Black Box Report

I own how many homes???

So, John McCain can’t remember how many houses he owns...I’m sure you can relate. Happens to me all the time. Lots of people I know have that problem. After all, as Matthew Yglesias points out, it’s a tricky question:

I was wondering yesterday how it is that you manage to spend almost $4.7 million on a condo in Phoenix, and the answer turns out to be that the McCains bought two luxury condos and combined them. The $4.66 million figure is the combined price of his cribs.
......
This is one reason why it’s a bit unfair to tag McCain as out of touch for being unable to remember how many homes he owns. When one of your homes is really a combination of two different luxury condos the metaphysical status of your property comes into question.

And that's just his primary residence(s) in Phoenix. Then there's McCain's Hidden Valley Ranch in Sedona. It's just one piece of 15 acre property, but it has 6 houses. Then there's the condo in Virginia, a few in California; some he lives in, some are just investments and...well, you can see it gets hard to keep of them all. Someone should share this link with the AZ senator so he can keep his answer straight. Maybe one of those staffers who he pays good money to worry about these things so he and Cindy don't have to. After all, people of McCain's class have more important things to worry about. So cut him some slack:

We shouldn't judge him too harshly. After all, a man who wears $520 Italian loafers, owns a million dollar parking lot, thinks the baseline for rich is making $5,000,000 a year and whose wife is worth $100M really can't be expected to recall such petty details on the spot.

Besides, Obama eats arugula, drinks gourmet tea and vacations in Hawaii! And even if that also describes your average lower middle class California college student, who cares if John McCain can't remember how many homes make up his $13 million+ real estate portfolio? As we all know, only Democrats are elitist:

He could bathe in rivers of Evian on a platform composed of platinum and rhino bones, and it wouldn’t particularly matter because he likes to look gruff and he’s white and he wants to cut taxes. The fact that he’s entirely removed from virtually all knowledge of his housing situation in the midst of a nationwide housing crisis, however, isn’t room for any concern of elitism because [noun] [verb] [POW].

And right on cue...

"This is a guy who lived in one house for five and a half years -- in prison," spokesman Brian Rogers told the Washington Post.

That was Team Maverick's response to the Obama campaign's newest ad, which came out, like, minutes after this story broke.

For some reason, Democrats think this could provide an opening to hit McCain on:

McCain has opposed increases to the minimum wage, he opposes universal healthcare, and he blamed the housing crisis on homeowners. At the same time, McCain thinks the economy is strong, that Bush has been a good steward of the economy, and what the nation really needs is more tax cuts for millionaires…It's not about wealth and elitism; it's about being out of touch.

Because not knowing how many million dollar homes you own shows you're a true Man of the People.

Wealthy, out of touch people.

Seperated at Birth?

In 2006, Joe Lieberman was in a bit of a spot. His stubborn and increasingly vocal support for the Iraq War and perrenial thorn in Democrats' side had a lot of Connecticut Democrats fed up and ready to give Joe the heave-ho. Faced with a tight primary battle against newcomer Ned Lamont, Lieberman needed some Dem street cred and begged another popular newcomer, Barack Obama, to campaign for him. Two years later, this is how Lieberman repays a fellow Democrat's kindness:

WASHINGTON (AP) — A Republican official tells The Associated Press that Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman will be speaking at the Republican National Convention.

The GOP official said Wednesday that Lieberman would deliver a speech as Republicans gathered in St. Paul to nominate John McCain for president.

Like anyone didn't see that coming.

Like former Georgia senator Zell Miller before him, Lieberman has followed a career arc from moderate Democrat scold to an Iraq war supporting, Republican talking point machine, such that anytime a Democrat felt a knife in the back, Joe's name was usually on the handle. And that's as good as it gets for an audition to play in St. Paul:

Maybe Lieberman will reiterate his claim that Obama has not always put his country first. It's awfully valuable to McCain and the GOP to have a so-called Democrat leading with such a smear, and there apparently is nothing Lieberman won't do for his new buds.

But is there anything they won't do for Joe? Actually, there's quite a lot, and Joe shouldn't get too comfy with his new chums:

I hope that when Lieberman gives his speech...he realizes that the delegates cheering him on are the same people who'd be rioting in the streets if their party ever gave Lieberman anything more than a symbolic honor...Lieberman's only use to the Republicans is as a sideshow act; and he, of course, has no use anymore to Democrats...He truly is a man without a political home. So sad.

There's not much hope for Lieberman keeping his chairmanship of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Although Harry Reid has let Joe do his business in the Democratic Party punchbowl for so long, even this may not matter. As Open Left says:

I still remain skeptical that they will actually strip him of his committee chair, since it will demonstrate self-respect and a willingness to stand up to conservative Democrats.

One way or the other, come November 5th, expect Joe to have a little more time on his hands, and for the Homeland Security / Government Affairs Committee to actually get some work done. After all, there's not much of a reason for Harry Reid to do anything sooner than that:

If (Reid) pulls the trigger, Lieberman gets to…tout it as evidence that partisanship has gone too far, that he was deemed perfectly qualified and capable of serving the American people on those committees until he stepped out of line, and that McCain’s the only maverick in the race willing to bridge that divide and put country first.

Lieberman's going to do all that anyway, but at least he won't be able to throw the rest of the Senate Dems under the bus as well.

Again, that is.

And so Lieberman is going all in for McCain. He has no other choice, really. The Democrats are highly likely to pick up at least one seat in the senate, making Joe's agreement to caucus with them irrelevant. And once Joe's no longer a Democrat in any way, shape or form, he'll cease to be of any interest to the media that loves them some Democratic infighting. A McCain victory is Joe's only shot at maintaining any relevancy or power, either on a committee or as part of a McCain cabinet.

As for even higher aspirations, given Joe's speaking slot on the first day of the convention (not to mention his ostensibly pro-choice position), it probably rules him out as McCain's VP choice. But the Associated Press was still mentioning his name as a possibility as of yesterday, so who knows?

Debate continues as to whether or not that was a typo.

Making ALL Democrats happy is like herding cats; almost impossible and arguably not worth the effort. Something for Barack Obama to keep in mind when selecting a running mate, as almost all the names on his short-list have cons as well as pros. And at the top of that short list seems to be Tim Kaine:

Kaine would reinforce Obama’s qualities — they’re both young, smart, committed Christians, who don’t much care for the traditional ways of doing things in Washington.

What are the downsides? For one thing, there would be plenty of questions about Kaine’s experience in government. He’s worked his way up the ladder — four years as the mayor of Richmond, four years as Virginia’s Lieutenant Governor, and two-and-a-half years as governor — but by some measurements, that may not be considered a lengthy record.

On a related note, Kaine’s foreign policy experience is limited.

Putting aside Kaine's support for the Iraq War and views on abortion in line with George W Bush, there's certainly no danger of Kaine upstaging Obama on the stump. His previous instance of national exposure was giving the Democratic response to a State of the Union address a couple of years ago. To say it was painful to watch the Eyebrow of Doom in action is an understatement.

For a VP pick with more experience, TalkLeft suggests either Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh or Delaware's Joe Biden:

Biden and Bayh are longtime Washington figures...I think it is Kaine UNLESS Obama decides he needs "experience" in the VP slot...Between Bayh and Biden, it is true that Biden is gaffe prone, but he is an effective attack dog with a resume that allows him to attack John McCain on foreign policy. If (this) is what Obama decides he needs for his VP, I think Biden will be his choice.

If politicians were ice cream, Evan Bayh is practically the definition of "vanilla," while Smilin' Joe Biden is Ben and Jerry's "Everything But the Kitchen Sink." The Delaware senator is an effective pol and strong on foreign policy, but the chances of his mouth taking the Obama campaign far off course are huge. And let's not forget the Bush-Biden Bankruptcy Bill, for which many Democrats have yet to forgive him for.

Bayh, on the other hand, wouldn't make the waves Biden would and he's reliably liberal on most social issues. On the surface, there's a lot to like about Indiana's junior senator:

Bayh is super-popular in Indiana and could very well tip the state blue, he is another young and telegenic figure to add to the campaign, and he is a moderate centrist known for straddling the political divide on a number of issues.

Helping to foster an economic surplus for Indiana doesn't hurt either. And Lee Hamilton certainly seems to approve of the guy:

"Evan has a lot of experience," said Lee H. Hamilton, a former House member from Indiana and a respected Democratic elder. "He has got Hollywood good looks, and he speaks well. He would be very loyal."

Perhaps Obama could see his way to giving this nice Irish Setter Hoosier a home?

But then there's that "moderate centrist" bit. That should set off warning signals, because 99% of the time it's used as a beard for Republican-enabling Democrats:

Mr. Bayh's support of authorizing force in Iraq stands in sharp contrast to Mr. Obama's oft-stated view that he showed the good judgment to oppose the conflict from the start. After his vote, Mr. Bayh in early 2003 joined Mr. McCain as an honorary co-chairman of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, which made regime change in Iraq its central cause.

"He was not only wrong, he was aggressively wrong," said Tom Andrews, national director of the Win Without War coalition, referring to Mr. Bayh. "In my view, he would contradict if not undermine the Obama message of change, turning a new page on foreign policy and national security."

And that, my friends, is not change you can believe in:

One key to Obama's candidacy has been a general refusal to let the terms of the foreign policy debate be dictated by the GOP and a willingness to challenge Republican frames on national security. Bayh, by contrast, is a darling of the class of Democrats who leap through GOP frames whenever Republicans say "jump," like so many trained seals jumping through hoops.

When you lie down with dogs, you wake up with fleas, and in a close race, Obama can't afford to scratch. Or to pick someone who's currently repeating the same mistakes with Iran.

Bayh and Biden are both are consummate DC insiders. The outsider choices are the aforementioned Kaine and Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius:

Sebelius and Kaine are both governing choices, not campaign choices. They're not going to match Obama's enthusiasm levels...(or) do all that well at the VP debates...But they are solid; they are centrist-in-style; they are Washington outsiders; they know how to balance budgets and deal with Republicans.

A female VP not named Clinton? I'm sure her supporters will take that well. And so,...you knew it was coming..."Why not Hillary?"

I have asserted on numerous occasions that Hillary will not be Obama's running mate. And yet...It's not like any of the other apparent contenders are obvious choices (or would be perfect picks)...Of course, one can make a compelling and perhaps convincing case against Hillary...But I've warmed to her again since the primaries ended, and I think the case for her has gotten more compelling, not less, with time.

One big problem there? His name is Bill.

Bottom line, some Democrats aren't going to be thrilled no matter who Obama picks, as none of the contenders seems to be that perfect match. So go ahead and pick and send me the text message. With the convention a week or so away...tick tock. Time's a-wastin.

BLACK BOX PREDICTION: None of the Above

So, who wants a job, as John Nance Garner put it, that's "not worth a bucket of warm [spit]?" Quite a few people, actually. The office of Vice President of the United States has gone from being, in John Adams' time, "the most insignificant office that ever the invention of man contrived or his imagination conceived" to a fourth branch of government, accountable to no one, that plays by its own rules.

Pretty sweet gig, huh?

More than just ribbon cuttings, diplomat schmoozing, outing CIA agents and planning WWIV, the most tantalizing aspect of being Vice President is you have the inside track to your party's nomination should everything go well for eight years*. The fundraising practically takes care of itself; on the job training for the big chair; and you get to say the things to your political opponents that your boss can't say for not seeming "presidential."

So with the clock ticking towards both parties' conventions, it's time to look at who wants to be the co-pilot of the Straight Talk Express.

Last week, the McCain campaign, with an assist from Bob Novak, floated the rumor they were ready to announce any moment now, so stop paying attention to Obama and those hundreds of thousands of cheering Germans! Look at me! But of course that didn't happen, and Novak was left to console himself by running over a pedestrian.

As anticipation cranked up over when McCain would announce, the list of who he would announce got a little shorter. Rising GOP star, Governor Bobby Jindal took himself out of contention, saying he already had the job he wants (presumably he meant Governor of Louisiana, not professional exorcist).

Given McCain's sluggish fundraising and less-than-vigorous image, Beltway insiders say former rival Mitt Romney is near the top of the short-list. The Mason Conservative approves:

(Romney) is an exceptional choice in many respects, including bringing in a national figure to the ticket...He has also made all the right moves since leaving the race...becoming a vocal surrogate for McCain among conservatives...They differ, yes, but Romney seems to the embodiment of the compromise many Republicans have made with McCain.

The Sunshine Boys

But while Hugh Hewitt and Kathryn Jean Lopez are already swooning at the idea of Romney back on the national ticket, other conservatives are less than enthusiastic:

While choosing Romney to be his running mate would make Washington journalists happy, it would be nothing short of political suicide for McCain....
......
Romney's fans on the right like to believe that Romney lost because Mike Huckabee and Fred Thompson helped carve up the conservative vote, but it was only because of Romney's weakness among conservatives that either of them had an opening.

Although he presented himself as a full-spectrum conservative, Romney faced his share of detractors within each branch of the conservative movement. There were economic conservatives who opposed his universal health-care plan in Massachusetts, social conservatives who didn't think his conversion on abortion was sincere, and national security conservatives who had doubts about his lack of experience in foreign affairs.
......
To the extent that conservatives did rally around Romney toward the tail end of his campaign, it was mainly as a last ditch effort to prevent McCain from becoming the nominee. This is obviously now moot.

And how do liberals feel about the prospect of McCain/Romney '08?

MITTENS!!

OHPLEASEOHPLEASEOHPLEASEOHPLEASEOHPLEASEOHPLEASE

Because if there's anyone that flip-flops more than John McCain, it's Mitt Romney.

Blogger John Cole is convinced McCain will pick Jesus' Own Candidate, Mike Huckabee:

I know all the bobbleheads are talking about Pawlenty or Crist for McCain as VP, but for some reason I still think he is going to pick Huckabee. I think people are radically underestimating how important it is for McCain to be surrounded by people he likes...That is why I think he is going to choose Huckabee. He is comfortable with him, and with McCain, that is all that matters.

Meanwhile, the boys over at Powerline think McCain should go with someone with a little less baggage:

He should forget about trying to make a major splash with his selection for VP...and make his decision on the basis of credentials, respect and affinity. This, I assume, is what McCain wants to do anyway.

Who benefits from this approach?...Perhaps Tim Pawlenty. He's a bit of a nearly man himself in that I suspect he would help McCain nearly carry Minnesota. But Pawlenty has no apparent downside the way Romney, Huckabee, Ridge, Jindal, and others do...McCain named Pawlenty cochair of his campaign last year and we have every reason to believe that he thinks highly of him.

Indeed, the Minnesota governor's stock is on the rise among conservatives, token and otherwise:

I think Pawlenty is the most likely choice. Second choice is Romney, after very loud teeth-gnashing from McCain. You'll just be able to feel the love at the convention...Third choice is Charlie Crist. Of course, now that I've gone on record, McCain will probably pick...someone else no one is discussing.

Oh yes, I almost forgot. Newly married Florida governor Charlie Crist has also been mentioned as a potential running mate for the Republican nominee....

Not Gonna Happen.

But what about the unexpected choices? All those somebodies that no one is currently talking about? RCP gives the rest fo the field 10-1 odds:

We think there could still be a surprise or two left up McCain's sleeve. New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg is in Minnesota talking him up...Senator Joe Lieberman would be an off-the-wall pick to counter Obama picking, say, Nebraska's Chuck Hagel. When you need the news coverage, as McCain does, (their) odds go way up.

.......McCain/Lieberman '08???

The Dream Team

OHPLEASEOHPLEASEOHPLEASEOHPLEASEOHPLEASEOHPLEASE

BLACK BOX PREDICTION:

The first rule of picking a VP: First, do no harm. And to this extent, the Powerline boys got it right. While each of the more well known names brings something tangible to the table for McCain, they each bring too much baggage that outweighs their benefits. In this sense, Tim Pawlenty is liked by the (religious) right people, he's a red governor in a blue state for independent appeal, and as John Cole correctly pointed out, McCain likes surrounding himself with people who like (or at least flatter) him. As vanilla as they come, Pawlenty has no obvious hamstrings, although a VP announcement would have his closet stuffed with more skeleton-snooping journalists and oppo-researchers faster than you could say "Monkey Business." But he's safe, and given how well the Republican brand is regarded these days, for McCain, that's about as good as he can do.

As Good as it Gets

[* Unless you have a popularity approaching single digits, 50% lower than your historically unpopular boss and it's pretty clear the public would actually prefer a bucket of warm spit over you.]

On Sunday I saw the Tennessee church shooting story, and I suspect, like many of you, shook my head at yet another senseless shooting. Today, however, I learned what precipitated the hail of gunfire and that this was not a random act of madness but a calculated hate crime on a targeted population.

Most of us like to take pride in how far we’ve come in America. From our ugly, not too distant past, real progress has been made when it comes to racial and gender equality. You'd have to be an idiot to think we've leveled the playing field or scrubbed from our history the stain of slavery, but few will deny, slowly but surely we're getting there.

I wish I could say the same thing about homophobia. Being a bigot is no longer tolerated, but in too many places mocking gays still gets a laugh, and in some places the laughter is replaced with pure hate. Please don't kid yourself, that this was one sick wacko in Tennessee. Consider just this year the uncensored bile from elected officials and so called “men of god” when debating same sex marriage or repealing "don't ask, don't tell." It wasn't that, with every fiber of their being, they didn't and don't believe gays are equals; many of them believe it's okay to marginalize the population without any fear of being branded a bigot. Too often they're proven right. Gays are blamed for terror attacks, hurricanes, floods, droughts - I’m surprised the recession hasn't been pinned on them. And while we laugh at the nutjobs who point the fingers - we laugh.

We didn't laugh after Matthew Shepherd was murdered in Laramie and were not laughing after this tragedy in Tennessee. But lets not kid ourselves that because "Will and Grace" was popular or that most guys weren’t threatened by the "Fab Five", we've turned a corner on tolerance.

Too many people still think it's okay to hate.

So today was yet another iconic moment for barrack Obama. Instead of "yes we can", nearly a quarter million Germans heard the senator tell them "this our time." The elements have grown familiar; a moving backdrop, standing room only crowds, rousing address and then thunderous applause. His campaign is responsible for almost every indelible moment in this neverending election season, he's running at a time when the public is thirsting for change, his opponent is saddled with an unpopular president and war, and is, even by his own supporters admission, not exactly inspiring.

So why, if he's so hot and McCain anything but, is this race still a race? The Wall Street Journal put it best: “Midway through the election year, the presidential campaign looks less like a race between two candidates than a referendum on one of them -- Senator Barack Obama.”

The polls back it up; the latest numbers show Obama up six points, same as a month ago. And interestingly, by a two to one margin, voters are focused on what kind of a president Obama would be compared to McCain.

What I want to know is, what are they waiting for? I get the experience issue; two years ago the guy was going to work in Springfield, but what experience is actually a strong suit for McCain? Stay the course in Iraq? I can't see people lining up for that bumper sticker. Is it the color thing, or the unfamiliar name? I'm sure some people still get freaked out by a black guy in the oval office, and others still buying the smear campaign centered around Obama’s full name and the scary connotations they try to evoke, but that's not enough to explain why this race doesn't have a double digit spread.

The only thing I can think of is that people look at Obama like the new kid in school. So far he's friends with everybody from the jocks to the geeks, but a lot of the student body still isn't sure. Is he too good to be true or is he a breath of fresh air that every school, and country, needs?

His speech in Germany may be another step in convincing the skeptical but I think, for many, he still has a long way to go.

During his weekly radio address Saturday, President Bush said he "has great confidence that our economy will pull through this difficult period, because I have great confidence in the innovative spirit of the American people." That, my friends, is a lie.

Not the part of the American spirit, but the part about this Commander in Chief believing in our resolve. Consider the challenges we face today as a nation, and what we've been told to do in the face of that adversity. When we were attacked our fearless leader told us "go shopping." When Afghanistan wasn't enough, Bush did not tell us "we have nothing to fear but fear itself,” he told us to fear everyone including Iraq. If the spirit of the American people was never in doubt, why would we torture in secret prisons and trample on the Constitution while spying without warrants on those same Americans?

Right after Bush praised Americans’ can-do it spirit Saturday, he said if we truly want to solve the stranglehold the Middle East has on our energy, we'd push congress to let him drill offshore. Does he really believe we're that stupid? Instead of asking us to commit to a generational plan of renewable energies - full of vision, sacrifice and, I’m sure, trial and error - once again he says, “don't worry, be happy.”

How's that game plan working out for you?

George Bush did not create the financial crisis were knee-deep in, but he sure as hell fostered it. Every economic indicator is going in the wrong direction and possibly the most important one isn't making headlines.

A recent poll found an unprecedented level of doubt and pessimism among Americans, with the younger generation believing our best days are behind them.

That boundless spirit W talks about has been frittered away under his watch, because too many Americans have lost faith that someone is in charge, and that someone has their best interests in mind. The biggest failue of this administration isn't Iraq, Katrina, trashing our standing in the world or even the crumbling economy. The worst thing Bush and friends have done to us is, for the first time in a long time, we doubt we can do it. Bob Herbert wrote a column Saturday in the NY Times that summed it up:

When exactly was it that the U.S. became a can't-do society? It wasn't at the very beginning when 13 ragamuffin colonies went to war against the world's mightiest empire. It wasn't during World War II when Japan and Nazi Germany had to be fought simultaneously. It wasn't in the postwar period that gave us the Marshall Plan and a robust G.I. Bill and the interstate highway system and the space program and the civil rights movement and the women's movement and the greatest society the world had ever known.

Fast forward to today. Big ideas are too big, were told. Every problem's answer is tax breaks for the very folks who need it least and a pat on the head from our president who tells us it'll all be OK. We know it's not that easy, we know something has got to change. So here's our moment and our choice: if inspired leadership emerges do we reach for it? Do we make the tough, painful tradeoffs that make things better for our kids’ generation? Or do we follow our president's lead and keep passing the buck as we struggle to keep our heads above water? The time for happy talk and this president are over. Will we be the next greatest generation or just more of the same?

Our time is at hand.

When it comes to a policy on Iraq, the differences between John McCain and Barack Obama couldn't be more distinct. McCain wants to stay until an as-yet-undefined victory has been achieved. Obama wants to leave in roughly 16 months, and that will be victory enough. This weekend, as Obama prepared to embark on his Mideast trip, Iraq Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki essentially cut McCain's talking points off at the knees:

In an interview with Der Spiegel released on Saturday, Maliki said he wanted U.S. troops to withdraw from Iraq as soon as possible.

"U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes."

(Sound of needle scratching across the record)

Asked if he supported Obama's ideas more than those of John McCain, Republican presidential hopeful, Maliki said he did not want to recommend who people should vote for.

"Whoever is thinking about the shorter term is closer to reality. Artificially extending the stay of U.S. troops would cause problems."

Now which presidential candidate would that be? But wait, it gets even better:

"The Americans have found it difficult to agree on a concrete timetable for the exit because it seems like an admission of defeat to them. But it isn't," Maliki told Der Spiegel.

Ouch.

The Keystone Cops routine that followed was just as interesting, if not at all surprising. CENTCOM issued a release on behalf of the Prime Minister claiming Maliki had been “misunderstood and mistranslated.” What the mistakes were, no one would say. What Maliki supposedly actually said, no one knows. But rest assured, the Iraqi Prime Minister didn’t actually say that.

Except Der Spiegel stood by their story. An independent translation passed inspection. And two days later, Iraqi officials agreed, setting a goal of American troop withdrawal by the end of 2010, mere months difference from Obama’s stated goal.

It’s hard to underestimate how this changes the entire playing field of the presidential campaign. At the Atlantic, conservative blogger Marc Ambinder calls a game changer:

This could be one of those unexpected events that forever changes the way the world perceives an issue. Iraq's Prime Minister agrees with Obama, and there's no wiggle room or fudge factor. This puts John McCain in an extremely precarious spot: what's left to argue? To argue against Maliki would be to predicate that Iraqi sovereignty at this point means nothing.

Indeed. As Ambinder related in a later post, a Republican strategist who occasionally provides advice to the McCain campaign told him in an email, "We’re f***ed." And whether or not Maliki meant to act as an influence on American politics or was just reflecting his own political reality, either way, Maliki has put McCain between a rock and a hard place:

Either (McCain) endorses a timetable for withdrawal, which he has consistently said would be a disaster, and cedes his only big issue to Obama -- and more importantly, concedes that Obama's judgment is sound -- or he deliberately ignores the concerted, expressed wishes of the Iraqi government in order to prolong an unpopular war.

Unpopular here and in Iraq, hence Maliki's unprompted endorsement of Obama's time line table “horizon.” So what does McCain do? To get the ball rolling he went on the Today Show and said he and Gen. Petraeus know what's better for Iraq than the wogs and their democratically elected leader.

Q: If the Iraqi government were to say, if you were president, ‘we want a timetable for troops being removed,’ would you agree to that?

McCAIN: I’ve been there too many times. I’ve met too many times with him. And I know what they want. They want it based on conditions. And of course they’d like to have us out. That’s what happens when you win wars.

Even Hot Air calls the response tone deaf:

Where he gets in trouble is in his answer to the direct question about Maliki, dismissing the Spiegel interview by insisting “I know what they want” and thereby somehow managing to sound both arrogant and in denial at the same time...
...Suggesting that he, from his U.S. enclave, knows "what Iraqis want" more so than the prime minister is only going to make this worse.

Too late. Never ones particularly good at impulse control when it comes to their plans falling apart like wet Kleenex, the rightwing blogosphere is already making room for Maliki under the bus:

We should tell Maliki, loudly and in public, that he owes his job to us, and that further prosecution of our military operations in his country will be conducted with regard only to U.S. interests, as determined in consensus by our established domestic political processes. And if he doesn't like that, he can go to hell.

Perhaps now would be a good time for a refresher on the definition of “sovereignty.”

OK, maybe not. But since these Iraqis never did come through with those flowers and candy for our gracious act of invading, crippling and occupying their country...Have we mentioned how shifty the guy is?

As I've mentioned before, Maliki, of the Shiite Dawa Party which opposed the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq in the first place, has long-standing ties to Iran and Syria — and has expressed support for Hezbollah. The only thing that surprises me about this story is that anyone is surprised.

Nope. No surprise here. What Digby D-Day said:

There's just no way to spin this. Regardless of Maliki's motives, this is a total rejection of the McCain conservative position on Iraq. They never wanted to "win," they wanted to stay. And they are being told they have to leave.

Considering this effectively neuters McCain's position on Iraq and leaves him with...what, the economy? It's hard to see how this could be much worse for him.

But good news for the rest of us:

What's truly amazing about this turn of events is that it more and more looks like the Prime Minister of Iraq is going to help engineer regime change back in the US.

Regime change you can believe in.

There are nights when I feel like a broken record; oil prices setting new highs by the day, new housing reports with staggering foreclosure data, every day stories of people stretched to the breaking point, and too often beyond. Make no mistake, before it became vogue I’ve been warning against the economic hurricane that's fast approaching and the last thing I wanted was to be proven right. But that being said, this is America; if we keep our heads and finally get some sober leadership we can make it through even this. After all, we have seen worse.

The Great Depression saw the Wall Street crash where over two days the market fell by nearly a quarter. In one week the market lost ten times the amount of the annual budget of the federal government. As scary as IndyMac’s collapse and the spectre of another hundred or so banks possibly being on the watch list is nothing compared to what they saw in the early 30's, where 11,000 banks - nearly half of the banks in America - shut their doors. FDR famously declared a three day bank holiday when he told Americans "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself." America listened are we persevered.

In the 80"s we saw nearly 800 banks close because of the Savings and Loan crisis.

And when the dot com bubble burst 8 years ago, we saw huge selloffs in tech stocks and nearly $5 trillion in market value wiped out.

My point is not “don't worry, be happy.” In fact, I don't think we’ve seen in at least a generation the systemic mess that's staring at us today. But I do think we have weathered storms before. Perspective is important, and unfortunately, I think were going to need it.

The government may not want to face more market catastrophes, but if it was only that easy. In a classic bank run scenario, IndyMac could be just the beginning. According to one analyst, as many as 300 banks could fall within the next three years.

While the feds can't save everybody, they know they have to draw a line in the sand when it comes to Fannie and Freddie. But while extending hundreds of billions in credit and propping up the stock hopefully stops the bleeding, nobody thinks it cures the patient. The public is scared, confused and frustrated with a system and a marketplace that seems to be selling different truths by the week, changing rules on the fly and can't get its own act together. The feds had to rescue the twin mortgage giants, but just like everybody else in the financial sector they're infected with the sub-prime virus and really don't know just how bad they've got it.

Here's what I know. They're will be more writedowns, big ones at the biggest firms. More banks will close, and not just the mom and pop variety either. More people will be laid off and expect a lot more foreclosures.

What we don't know is how bad this will all get. If anybody knew mortgages, the thinking went, it was Fannie and Freddie. Now nobody thinks anybody really has a clue. Efforts to stabilize the market haven't worked and in an ominous sign treasury bills were being sold not bought, a sign investors aren't even running to the one sure thing they've always been able to count on.

Here's the scary part: they may be on to something. If Fannie and Freddie have to be saved at all costs, who do you think will do the saving? You got it: we the taxpayers! Don't believe the dummies who tell you debt and deficits don't matter; they do, and are already eating more and more of our budgets for just interest payments.

People are starting to get all the pieces of the puzzle - gas prices, credit crunch, housing crisis, layoffs...etc. They don't like the picture that's coming together.

I don't know the prescription for recovery, but I do know it won't be quick and painless. The faith and confidence of the public is shaken and if our leaders aren't careful the next shoe that drops will turn that fear into something worse. These are perilous times.