  Yet, he knew all-too-well what was unfolding, and what it meant for the nation.
That was not unlike my impression of John McCain's multiple exchanges with different supporters yesterday.  Even after several rewinds, I doubt -- as some might suggest -- his expression betrays petulance or anger at having to knuckle-under to a handler's instructions to, in effect, "get out there and eat some humble pie."  I think it's more complicated than that.
The knowledge that his quest for the White House is slipping away is hard enough for him to swallow.  The realization that he bears almost sole responsibility for failing is harder, still.  But, what may be even worse is the knowledge that the loss of a political contest pales in comparison to the contributing role played by his abandonment of core principles that defined him for so long.
McCain once told a friend that his experience with the "Keating Five" scandal was worse than the five years he spent in a North Vietnamese prison camp because, in the case of the latter at least, he was able to retain his honor.
Reportedly, George McGovern was at his best in the last three weeks of his campaign for the presidency.  He knew that it was over -- that Nixon and his crew were going to hand him a crushing defeat.  Instead of pouting, stewing or lashing out, McGovern felt liberated by that knowledge.  His acceptance of his fate freed him to say whatever he felt like saying, and simply being himself.

I can't imagine too many people who would willingly trade places with John McCain between now and November 4.  The tangle of emotions he is likely to endure will undoubtedly make him a singularly unpleasant human being for that stretch and, probably, beyond.  Or, not.  It all depends on what he's really made of.

CNN's Kyra Phillips would do well to track-down Bonnie Anderson and BEG for a lesson-or-two in preparation before embarking on her next assignment. While she's at it, she might also consider taking notes and tucking them under her pillow before retiring for the night. Finally, someone needs to teach her (and, for that matter, most of her colleagues) how to pose a question calculated to draw information and relevant responses from her subject. (Sadly for her, Ms. Phillips seems to have watched one-too-many Tim Russert interviews during the course of her training.)
Memo to Kyra: It is NOT about you! Watching the video of her Fox-News-Moment with Gen. Petraeus was painful, but regrettably familiar, as she posed her "question" (such as it was). Her O'Reillyesque preface was so laden with editorial comment, regurgitated second-hand hearsay, and erroneous premises that when the General finally had a chance to respond, I almost expected him to say: "I'm sorry. What was your question, exactly?" Fortunately for her and CNN, he kept his dignity, passing up what must have seemed an almost irresistible chance to humiliate her. (One imagines that the almost incomprehensible question presented what soldiers refer to as "a target-rich environment.")
At least one of the two people on-camera knew how to handle the moment.