Black Box Report

It was uncharacteristic, almost spooky. Watching President Bush yesterday respond to the failure of the immigration bill was like seeing a different man. Gone was the cocky assurance, the smug banter with the press, even the petulance when things don't go his way. Over at Crooks and Liars, Steve Benen (who seems to be blogging everywhere these days) put it this way:

The president looked like a man who's been defeated. Bush had power, control, and the ability to tell Congress what to pass and when to pass it. Watching him meander, sadly, through his press statement, I kept thinking, "He's lost it all and he knows it."

The Decider can now only decide what he wants, not what he'll get.

As his second term draws to a limping close, you get the feeling that Bush sees his ability to control not just Congress, but his own legacy, slowly slipping away:

Bush emerged from reelection with four main domestic priorities for his second term, as identified by Rove and other aides: He planned to reinvent Social Security to allow investment of some funds in the stock market, overhaul the tax code from top to bottom, bring millions of illegal immigrants out of the shadows and impose tough new curbs on what he called excessive litigation. He is now almost zero-for-four.

Have I mentioned governing is hard work? And if the conservative base is not exactly feeling his pain after their rebellion on his immigration plan, Bush really isn't getting sympathy in other areas either:

The 4th or 5th defeat of the immigration bill yesterday also turned out to be the unceremonious death of President Bush's second term...Sad story, really, to see his legacy reduced to the stacking of the entire federal judiciary with lunatic ideologues and a probably decades-long commitment to occupying an unfriendly middle eastern nation in the midst of an ethnic civil war.

Yes. That is rather sad. For all of us. Sadder still is that, in addition to his legislative impotence, the pressure of his looming consignment to the dustbin of history seems to be getting to him. In a speech yesterday at the U.S. Naval War College, Bush held up Israel as a model for Iraq, as a democracy that can function with heavy continual violence.

Let me reiterate. The #1 enemy of Middle Eastern Arabs, a country that is itself home to millions of disenfranchised Arabs, is what this fledgling Iraqi democracy should strive for....

Now, just the other week, I said the following about what was, at the time, the administration's latest submission for Worst Historical Analogy Ever:

But on the bright side, we're using Northern Ireland as our template for success. When the administration starts drawing comparisons to Israel and Palestine, THEN you can really start to panic.

I swear to God, I was kidding. It was a joke! I never thought he would....

So while I hit the panic button, Josh Marshall puts words to my forehead slap:

That should go over well...We'll have succeeded in Iraq when it's like Israel. Where do they come up with these guys? Which speech writer wrote that? Sometimes stupidity rises to the level of a high crime.

If it is a high crime, can we impeach him for stupidity?

At least before he compares Iraq to, say, Somalia?

In a debate that didn't seem to change the pecking order much, there were still some clear, if unconventional, winners in last night's Democratic Presidential Forum at Howard University, moderated by PBS' Tavis Smiley. (See video here). For the candidates, Clinton and Obama got the lion's share of applause, as well as the most reviews claiming each had done the best. But PBS' in-house focus group may have been less clear about who won:

According to a focus group presided over by longtime GOP pollster Frank Luntz, Hillary Clinton came out the winner of the debate by a landslide. On the other hand, the verdict from this debate might not be worth much - the same focus group participants crowded around Barack Obama after the debate, with one yelling, "We'll see you in the White House."

Gee. A Republican pollster's focus group of a Democratic debate may not be worth much? Color me shocked. But perhaps their confusion arises from the fact that both frontrunners had strong, if vary different, performances. Chris Cillizza contrasts their styles:

Clinton has repeatedly emphasized what she has worked to accomplish while in the Senate. On HIV, Hurricane Katrina recovery and several other issues, Clinton has made sure the audience at Howard and watching on television knows she has been there and done that. It's no surprise as Clinton's strongest point over Obama is her experience versus his inexperience.

Obama, on the other hand, has sought to paint nearly every question in broad terms -- focusing on the big challenges that face the country. Obama has "the vision thing" down pat, and the more he can focus the debate on his plans to fundamentally change the political debate and dynamic in the country, the better he does.

Imagine, choosing nominees based on "Experience" Vs. "Vision" instead of "who's going to build the biggest Gitmo?"

Another winner from last night was the African American community as a whole. Between Obama giving voice to some hard truths about homophobia, his and other candidates' responses to yesterday's Supreme Court ruling on school integration, to Hillary's rousing contrast of reactions to the HIV epidemic among African American females if it were among white women ages 25-34, the African American community got to hear candidates address issues that effect them personally. Which was appropriate, since they may well effect some of the candidate's chances come next year:

It’s no secret that African-Americans, one of the most loyal component groups of the Democratic coalition, have been short-changed historically when it comes to choosing the party’s presidential nominee. In the run-up to this forum, organizers played up its “historic” status, the first time a panel exclusively comprised of minorities would question presidential candidates in a nationally-televised event. And that was fitting, because the African-American vote figures to be more crucial in the ’08 nominating process than ever before. Yes, Iowa and New Hampshire are still early heavyweights, but the South Carolina Primary, in which about half of the Democratic electorate in black, could be unusually decisive next year, perhaps breaking a tie when the candidates emerge from Iowa and New Hampshire (and Nevada, too).

And,in contrast to the previous debates, the real winners last night were anyone who watched:

It was the first debate in which education was discussed in any detail, it was the first debate to talk about AIDS policy, it was the first to address mandatory minimums, the war on drugs, and flaws in the criminal justice system. The first two debates had eye-rolling questions about an official U.S. language and a series of raise-your-hand inquiries, but this debate...skipped the nonsense.

Oh, you just wait. There'll be more nonsense soon...

You want impressive? Barack Obama will show you impressive. As the second quarter for campaign fundraising comes to a close, Obama's campaign is within a hair's breadth of a quarter of a million unique donors. There's a word for that kind of green gathering:

The number 250,000 is in and of itself quite impressive...Consider that he did that in 6 months, that is even more impressive...When you crunch those numbers that means that he has recruited an average of over 1,380 new donors EVERY DAY this year.

Impressive you say.

...I don't care whether you call it a movement or not, moving that many people to donate on a daily basis is incredible.

And when you compare it to Howard Dean, it's really impressive:

By comparison, Howard Dean's campaign, which had set a new standard for grassroots fundraising, claimed about 70,000 donors for the first two quarters of 2003. Political watchers...had expected a significant boost from the 104,000 Obama reported in the first quarter, which had been impressive in itself. But this increase is about triple the predictions.

Meanwhile, others are off crunching the numbers of the average donation amount and declare this to be really, REALLY impressive:

The Clinton people have already stated that they've raised about $27 million, so unless they're purposefully low-balling it seems like Obama has out-raised Hillary by $10 million. Considering what institutional and fund-raising juggernauts the Clintons are, that's mighty impressive.

Now, it's still early yet, Hillary is still in the lead, and anything can happen, but you take a look down the road, factor a few other variables into account and Obama's numbers look really, really, REALLY........oh, you get the idea:

In the polls, Obama has stalled for a while, up against the Clinton machine and her massive name recognition among the party faithful. But America's Cory Aquino must be somewhat rattled by the breadth of Obama's support, especially given Clinton's own sky-high negative ratings and Obama's much lower name-recognition. If he's doing this well despite being unknown in any detail by many, how much better will he be doing by the fall?

Call it a hunch, but I'm going to go with....impressive?

The Senate immigration reform bill is like Julius Caesar. It's like disco. It's like a stuffed parrot. It's dead, Jim. And the hardline conservatives are enjoying their victory lap. Michelle Malkin gives an Academy Award-like speech and thanks all the little people for her award this victory for America:

Thanks to the stalwart, true leaders in the Senate — especially Sens. Sessions, DeMint, Vitter, Inhofe, Cornyn, and their staffs. Thanks to the House GOP members who made their opposition known. Thanks to the Loud Folks on the right side of the dial. Thanks to the Loud Folks at The Corner, RedState, Human Events, Townhall, Kaus, N.Z. Bear, my colleagues at Hot Air, and all the enforcement-first bloggers out there who weighed in. Thanks to the analysts at the Heritage Foundation, the enforcement/assimilation proponents at The Manhattan Institute......

(orchestra vamp)

...George Borjas, Kris Kobach, Eagle Forum, 9/11 Families, FAIR and Numbers USA. Thanks to the immigration enforcement activists who’ve been at this for years and decades before this one battle......

...I'm sorry, but we have to keep all acceptance speeches short this year. I hope she enjoys the statuette.

But in the midst of all the rightwing backpatting over this victory for America, The Moderate Voice asks, what exactly did we win?

Opponents have not, as yet, proposed any practical alternative ideas for how to address the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants residing in the United States. That number will certainly grow, as backers of the bill predict it will not be possible to revisit the issue until after the 2008 elections.

So while the champage corks ricochet on the right, those that opposed the status quo - whether or not they supported the bill, they wanted something done - have some thank-you's of their own:

So, here we are again: the Senate’s vote today is a vote for more of the same for another two years before they even entertain the further discussion this so-called issue of national security...

...Some “emergency”, eh? It was an “emergency” to pass The USA Patriot Act; it was an “emergency” to pass The RealID Act; it was an “emergency” to fence the American People themselves IN by requiring a passport to travel even to Mexico and Canada, but it’s not really an “emergency” to keep al-Qaida from strolling across our borders with dirty bombs and backpack nukes? Makes a helluva lot of sense, doesn’t it?

The Senate, the President of the Senate (psst...Dick Cheney), Congress, and the President of the United States have failed the American People again, and what was their collective, bottom-line excuse for this again? Oh, yeah — “cheap strawberries”.

But don't worry, America! The Guardians Against ¡Reconquista! have vowed to work dilligently to continue the struggle and finally come up with a solution to the immigration scourge! They will insist that each and every one of their demands are met (fence, deportations, punishment for citizens who don't fence or deport) until they have a bill that's not a traves-shamnesty. And if they're not then, by Jingoism!, they'll just hijack the next bill too and vow that their final solution will be coming soon! They will not rest!!! To save our way of life!!!1! After several more cycles of this (well into the next President's administration or until they're somehow marginalized out of Congress), we will come to recognize this period of time between bill proposed --> hyperventilation/rage --> bill death as colloquial term, like the Friedman Unit. (a Malkin Minute? I'm open to suggestions...) But they're problem solvers, these people. They know how to take a bad situation and make it better.

I know, I'm not holding my breath either.

Finally, the Carpetbagger Report takes a look at the loser's circle, and find it stretches allll the way around to encompass...the winner's circle:

* President Bush: The president couldn’t rally support from Republicans, a failure which ultimately did the legislation in. The result makes the White House look even weaker and more ineffective than it did, say, last week....

* John McCain: The presidential hopeful put his neck on the line to fight for immigration legislation that the GOP base hated. McCain gets the worst of all worlds — he couldn’t lead his own Republican colleagues well enough to get his bill through the Senate, and Republican activists resent him for even trying. In the end, McCain has nothing to show for his efforts except weaker support from those who vote in presidential primaries.

* Conservative critics of the status quo: Most on the right are understandably thrilled with today’s developments. They fought hard to kill the bill, and by all appearances, they succeeded. But they may ultimately regret it...A hard-line conservative bill won’t magically replace the legislation they just killed...

Obstruction is easy. Governing is hard. And the biggest losers here are Americans who wanted something done by their government.

She's baaaaaack!

Ann Coulter yesterday cointinued to do what she does best. Get her mug on the teevee and say something rude, vulgar and relevant to nothing in particular. From her appearance on Monday's Good Morning America

Coulter continued: "So I've learned my lesson. If I'm going to say anything about John Edwards in the future, I'll just wish he has been killed in a terrorist assassination plot."

And once again, she proves that there is literally nothing a rightwing pundit can say that won't get the "liberal" media to invite them back time and time again:

I can’t help but equate Coulter with some kind of social cancer. As with real cancer, ignoring it won’t make it go away; it tends to make it worse.

TV producers, desperate for viewers, apparently believe it’s worthwhile to broadcast her disgusting tirades, which in turn spreads the cancer further. The goal, then, isn’t to ignore Coulter, it’s to somehow convince responsible “news” outlets that she should no longer be considered part of the civilized American discourse.

What do you think would happen if, say, Michael Moore called for the assassination of Rudy Giuliani? Would there be hyperventilating on the right? Oh, there would be teh hyperventilating! AMERICAblog points out the different standard that applies to Coulter:

If you or I said this, we'd be arrested. And we certainly wouldn't be given TV time on ABC, NBC or any other show than FOX. Why did NBC let her on the show after this? Why would anyone? This woman is the biggest book seller, biggest TV personality, and biggest public speaker of the Republican party. She represents everything that has gone wrong with that party, and the reason why so many of us have left it.

Now a few months ago, Coulter called Edwards a sexual slur. Many conservative bloggers at the time were suitably embarrassed and tried to distance themselves from her. But things are tough for the GOP these days, and now they're circling their wagons around one of their own:

If Elizabeth Edwards doesn't like Ann Coulter and other conservative pundits taking shots at her husband, she should tell the Silky Pony to retire from politics. Politics is a nasty, rough, smash-mouth game and quite frankly, people on her side of the aisle are primarily responsible for it being that way...

If the Breck Girl can't stand up to Ann Coulter, what makes anyone think he can take on Al-Qaeda? Get out from behind your wife's skirt and start fighting your own battles, pretty boy.

That's John Hawkins, consultant to Republican presidential candidate Duncan Hunter, who apparently has never heard the name Rush Limbaugh in his entire life. And then there's the blog Sweetness and Light, who considers wishing for the assassination of a public figure to be a sublime form of humor, and that the real crime here is Elizabeth Edwards daring to confront Coulter on air:

They're called "jokes" Liz. You know, like your husband...

And yet they are the ones using the Nazi-like tactics. Like arranging to ambush a person with an unexpected telephone call while they are on a live television program.

Two things:

1) Like Peter Pan's shadow, humor continues to elude the right.

2) For a rightwing, vulgar polemecist who contributes exactly nothing in the way of humor OR insightful political analysis, the last thing they want is for someone to actually confront them and call them out for being the horrible people they are. Elizabeth Edwards did what Chris Matthews should have done if he wasn't busy letting Coulter glide unchallenged from one mendacious talking point to the next.

They can dish it out, but they can't take it.

Republican senators Lugar and Voinovich take a stand against Bush and the Perpetual Iraq War Waiting Game! Oooooo! The tide is turning! This will really force Bush to straighten up and fly right! The dam is breaking! The people have spoken! Etc! At least that's how some people see it:

TIPPING POINT:

Mark my words: Remarks made on the Senate floor by Republican Senator Richard Lugar (Ind) yesterday has marked a historic tipping-point for the Iraq war that will reverberate, if not in July, than in September. Count on it.

Certainly the pro-war crowd has turned against the heretics for no longer sharing their fantasy that Iraq is making progress.

A number of Republican senators and representatives seem to be in a powerful hurry to declare the "surge" a failure -- nearly three months before the military assessment of its success. It truly makes one wonder what they fear most: defeat or victory?

The enemy of my enemy is my friend, no? So does this mark a sea change in the Iraq War discussion? Is Republican support for Bush's excellent Iraq adventure finally starting to crack? Is this - because the major networks dare to ask the question - "The Turning Point?"

The answer is: No, of course not. Don't be silly. Nothing has changed. There are two reasons for this. The first is that talk is cheap when you're not willing to put your money where your mouth is:

Democrats had a bill that passed congress that would have substantially rolled back the war. Bush vetoed it. The GOP helped Bush sustain that veto. When Republicans want to revisit that legislation and vote to override Bush's veto, then they'll be breaking with Bush on Iraq. Until then, both the ones talking a good game and the ones talking a bad one are, in fact, backing the president.

Despite their "bold stance" here against Bush, both Lugar and Voinovich aren't willing to actually DO anything about getting troops out of Iraq. Which makes their "bold stance" worth about as much as a bucket of warm spit. From the Post:

Lugar's spokesman Andy Fisher said the senator wanted to express his concerns publicly before Bush reviews his Iraq strategy in September...

However, Fisher said the speech does not mean Lugar would switch his vote on the war or embrace Democratic measures setting a deadline for troop withdrawals.

And then there's the other reason, considerably funnier than the first: They make it sound as if they actually think Bush will listen to them:

Surely Senator Lugar and other Republicans must realize by now that as long as George W. Bush is free to conduct the war at his discretion, he will make no substantive changes in Iraq policy. Congress can pass resolutions till the cows come home; if there are no binding dates or other non-discretionary benchmarks and no veto-proof majority, Bush will ignore them.

A likely reason for this kabuki show, then, is it lays the groundwork for the Republicans' cover story, their beard, as it were. It works like this: Lugar's not up for re-election, so his local base can go whistle. As the ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Lugar's name has the proper weight for the network anchors to start asking if this is a "turning point" (because if only Democrats and a vast majority of the public are behind something, that doesn't count.) Then, with the Sensible Dick Lugar openly questioning the Iraq War and the Charlie Gibsons laying down cover fire, blue-state Republicans who are scared of going the way of the dodo can spend the next year or so singing the same tune about how there needs to be a change in Iraq policy - and here's the catch - without actually doing anything about it.

Sensible Dick Lugar plays his role; the Voinoviches and the Warners play their roles; and the media plays theirs.

And still nothing gets done.

So they can spare us the hand-wringing, the furrowed brows of concern and the cries of their panged consciences. Action talks, and you know what walks.

As arrogant and offensive as Dick Cheney’s latest actions may be, there's a part of this story I think we’re all missing. Where's Bush?

While Cheney is thumbing his nose to Congress and the Constitution, he once again has made himself the story, and an unwelcome one at that. So for two days, the news cycle is fixated on a Vice President who believes he is his own branch of government, above the law.

Now maybe I’m missing something, but when exactly did the roles get reversed? When did W start working for Dick? Can you imagine for a second George Sr. pulling this move on Reagan? The Great Communicator would have summoned W's dad to the Oval Office for a none too pleasant fireside chat, made him turn over the papers then send him on a diplomatic mission to Iceland to teach him a lesson.

Despite unprecedented incompetence our Vice President has, and continues to enjoy, unprecedented authority in an administration crying out for somebody with a clue, let alone a hint of humility.

If our President doesn't want to become the earliest lame duck in recent history, he may want to start by taking a walk down the hall and reminding an old friend who works for whom.

Those anti-Kerry ads from a little while back were put out by groups known as the Swift Boat Veterans and POWS for Truth. And come 2008 -- they're not going away.

The Huffington Post says that John McCain is pretty money-hungry these days, and this morning the “maverick” had breakfast with one of the guys who was in those ads. Vietnam vet Paul Galanti threw $1,000-a-person gig. If you remember, McCain criticized those commercials back in 2004. But apparently money talks these days for the Arizona senator. The blog says it best: that's how low McCain is willing to go.

Regardless of one's politics, until recently you didn't have to like John McCain but you did have to respect him. Lately though, he's turned into just another politician, developing convenient amnesia as he stands shoulder to shoulder with the bottom feeders who smeared he and his family back on the 2000 campaign trail.

As bad as that was, this week he sank even further - for one decorated Vietnam vet to turn on another - as McCain most certainly has by lying down with the Swift Boat Vets - is as unbelievable as it is distasteful.

While I haven't often agreed with John McCain, I’ve always admired that he put principle above politics. I miss that John McCain.

With vast implications for the 2008 race, yesterday's Supreme Court ruling on campaign finance reform as pertains to issue ads was seen by many as being a victory for conservatives who have hated the McCain-Feingold bill from the very beginning. But for some conservative blogs like RedState, it wasn't a big win for campaign finance deregulation at all:

It's a defeat, a serious defeat, brought about by the hands of the two most recent appointments to the Court...McCain-Feingold is wrong and unAmerican...Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito could have overturned that monstrosity of a decision...They chose instead to perpetuate Congress and the FEC and the Court's power to decide what you can and cannot say, in ads, before a federal election.

Conservatives lambasting Supreme Court justices for not legislating from the bench. A sense of irony, not to mention self-awareness, is not their strong suit. Others see both good and bad in the ruling:

The intent of McCain-Feingold was to bring an order of confidence back to a political system that a lot of ordinary voters believe is beyond their ability to meaningfully influence...

Still, no one should be comfortable allowing government agencies the broad latitude to set acceptable parameters of speech, particularly around an election. The court has historically been right when it favors more, not less speech.

On the other hand—let’s make no mistake—Wisconsin Right to Life will use this ruling to pursue its goals which are based on the premise that women are chattel, and that government agencies should be given broad latitude to suppress reproductive freedom rights. The conservatives Bush has appointed to the bench hope to see to that.

Because no one could have imagined this decision might have unintended consequences.

So yes, it does all boil down to an issue of free speech, and in general more free speech is good, less is bad, etc. But as the SCOTUSblog points out, while the speech might be free, it's not necessarily equal:

Beginning in 1996, corporations and unions began to circumvent the restriction with impunity by purporting to engage in "issue-related" speech that ostensibly was not designed to affect elections, but that quite manifestly had the purpose and, more importantly, the effect of doing just that. BCRA (McCain-Feingold bill - edit.) closed this loophole, and the Court's decision in McConnell preserved the 60-year-old rule.

Today's decision in effect eviscerates that 60-year-old rule for all practical purposes -- it overrules Austin in all but name, and for the first time in 60 years establishes a constitutional regime in which corporations are entitled to the same First Amendment protections as individuals, notwithstanding that, as the Court stressed in Austin, corporations' "voice" in public debate is magnified considerably by virtue of numerous advantages that state law provides to such artificial entities.

Indeed, blogger Digby puts her tongue firmly in cheek and praises the court for restoring the voices of the downtrodden and helpless:

So the Supremes took a strong stand for the First Amendment today and stood up for the right of little guy corporations, aggrieved rich guys and voiceless conservative special interests to influence elections with misleading advertising. The first amendment is sacred and shouldn't be tampered with for any reason. God bless America.

Well, not exactly. The words "bong hits for Jesus" aren't covered because they could be construed as promoting something that some people think is bad. (At least if you are under eighteen years old.) I'm awfully impressed with the intellectual consistency of the Roberts Court so far, how about you?

So remember, lying about a presidential candidate's military record? That's free speech. A high school student's banner - not on school property - that says "Bong hits for Jesus" for the sole purpose of getting attention? Not so much.

Some speech is freer than others.

It's kind of neat seeing all this attention focused on Vice President Cheney, like the Washington Post's week-long expose. I mean, he's only been doing these things for 6 1/2 years with only the barest glimmer of curiosity from the press, but hey, better late than never. And now that people are starting to pay attention, it seems like, yes, all roads to the Oval Office do indeed flow through Dick Cheney. Shakespeare's Sister gives us one repulsive example:

Cheney maneuvered around any possible objections (such as, say, the secretary of state and national security adviser) in order to secure for America the right to torture and use extraordinary rendition against anyone the president wanted to...He will go down as the most influential vice president in American history, but it's doubtful his influence will be viewed as anything but malign.

Apparently even Cheney's legal staff thought his suggestion of threatening to bury someone alive was a little too "robust". But it's not just torture policy that had Dick's fingerprints on it, but economic policy as well:

The same traits that served Cheney, Bush and the country so badly in the realm of national security -- inflexible attachment to rigid principles, a push to win internal policy debates at all costs -- worked out better in the economic realm, where...there's a lot of incentive to abandon principles for mushy compromises, buying opponents and political capital with taxpayer money. One can dispute Cheney's principles -- the solution to everything is tax cuts for the wealthy! -- but it's hard to fault the dogged determination and bureaucratic skill with which he pursued them.

A year or so into Bush's first term, the idea of Bush being the junior in short pants while Cheney held the real power was dismissed as a joke, just ravings from the hippy left. Ha ha ha! And we all had a good laugh. And now? From Obsidian Wings:

We can complain all we want about Cheney, but the real story...is what a non-entity Bush has been during the course of his presidency. Bush outsourced the big, historical decisions of our age to an ad hoc, invisible institution known loosely as Cheney's Office and stood by and did nothing while they wrecked everything they touched.

So. He's large, in charge, and if you disagree he'll shoot you in the face and then make YOU apologize for it. Will anyone stand up to him? As a matter of fact, yes. Democratic Rep. Rahm Emmanuel is on the case:

If Cheney's a member of the legislative branch, the Democratic Caucus chair suggests, the vice president won't need all the money that currently goes to pay for his executive office, extensive staff and that secure undisclosed location that is so often his haunt. So Emanuel plans this week to offer an amendment to a spending bill that would defund the Office of the Vice President.

Cartoon super-villains are always clever, but often too clever for their own good.

Spend enough time around the liberal blogosphere, and you'll see it, a single phrase that pops up regularly, usually as the title of a post, often consisting of a single link. "What Digby said." Digby, in this case, is the previously anonymous blogger at Hullabaloo, and someone I've quoted on RNN many times. This week at the Take Back America conference, the Paul Wellstone Citizen Leadership Award was awarded to the Progressive blogosphere in general, and accepted in person on their behalf by Digby. While finding bloggers large and small throughout the blogosphere to sing Dugby's praises is not difficult, BAG News Notes sums up nicely why she was given this honor:

As long as I've known ... her, Digby has never left anything on the table.

If no blogger is more consistent on a day-by-day, paragraph-for-paragraph and even word-for-word basis, the speech she gave at her "unveiling" at the Take Back America Conference this week was simply an elevated example of her gift for hitting a target with the utmost precision. In the name of progressive bloggers everywhere, she explained what we do, why we exist, and how we came to be in the clearest, most exact, and most exacting terms.

Many were surprised that Digby turned out to be a woman, but no one was surprised that she spoke with the same clarity, passion and wit with which she writes. Digby, in her own words from her speech:

You will not find anyone amongst us who believes that the Bush Administration's executive power grab and flagrant partisan use of the federal government is anything less than an assault on the Constitution. We stand together against the dissolution of habeas corpus and the atrocities of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, and we all agree that Islamic terrorism is a threat, but one which we cannot meet with military power alone. And yes, a vast majority of us were against this mindless invasion of Iraq from the beginning, or at least saw the writing on the wall long before Peggy Noonan discovered that George W. Bush wasn't the second coming of Winston Churchill.

Looking at the views Digby listed as common threads among progressive bloggers, Glenn Greenwald doesn't see anything extreme:

Is there a single one of those views which can remotely be described as fringe, radical, extreme, out of the mainstream, or even rigidly ideological?...

Only in the true fringe -- what Digby calls "the modern conservative movement of Newt and Grover and Karl and Rush," as well as their establishment media enablers -- does opposition to the Iraq War, or Guantanamo and torture, or the abolition of habeas corpus, or the grotesque deceit of the Limbaugh Right make one a "leftist" or fringe liberal, as those terms are used in their pejorative sense. The reality is that the views Digby identifies as the crux of the "progressive blogosphere" are entirely mainstream American views. "Extremism" is marked by those who reject those beliefs, not by those who embrace them.

And yet all we hear from mainstream journalists like Joe Klein and Daivd Broder, who lament the incivility of these upstart bloggers, is that lrogressive bloggers are hippies. They're college slackers living in their parents' basements. They're pinko-commie-blame-America-firsters who have no good reason for their dislike of the president. Wrong, wrong and wrong. Digby explains the real reason for their whining. They're not the only game in town anymore:

I'm a blogger-pundit, a role for which I am eminently qualified since, exactly like pundits on television and in newspapers, I have opinions, I write them down, and a lot of people read them. Yes, that's all there is to it. Sorry, Mr. Broder.

Yeah. What Digby said.

(Video at the link; transcript below the fold - via Blast Off!)

Pages: 1 2

It's not often I come across something so unbelievable, so gobsmackingly "out there" that it makes me drop my jaw, but I was picking my chin off my desk today when I read this, courtesy of the House Speaker's blog, the Gavel, from the Oversight and Gov't Reform committee:

The Oversight Committee has learned that over the objections of the National Archives, Vice President Cheney exempted his office from the presidential order that establishes government-wide procedures for safeguarding classified national security information. The Vice President asserts that his office is not an “entity within the executive branch.”

As described in a letter from Chairman Waxman to the Vice President, the National Archives protested the Vice President’s position in letters written in June 2006 and August 2006. When these letters were ignored, the National Archives wrote to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales in January 2007 to seek a resolution of the impasse. The Vice President’s staff responded by seeking to abolish the agency within the Archives that is responsible for implementing the President’s executive order.

Executive Order 12958 directs the National Archives to ensure that all federal agencies and offices, including the White House, comply with strict procedures in handling classified information. Things like Valerie Plame's identity, the National Intelligence Estimate info leaked to Judith Miller at the NYT...That sort of thing. But when the National Archives had the temerity to try and get Cheney's office to comply, he told them to pound sand. But that's not all:

Got that? First, Cheney’s office blocked a legal investigation, declaring itself some kind of fourth branch of the government. (It’s legislative, it’s executive, it’s accountable to no one … it’s the super branch!) Second, when the government agency responsible for enforcing executive-branch rules on classified information went to the Justice Department, Cheney sought to resolve the problem by eliminating the agency’s existence.

It’s almost as if the Vice President is the head of some kind of organized crime family. (”It’s a nice office at the National Archives you have there; it’d be a shame if something happened to it.”)

Forget, if you can, the history of leaks that have come from the office of the vice president. Put aside for the moment ignoring a direct executive order and then retaliating against the agency that dared to enforce it.

The Office of the Vice President is not an entity of the executive branch????Then what in God's green earth is it an entity OF?

Either Dick Cheney's gourd is completely scraped out, or he has seceded from the Union! To what body does the Office of the Vice President now belong - the Canadian Association of Occupational Therapists?

While many of us are just now catching wind of this, Cheney first made this claim as early as 2004, and it was caught earlier this year by a number of progressive bloggers, including Digby at Hullabaloo:

I had always known that Cheney was running the show, but I assumed he did it purely by using the power of the executive branch and manipulation of the presdient. I had no idea that he might have secretly carved out a previously unenumerated institution that derives its power from both the legislative and executive branches.

As VP AND president of the senate - because he operates in two different branches - he's not obliged to follow the rules of any of them.

Got that? Neither do I.

Let's review what's wrong with that logic. First, Laws and Executive Orders from the President are not like the Pirate Code, they're not just guidelines. Second, there are only THREE branches of government: Legislative, Judicial and the Executive branch, made up of the president's administration, of which the VP is a member. There is no "Cheney Branch" of government.

So what to do about this? There is an answer, one that was once considered extreme, but it doesn't seem so extreme anymore:

The idea of impeaching him really doesn't seem so outrageous as the months go by, does it?

Nope. Not so outrageous at all.

His lips say "No," but his eyes, and everything he does, say "Yes, I'm running for president!" So if the eyes have it, who does a Bloomberg run hurt the most, party-wise? Conventional wisdom says the Democrats will be worse off:

How do you spell Bloomberg? N-A-D-E-R! Yes, no doubt about it. If Michael Bloomberg jumps into the presidential race, he will be the Ralph Nader of 2008 - stealing the White House from the Democratic nominee...Having him on the ballot is the only way Democrats can lose in 2008. Which makes me wonder: We know how much Michael Bloomberg is willing to spend. But - How much is Karl Rove paying Michael Bloomberg to run?

However, conventional wisdom is not only not always right, it's frequently off base. And such is the case here, according to CQ Politics:

Bloomberg's exit from the Republican Party, heralding the possibility of a presidential run, hurts the GOP more than the Democrats. For starters, it is the Republican Party that he's leaving - and trashing while doing so. Even though he was once a Democrat and despite his liberal social views, Bloomberg more naturally appeals to those Republicans who are iffy on social matters but who tend to admire a wealthy businessmen who runs government like a CEO.

Ahhh, I love the smell of fresh speculation in the morning! And if we're going to speculate, let's go all out. Bloomberg runs, he's gotta have a running mate. Who fits the bill? CW on this says it's a man from Nebraska:

Chuck Hagel: This is the most obvious one. The 60-year-old Nebraska Republican, a decorated Vietnam veteran, has, thanks to his blunt critiques of the Iraq war, supplanted his old friend John McCain as every Democrat’s favorite Republican (and a media darling). He’s still somewhat anonymous to voters across the country, but Mr. Hagel’s story and style suggest enormous appeal to independent voters, and his alienation from his party’s leadership...meshes well with Mr. Bloomberg’s message that party politics are broken. Mr. Hagel and Mr. Bloomberg actually met for dinner recently, and afterwards Mr. Hagel voluntarily speculated on national television about a Bloomberg-Hagel ticket in ’08. If Mr. Bloomberg runs and Mr. Hagel wants in, it is tough to imagine the mayor doing any better than this. Bottom-line: His for the taking?

Hmmm. I'm sure with Hagel on the ticket, with one of the most conservative voting records in the senate, Democrats and independents will just come running. But enough speculation for now. The Eye on '08 blog looks at Pollster.com's analysis of as 3-way Giuliani, Clinton, Bloomberg matchup. And the winner is....

The differences created by a Bloomberg candidacy are real. While there is plenty to be suspicious of, here are some thoughts:

1) Even without Bloomberg, Giuliani loses nearly every swing state. Giuliani would win only Missouri and Washington. Note that WV, CO, NV, AZ, PA, MI, and FL are not included in this sample.

2) Bloomberg seems to take his votes from both sides, but somewhat more from the GOP. However, in the swing states, the damage seems to be almost 2-1 against the GOP. However, these results are almost all within the margin of error.

3) It is going to take more data to figure this out.

But this is not good for the GOP with or without Bloomberg.

Actually, the one who'll get hurt the most by a Bloomberg run is....me. Nine more months of this horse race speculation? And his aides have been planning for this for two years?

Someone get me some TUMS.

When our president slapped another veto on proposed stem cell research, it got under my skin. Not because he and I philosophically disagree on the issue - I can respect that - it was how he's come to his position.

George W. Bush believes in absolutes and doesn't believe in homework. That marriage as we've sadly learned these past 6 ½ years produces disastrous results. Blind ideology without a plan - see Exhibit “A” in Iraq - always makes for a good sound bite but not sound policy. What's frustrating to me at least, is when W actually lives the issue, like immigration as then Governor of Texas, he delivers on his promise of compassionate conservatism.

The fact is Bush is as incurious as they come. Unlike his personal experience with immigration he hasn't felt the loss, like Nancy Reagan did, of losing a loved one to a genetic disease. He hasn't spoken to the medical community who overwhelmingly believe the promise of this research is unprecedented. And finally, if he really invested himself in an issue he seems so passionate about - he'd know the rhetoric of the right doesn't approach reality.

Again, if people oppose federally funding embryonic research on principle - fine. But when officials stand in its way with phony facts - they, and you Mr. President - should either tell the truth or do their homework.

I guess "the dog ate them" was considered too weak an excuse...

5 million emails go missing, in violation of the Presidential Records Act. First, the White House told reporters only a handful of administration officials had outside email accounts from the RNC. Then they explained that, by handful, they meant 50. Now that's been reviosed. By 50, they mean 88, and Karl Rove's excuse is he lost his blackberry. First, to be fair, Joe Gandelman at TMV gives us all the possible explanations:

Either:

–The Bush White House is TERRIBLY misunderstood and it’s all the Democrats and the mainstream media, working in conjunction as they rub their palms with glee in a political vendetta to smear the stalwart White House’s image.

or

–The Bush White House is TERRIBLY incompentent

or

–The Bush White House is showing the kind of respect for the law that a wife beater shows for a bleeding, battered spouse.

Let's see...They've long since lost the benefit of the doubt for #1, but #'s 2 and 3 sound pretty plausible. And then there's the connection to Watergate.

The Presidential Records Act, which prevents White House records from being destroyed to cover stuff up, was one of the many provisions passed by Congress in the wake of Watergate...In terms of parallels between this Administration and Nixon's, it's ironic how many of these types of specific post-Nixon laws that Congress created that this Administration law broken (FISA is another famous example of these).

I'm not sure that this should surprise anyone. Since he first nominmated himself as the best man to shepherd the lightweight Bush through his tenure in the Big Chair, Dick Cheney has been hell bent and none too secretive about rolling back every perceived infringement on executive power that's come around since he served in the Nixon White House himself. And while it may not be 18 minutes of missing audio tape, Daily Kos goes a little further in this Watergate analogy,

Among the 37 officials for whom the RNC did preserve records, those records evidence "major gaps." For instance, despite the enormous volume of e-mails known to have been sent or received by Rove during certain periods, for others -- like the first term, for instance -- only some 130 e-mails are available.

That would be the years of Sept. 11, the ENRON investigation, the Valerie Plame leak, and the lead-up to the war in Iraq, just to name a few. Coincidentally, it also covers the period when a younger, undoubtedly happier Alberto Gonzales was White House counsel. Now 'Berto has yet something ELSE to be unhappy about:

We know the White House was aware of the problem as recently as 2005, and took no action to preserve the emails - but there is now further evidence that Alberto Gonzales was aware of the problem back in 2001...This has to be the "other shoe dropping" that Bush was waiting for before he axed Gonzales, and I expect Albterto to go very soon.

To which I can only respond - HA!!!!

If Bush hasn't fired Gonzales by now, 'Berto could swipe the wristwatch off Harry Reid's arm in the middle of Senate testimony and shoot a cat and it wouldn't make a lick of difference.

Let's just say I don't consider this a coincidence. Yesterday we talked about Bloomberg making suspicious, presidential candidate-like noises in recent trips to cities around the country and in the pages of Time Magazine. My words were still hanging in the air when, lo and behold, Bloomberg announces he's dropping the GOP and going unaffiliated. The Independent candidate's opening gambit. Talk Left says it's all about the ego:

I see nothing in it for him personally. I suppose this is an ego trip...he has already sold the Media on the idea that he won't decide whether to run until after the nominees of the two parties are chosen, which means March 2008 at the earliest. So Bloomberg gets to be stroked for free for about a year.

March 2008? Shoot me. Just shoot me now. Every national poll will begin including him in three-way match-ups, and that will get the Beltway talking heads to start clucking about "who does he hurt the most" between now and then. And he STILL might not run. But because there's nothing I relish more than 9 months of potentially pointless speculation, let's get the ball rolling already:

Giuliani has had a tough time keeping conservatives on board, but Bloomberg would make Giuliani look like Fred Thompson...Republicans should look forward to his independent bid. He'll draw much more from left-leaning independents and Democrats who cannot stand Hillary Clinton than from the GOP, to the extent that he draws anyone at all. Bloomberg obviously wants to be the next Ross Perot, but he sounds more like the next John Anderson.

But despite the toe-dipping, waters-testing that Bloomberg seems to be doing, not everyone is convinced he's really going to follow through:

I'm struggling to believe this, and it's a struggle between two traits Bloomberg obviously must have. Clearly, to get where he's gotten, he must be really ambitious and have an ego the size of Manhattan. So maybe he really will run. On the other hand, he didn't get where he's gotten by being an idiot. So he won't. For now, my money says he won't run. It's just too patently a suicide run. But I guess it doesn't really matter what my money says, does it?

No, it matters what Bloomy's money says, and that's part of the problem. Switching parties whenever it's convenient is another:

In the grand scheme of things, if high political office is for sale to the highest bidder, it's the voter who gets treated to leaders with no real deeply held convictions. All they get is guys who know how to capitalize on opportunity. America deserves better.

If he can't commit to a political party, how's he going to commit to a Quixotic-at-best independent campaign?

Released from his campaign directly to YouTube:

Awesome.

You wonder if people like Gen. David Petraeus have read Joseph Heller's Catch-22, because the latest word from the US Commander in Iraq is that if the surge fails, we'll be there even longer. As AmericaBlog points out, this is a scenario that could've been dreamed up by Colonel Cathcart himself:

Most of us...all of us, thought that if Petraeus reported in September that the last-ditch surge effort didn't work, the war would be over. Not true. Now, the failure of our last chance effort means we'll stay even longer (to try another last-chance effort?). And, I assume, if Petraeus reports that the surge IS working, we'll also stay longer (you know, to finish the job). So, either way, win or lose, we're staying no matter what. So what exactly is the point of Petraeus reporting anything at all?

But don't worry. EVERYTHING's under control! We've all been told time and time again this is NOT an open-ended occupation. In fact, Petraeus compared the US mission in Iraq to England's counterinsurgency efforts in Ireland, a conflict that's only a mere 800 years in the making. Forget South Korea. We officially have a NEW Worst Historical Analogy Ever:

Allow me to don my County Roscommon accent and wave my Grandfather's shillelagh about -- yes, yes, good heft -- okay then ...

Well that's encouraging!

...at least now we know what we can look forward to....Bet you never anticipated Bush's "South Korea" model for Iraq would be the good version, eh?

Only fifty years? We'd be getting off lucky.

Read the whole thing for a good idea of what we can look forward to using the Northern Ireland model of Screwed Up Foreign Policy. But at least we've got the best and the brightest running things over there, right? To borrow a phrase, "Sadly, No!" It seems that our new ambassador to Iraq is in a bit of a panic:

Ryan C. Crocker, the new U.S. ambassador to Iraq, bluntly told Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in a cable dated May 31 that the embassy in Baghdad -- the largest and most expensive U.S. embassy -- lacks enough well-qualified staff members and that its security rules are too restrictive for Foreign Service officers to do their jobs.

"Simply put, we cannot do the nation's most important work if we do not have the Department's best people," Crocker said in the memo.

Which is what happens when your standard for hiring someone to rebuild Iraq is whether or not they donated to Bush and the Republican party:

As awful as this is, let's not forget that the Bush gang set this dynamic up on purpose. They insisted on having a team of young and unqualified far-right activists treat Iraq like a Heritage Foundation Camp. They, predictably, screwed up royally, and now Crocker is wondering why experienced experts are hesitant to fly into a civil war to clean up the mess.

But on the bright side, we're using Northern Ireland as our template for success. When the administration starts drawing comparisons to Israel and Palestine, THEN you can really start to panic.

I really don't know how much more of this I can take. As if we didn't already have a cast of thousands running for president, and each one of them took - or in some cases are still taking - their sweet time in declaring their candidacy. Now we get NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg insisting he's not running for president, while telling LA's political and media elite what a good independent presidential candidate should do, if only there were one around somewhere:

The latest "it" non-candidate, Bloomberg has enjoyed a week of great attention, sharing the cover of Time with Arnold Schwarzenegger, appearing on talk shows, playing the political guessing game. He also had little good to say about the 2008 process too far, saying that candidates offer simplistic solutions...

Most of all, he warned against excessive party ideologues..."It all begins with independence," he said.

Independence. As in "independent candidate". Or better yet, as in the "Independence Party":

On Friday, a group of volunteers will circulate petitions to draft Michael Bloomberg to run for president, which will be a rare tangible (if unauthorized) sign of the mayor's hypothetical candidacy. The petition effort is being organized by Independence Party activist Frank Morano...

At the Huffington Post, Fred Siegel calls this the best non-campaign campaign ever:

Michael Bloomberg is still not running for president. It's true that he's on his way up to New Hampshire and it's true that he's visited 20 cities in the last 18 months. It's true that New York, a famed agricultural center is hosting, thanks to the mayor, this year's Farm Aid Concert, and yes, of course he's engaged in a number of high-profile initiatives with national implications calling for fewer guns and less pollution. But that's just because he's "Manager Mike," Time magazine's action hero stepping in, like Arnold Schwarzenegger, to succeed on issues like illegal guns and global warming where the federal government has failed...But whatever else he is, Bloomberg is a marketing genius. He's managed to run a presidential campaign...without arousing the slightest bit of skepticism from the argus-eyed national press. That's well-endowed talent.

So for now, Bloomy gets to have his cake and eat it too. Just like Fred Thompson, only without the added pressure of being expected to save an entire political party from self-destruction. But even in this Longest Campaign Cycle EVER, you can only pull this act for so long:

For all of this tough talk, he's an empty suit until he can offer up some substantive ideas to solve these issues. So what do you say Mike? You gonna be an empty suit or you gonna join the game?

Stop teasing, Mike. Either get in for real, or never darken my blogger doorway again. Harrrumph.

When a single issue so dominates a group's focus as illegal immigration has to rightwing conservatives, you get an interesting glimpse into that group's priorities - or lack thereof. On Friday Rep. Tom Tancredo, presidential candidate and opponent to all immigration, legal and illegal, inserted an amendment into the Homeland Security Funding bill that would cut security and anti-terrorism funds from cities that employ a "sanctuary policy" towards illegal immigrants. The bill passed, and Michelle Malkin is pumped:

Is it a sign of things to come as the second Senate showdown looms...? We'll see. In the meantime, sanctuary cities are on notice: Defy immigration law, risk your homeland security funding. Too bad the White House refuses to send that message.

Needless to say, this sentiment is being echoed across the rightwing blogosphere, as they cheer on the idea that those big fancy "sanctuary cities" will get what's coming to them!!!1!!one!:

About time - I'm tired of cities deciding that they can ignore federal laws with impunity. If they want to make themselves an illegal alien magnet, it should come with a cost.

"...it should come with a cost."

If you're against illegal immigration, you might think this is a grand idea. Unless of course you happened to live in one of those so-called "sanctuary cities." You could agree with Tancredo 110%, but because you weren't politically active enough to get your city to drop it's "sanctuary" designation, then....tough cookies on ya', sport. You should've read Malkin's blog more!. Sadly, No! points out what kind of shortsighted overkill (no pun intended) this is:

Counter-terrorism funding including first-responder grants should be taken away from cities (the list also includes Seattle, Chicago, Houston, Portland, and Long Beach) that allow illegal immigrants to speak to the police without being reported to immigration authorities. As in, if something were to happen, too-bad-so-sad, and it seems we've learned an expensive lesson, haven't we?

Hey, if a few thousand eggs have to be broken for them to get their way on immigration, so be it.

And by eggs, I mean people. And by broken, I mean killed.

Fortunately for the rest of us that aren't quite as concerned with the second coming of Aztlan, there seems to be one small hitch with Tancredo's amendment: no one has a definition of what a "sanctuary city" is, or how to officially designate a city as such to take away it's funding (bonus points that I found this getting pointed out by a rightwing blog):

If the legislation...doesn't define a so-called sanctuary city, does it do anything at all?...Note that passage "stunned critics and supporters alike;" my first impression was that supporters were stunned because they hadn't figured it out: politicians who didn't really want to do anything about illegal immigration could vote for it, because it doesn't really do anything!

Guardians against the Reconquista: Dangerous, but fortunately not very bright.

It's an All-Barack Weekend at the Black Box Report!

Part I

Part II

Part III

Part IV

You expect hardcore conservatives to argue why a Libby pardon is a good thing. You even expect the Wise Old Men of the DC Punditocracy like Joe Klein and David Broder to stick up for Scooter. Insiders stick together after all.

But the General Counsel to Barack Obama's campaign?

OK. No, I wouldn't have expected that. Robert F. Bauer took to the Huffington Post recently to argue why liberals should want Bush to pardon Libby:

Convicted of lying, he is not really reviled for that… Libby, the only one in the law's grasp, is the only one to pay the price...A pardon brings the president into the heart of the case. It compels him to do what he has so far managed to avoid: accept...responsibility for the conduct of his Administration...If the President pardons Libby…he will have picked up a portion of the cost...He will have to explain himself; he will have to answer questions.

Suffice to say the progressive blogosphere took Mr. Bauer to task for getting this wrong on so many levels:

Excuse me? Libby is reviled for committing perjury to obstruct justice. What is Libby obstructing? We have no way of knowing for sure, but some of us believe he is covering up the Vice President's role in the affair. So he is reviled for lying. Bauer is simply wrong.

You wonder if Bauer has ever met the President...or seen him or ever heard him speak...to think that Bush would be voluntarily compelled to take responsibility:

I am intrigued that an attorney wrote this. No attorney genuinely believes that you can't prosecute one perpetrator because you didn't catch them all… If Libby gets off, the justice system loses. This president seldom to never answers questions. He barely answers questions about Iraq. Bauer's thesis here also leaves out Cheney, who tends to answer even fewer questions.

Firedoglake calls this some mystifying advice for a Democratic nominee:

I really can't imagine what the Obama campaign was thinking. This is about the rule of law, not political posturing. And as much as all the "liberal progressives" Bauer is preaching to at arms' length would like to see Bush publicly tied to the scandal, at this point in time we'd rather see some respect for the judicial process.

But never fear, Obamamaniacs, the Election Central blog asked the Obama campaign directly where the senator stood on a Libby pardon:

The answer: He's against it… The Obama campaign just sent over this from spokesman Dan Pfeiffer: "Bob was speaking on his own behalf. Senator Obama opposes a pardon and strongly believes that Libby should be held accountable for his actions."

Ya' think? I doubt Obama will suffer any blowback from this, but you have to wonder about the quality of counsel he receives from someone who seemingly knows nothing about the voters Obama is trying to appeal to.

It's treason! It's sedition! It's...he's...He's being a big meanie! Sen. Harry Reid describes outgoing joint chiefs chairman Gen. Peter Pace as incompetent in a conference call to progressive bloggers and the rightwing erupts as if Reid were planting IED's in Iraq himself:

Sen. Harry Reid, please explain to us how your apparent utterances calling serving generals "incompetent" while they are engaged in command duties as general officers of the United States during wartime does not amount to interfering with, impairing, or attempting to influence the loyalty, morale, or discipline of the military or naval forces of the United States.

See, he's just shown you he can read the United States Code. Interpretation and application, however, are other matters. Pointing out that the emperor wears no clothes will not destroy the kingdom, just embarrass the emperor and the people who say, "That's a mighty fine robe he's wearin'!" Blogger Bob Geiger was on that conference call*, and notes that Reid's comments weren't just red meat for the base, but something he had already told Pace personally:

The overwhelming majority of the American people are against this war and are angry about the totally incompetent way it has been handled since 2003…What (Harry Reid) told us on that call was that he had the character to tell one of the principals in this mess exactly what he thought right to his face. And, for that, the Senate Majority Leader should be applauded.

And always one looking to split the difference, the moderate conservative blog Outside the Beltway puts a pox on both their houses:

Politicians walk a dangerous tightrope when they politicize military affairs, either by lambasting professional military officers or hiding behind them…The less we use military officers as props in political debates and keep the discussion on the level of elected policy-makers, the better. At the same time...The senior-most members of the armed forces, certainly the service chiefs and Chairman, are policy makers and fair game for criticism.

And of all people, you would think Sen. John McCain would know that, but he eagerly took to the airwaves to condemn Reid foir his disparaging remarks. Apparently he forgot that when he opposed Gen. George Casy's confirmation as Army chief of staff, he called Casey's a "failed leadership", questioned his judgement and blamed his failed policies for the high price we've paid in blood and treasure. And he said this on the Senate floor. The Carpetbagger Report calls it what it is - hypocritical:

Was this outrageous, too? Did conservatives condemn McCain for levying a "personal attack" on a general "in a time of war"?...Or is it more likely the case that Republicans are desperate to manufacture scandals about Democrats, whether the facts support them or not?

Shorter John McCain: Do as I say, not as I do. IOKIYAR

*UPDATE*

I wasn't going to mention this, because it really is a tempest in a teapot, but some people, starting with the Politico's John Bresnahan, tried to drum up a game of "Gotcha!" over this. I'll see if I can sum it up:

Bresnahan writes the story. Greg Sargent takes issue with this assertion, and contacts several of the bloggers to see if they recall Reid's comments. They don't, although there seems to be a question of whether they don't recall Reid calling Pace incompetent OR using similar remarks about Petraeus. Bob Geiger - whom I've met, respect and consider a meticulous sort of guy - had Reid's comment re: Pace on tape, and argues that Politico got it wrong by taking Reid's comment out of context (not to mention still having no proof that Reid insulted Petraeus as well). Captain's Quarters sees all this, and Reid's admission he did call Pace incompetent, and has his Ah-HA! moment, although he clearly misses that some of the bloggers on the call don't recall any comments about Petraeus, while others don't recall the comment about Pace - even as they concede Reid may have said it, it just didn't register as very important...the incompetency with which the Iraq War has been run being common knowledge and all.

So there you have it. Reid told Pace he was incompetent, and repeated that to some bloggers. Rightwing blogosphere continues to make mountains out of molehills, and the Politico is still trying to out-Drudge Drudge.

Put the kids to bed, this Presidential campaign is getting a little blue, and for once, I don't mean "trending Democratic." In a video made by some non-campaign affiliated Obama supporters, The Obama Girl's got a crush on her favorite candidate, and the blogosphere has developed a crush of its own:

It's grade-A YouTube cheesecake for sure, but also helps that the R&B parody lyrics effectively deploy its political references, and it certainly doesn't hurt that they also have that so-bad-it's-good quality:

You're into border security
Let's break this border between you and me

Like Brittney Spears meets Bob Dylan. Over at Daily Kos, they actually manage to look past the cheesecake and appreciate this video as a piece of political art whose time has come:

This seems to be the logical junction of the Internet making everyone a publisher and our celebrity driven culture. It is a really good effort but the thing I find amazing is 4 years ago something like this just wouldn't get traction and 8 years ago it would have been impossible to get something like this out there.

Of course, they also thought Dogs Playing Poker was a comment on the evils of gambling. Oliver Willis gives us a glimpse behind the scenes and asks the important questions:

Obamagirl is a model by the name of Amber Lee Ettinger and she's lipsynching to the singing of Leah Kauffman. It's kind of amusing all the money the mainstream media and advertisers pour into viral marketing but the stuff that becomes truly viral is from normal folks...The real question is what Michelle Obama thinks of this play for her man.

To say nothing of what your Aunt Mildred in Omaha thinks of this video. So with all of this non-campaign approved content out there, what's a candidate to do?:

If you are running for president, how do you respond intelligently and effectively to "tribute videos and ads," like (this)? Should a campaign always distance itself from these types of ads or videos? Is "no comment" and "we didn't do it" the only viable responses to voter generated ads?

How about just a laugh and shrug and an acknowledgement there's not a lot you can do about it, so enjoy it for what it is? After all, it's not like every candidate gets this treatment:

I'm not sure the sight of Obama Girl jiggling...in pink panties emblazoned with the letters OBAMA across the back is going to move voters in New Hampshire. (At least not move them to cast their ballots for Obama). But damn. Nobody's jiggling for Giuliani, that's for sure.

And if they are, I don't wanna know about it.

When we first learned back in March that the FBI had 22 reported violations of data collection laws, there was bipartisan concern. People wanted answers! Mere months later, the number of violations have increased 500-fold. So how did it come to this? The short answer is - too many distractions:

There was far more interest in the scandal surrounding purged U.S. Attorneys, and the FBI mess was quickly brushed off the front page (and the political world's radar)...It's the inherent problem of watching the Bush administration - it's so corrupt, and has so little regard for the rule of law, that the scandals pile up too quickly. It's hard to keep track of them all and focus the necessary attention on each.

So now that the FBI has our attention - again - what do they have to say for themselves?

FBI officials said the results confirmed what agency supervisors and outside critics feared, namely that many agents did not understand or follow the required legal procedures and paperwork requirements when collecting personal information with one of the most sensitive and powerful intelligence-gathering tools of the post-Sept. 11 era -- the National Security Letter, or NSL.

The Gun Toting Liberal doesn't think you or I would get away with that excuse:

Isn't it funny how the Feds are the VERY FIRST to tell you "Sorry, Charlie - ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking it", yet they are also the very first to excuse themselves in the same manner when it is THEY who are guilty of breaking the law? It must be nice. Were it any of us "regular folk", we'd already be in prison.

Commit perjury and you or I go to jail. Not so for others. Display boundless incompetence in your job, and you or I would get fired. Not so for others. Propose a business plan to your boss, only to later go billions of dollars over budget, have half your employees dead or wounded in the project and your client's home is reduced to rubble? We wouldn't be getting a Presidential Medal of Freedom, that's for sure. Which is a shame, because in the end, the FBI are regular folks too:

When you take away oversight and grant law enforcement officers a vague, open-ended set of new powers, they will overstep the law. In this way FBI agents are like every other group of people on the planet.

People make mistakes. And some people break the rules even when they know they shouldn't. That's why, when they're given great powers, we set up laws to hold them accountable for weilding that power. It's a simple concept. But one that keeps eluding this administration. Now talk of a massive new database project for the same FBI is getting skeptical reactions from Capitol Hill and civil rights groups. To say that those concerns are warranted is an understatement:

I am often struck by the sheer audacity of the Bushies to lobby Congress to expand their authority in a given area at the same time we learn that they can't seem to follow the rules under the authority they do have. And they expect us to believe they'll do a better job with more?

"Trust us," they said.

"Uhh, we're not so sure," the people replied.

"C'mon. Really. Trust us. What's the worst that could happen?" they said.

And now we know.

OK everyone. Take your expectations for stability in Iraq come September. Now lower them....Lower still.....Keep going......

Lowwwwwer.....

There. If you've got your expectations down around your knees, you're in the correct position for what's to come in September. Ezra Klein notes the difficulty in holding together a country that doesn't seem to want to be held together:

Even as the security situation deteriorates, the political and civil tracks remain locked in place. The Iraqis are on track to meet exactly none of the US benchmarks for progress. Kurds are blocking the oil laws, Shi'ites obstructing attempts to reintegrate Baathists into the government, Sunnis want to revisit the Constitution to further empower the executive. And beneath it all, as the New York Times reports, "the promise of compromise now carries less allure than the possibility for domination. Long-suppressed Shiites and Kurds now see total victory within their grasp." It's not a mindset that lends itself to political compromise. And without political compromise, even an Iraq forced into peace and security by General Petraeus's magical reputation wouldn't long survive.

For conservative blogs, it's the benchmarks themselves that are a problem. Specifically, having them. Because having any concrete goals at all to begin with just means you have to eventually meet them:

According to the Traitor Times Iraqi's are failing to meet benchmarks which will again fuel the democrat's call for cut and run. Again, just four years has past and yet we expect faster progress than we have in any other conflict in history. Iraq will need our presence for a long time to come. The question is whether or not we have to guts to stick it out or to leave Iraq in ruins.

See, for some, success is not measured on actual tangible progress. It's measured by how much you want it. By how loud you clap. By whether or not you have the "guts" to continue doing that thing that's having no success whatsoever, and is actually getting worse the more you do it.

But clapping louder is not a strategy. "Sticking it out" is not a strategy. Having a sufficient amount of will and a willingness to overcome fear is not a strategy.

But while the war's cheerleaders can afford to confuse stubbornness for success, politicians need something more to justify pouring a few billion dollars more into this venture. Hence the official expectations that are dropping lower by the minute:

The last couple of weeks have been dedicated to nonstop declarations that we should expect (a) an increase in violence this summer, (b) no political progress to speak of, and (c) an even more dysfunctional and sectarian Iraqi security apparatus than we have now. By the time Petraeus's progress report arrives, they'll be telling us we should count the surge a success as long as things are no more than 20% worse than when it started.

At which point we'll be told the lack of success shows the need for us to stay while newer and lower benchmarks are set, and we can start this whole circus over again.

It'll be interesting to learn not only what Harriet Miers and Sara Taylor say under oath, but if certain senators will rediscover their gift of speech in time to ask some questions or heaven forbid, take a position.

While not a single lawmaker jumped to Alberto Gonzales’ defense, the overwhelming majority of Republicans ducked their responsibility when they roadblocked a no-confidence vote on the embattled Attorney General. By now we all know why Alberto Gonzales not only put politics before the law, but that he and his staff believe the truth, even in testimony, is an optional proposition.

The only person left in the free world who thinks Gonzales is deserving, let alone capable, of running the justice department is the President. By now his delusions are expected, but lawmakers who think it's not their job to speak up - shame on you. Joe Lieberman, the newest resident of Delusionville, says the decision should be Gonzales’ alone - quote "he should look into his heart and soul". Hey Joe and friends - try looking in a mirror, and try doing your job.

......and it lives in DC, there's a good chance you've got a Claudus Anas Praesieo on your hands. And it's not just progressives bestowing lame duck status on the President. Captain's Quarters feels like the President is going out of his way to demoralize his own supporters:

The administration doesn't fight for the friends it should, and fights for those who bring nothing but misery and disappointment instead...Bush sticks with Gonzales. In the meantime...almost 200 other appointees remain in limbo, unable to get their confirmation hearings, and the White House has barely gone to bat for them. Is this leadership? It looks more like a bunker mentality, where the White House seems cowering in fear of confirmation hearings on any level.

And you know it's bad when the Prince of Darkness a conservative like Bob Novak calls you a lame duck in the pages of the Washington Post:

The White House is not a happy place for the people working there…The need to hire expensive Washington lawyers is an impediment to attracting bright young newcomers to the administration. What can a lame-duck president fighting an unpopular war…do about this? Not much, but two possibilities are talked about in Republican circles: Let Gonzales go, and pardon Libby. That might push Bush's approval ratings even lower, but it sure would hearten his base.

But after the immigration bill debacle, I'm not sure if even the base has any room for forgiveness for Bush. They don't sound like they're ready to forgive or forget on this issue:

I have held out for a very long time, but finally it is all starting to get to me, a long time and avid Bush supporter! The administration has gone too far. My disdain began with the attempted "push through" of the new immigration bill, ... but Bush, c'mon... give this bill a rest! Now Bush is stepping up pressure on Senators in the GOP to push this bill through…He needs to keep his poor lame duck bills to himself.

Now with all this talk of ducks and presidents, I was reminded of something from a few months back. It was Easter, and during their annual White House Easter Egg Roll, first Lady Laura Bush read a book to the visiting children. It was a book by Doreen Cronin called "Duck for President". And as God as my witness, this is from the School Library Journal's review:

Duck is tired of doing his chores...and decides to hold an election to replace Farmer Brown. When he wins, Duck quickly realizes that running a farm requires too much hard work, and sets out to run for governor. With the help of the hens, and speeches "that only other ducks can understand," he eventually ends up running the country. Executive office gives him a headache, however, so Duck returns to the farm to work on his autobiography.

What can I add to that, but....QUACK!!!!

(Hat Tip to the inestimable and somewhat popular Tbogg)

Defining progress is a funny business. You see, it means different things to different people. You could say it's the accomplishment of set stated goals, but when your main stated goal is "to win", you need to be a bit more specific. When pressed in the past, the Bush administration has given the slightly narrower answer, "When the Iraqis stand up, we'll stand down". That, however, doesn't quite gell with the plan to build several permanent bases in Iraq, as blogger Matthew Yglesias points out:

The goal, according to the war's proponents, is to create the kind of situation where the country is sufficiently stable and under sufficiently docile leadership as to be willing to play host to a series of permanent bases. But, of course, it's precisely the widespread -- and, crucially, accurate -- Iraqi perception that US forces aren't there just to help them out and aren't planning on leaving that drives the appeal of both Sunni and Shiite nationalist groups that are opposing us.

Now, connect that thought to Admiral Fallon's recent visit to Iraq, where he took Iraqi President al-Maliki to the woodshed over oil production:

Surely it's just a coincidence then that all this talk of permanent bases comes as the US puts pressure on Iraq to pass a new oil law that would open up the country's vast reserve to Western oil companies?

Hmm. A coincidence, surely. Daily Kos takes note of Fallon's, and the administration's priorities:

Note to BushCo: the American people, and the vast majority of members of Congress who are opposed to this war, are not using the oil law as an indication of progress in Iraq. Our measurement of success has more to do with body counts.

Specifically, by making them smaller. Which would happen if we accomplished the original stated goal of eventually leaving. Permanent bases protecting oil production would indicate staying. Permanently. May was the deadliest month yet for troops in Iraq, so we're definitely not making progress on that front. And speaking of progress, Atrios reminds us it's time for war cheerleader and presidential candidate John McCain to redefine progress once again:

7 months ago today the very serious St. John McCain said it was a "critical time" in Iraq and also said, "We're either going to lose this thing or win this thing within the next several months." Seven months later, which certainly counts as "several," have we won or lost?

We're building permanent bases and cracking the whip on sharing oil profits. To the administration, big oil companies and Halliburton, that's winning. That's progress.

You know the warning Mom used to give, "Be careful what you wish for?" Well, Republicans like my last guest, Rep. Brian Bilbray (R-CA), it seems have no intention of heeding that advice. After killing the immigration bill with fear mongering and poison-pill amendments - they may have won the battle, but I’m still wondering how they won the war.

Don't get me wrong - this bill's not perfect, not even close, but if you're waiting for a viable alternative from its critics - don't hold your breath. Those opponents who scuttled the most meaningful reform in a generation don't want to talk about the border security component - that’s now gone. They also won't explain how blowing up this bill will somehow magically bring millions of illegals out of the shadows.

So for all those politicians who so proudly take credit for killing reform, I have one simple question - what exactly did you win?

When your once good name has been dragged through the dirt, especially when it's by your own hand, it's usually a good idea to stay out of the limelight for a while. Then, someday, you slowly emerge and try to regain the credibility you once had.

Former Sec. of State Colin Powell is the latest to attempt career rehab, and takes a "Close it. Close it Now" approach to Guantanamo Bay.

Bush's Gitmo, as we all know, has damaged the reputation of our country as run by the rule of law. Ours was a Justice system respected by all before Bush instituted Gitmo. It's time we repair our reputation. Heck, it's time Powell repairs his, and he's doing so partly by revealing his critique of Bush.

Making a comeback for Powell won't be the easiest thing, but he'll be getting some cover from the conservative 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, which gave some traction today to Powell's criticisms.

The Bush administration is now Zero-for-June in stinging rebukes over its extralegal efforts to circumvent the American legal system in order to try so-called enemy combatants…A divided three-judge U.S. Court of Appeals panel...ordered the Pentagon to release Ali Al-Marri, who has been held for over five years as an enemy combatant.

A US citizen, held without charges, without trial, without access to a lawyer. With only the government's claim that he was an Al Qaeda sleeper agent. A claim they never had to prove.

As Powell pointed out in his interview, we are judged by the examples we set, and we're setting some pretty bad ones. Not to mention what should be a frightening precedent for any "free" society. So bully for Powell for coming to his senses, but it puts him in yet another awkward position, as every Republican presidential candidate is calling for bigger and badder Guantanamos. What's worse, Powell won't commit to voting Republican in '08, and is actively advising Barack Obama on foreign policy. Something which bothers those on the left:

Obama has made his opposition to the Iraq War…a centerpiece of his campaign. Powell, on the other hand, was not just any old supporter of the war; he was one of its architects, who went before the United Nations to present a case for war that he knew to be, in his own words, BS…He has no integrity, no credibility, and no honor. And he should be treated like a pariah for his despicable comportment, especially by Democratic candidates.

Of all the dissemblers and snake oil salesmen that soild the Iraq War to this country, Colin Powell always struck me as the most sympathetic. What made his UN appearance so embarrassing and disappointing was, you expected more from him. The sales pitch never suited him the way it did the others. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld? You knew what they were up to before they ever opened their mouths, but Powell always seemed like he was actively struggling to come to terms with his desire to be the good soldier, and dutifully serving his country.

As he is now happy to tell you and anyone who will listen, the two are not necessarily the same.

Internet Fundraising. The final frontier. These are the fundraising gimmicks of some of the 2008 candidates that understand you have to be innovative if you want to drum up not only cash, but ways for campaigns to define the character of their candidate. John Edwards is taking the down home approach, hoping the way to voters' hearts, and wallets, is through their stomachs.

The appeal of baked goods must be a solid campaign strategy, since its now become a small-time fundraising tool. If you have six dollars, some time on your hands, and probably are a glutton for some kind of digestive punishment, you can possess (and make) John Edwards Super Secret Pecan Pie...At what point did the Edwards campaign become so ludicrously well-funded that they're allowing people to make six dollar donations?

Shorter American Princess:

Liberals can't cook. And who wants poor people involved in politics?

Perhaps the Edwards campaign taking a cue from rival Barack Obama who, as I mentioned previously, got 8,000 donors in 24 hours who signed up for a chance to win a face to face dinner with the IL senator. And according to an alleged scoop over at the Huffington Post, sneak peaks at 2nd quarter fundraising totals suggest Obama's got the right idea:

The Huffington Post has learned from sources close to both candidates that the Obama campaign will surpass the Clinton campaign in second quarter fundraising..."Even though there are over three weeks left," a Clinton source told HuffPost, "it will be next to impossible for us to make up the difference. The machine we have at the $2,300 level is a superior machine, but the Obama campaign continues to beat us with small donors and on the Internet."

But not all gimmicks are made for just anyone. Mitt Romney's son Tagg, one of the 5 wealthy, military-eligible young men who spend their time campaigning for Dad, is offering the chance to win tickets to watch a baseball game with Romney. Tagg, that is, not Mitt:

Instead of getting to meet the candidate, it's one of his kids. I guess Mitt is too special to get that close to the unwashed masses...Whereas Obama's campaign has no minimum donation set for the dinner, to get the opportunity to hang out with Mitt's son, Tagg, you have to give the campaign at least $100. Now there's a great bargain! Hang out with a rich guy's son in a box seat, or hang out with Barack Obama, a man who draws thousands to his campaign stops.

Two objections to Tagg Romney's pitch:

Tagg's recycling of Joe Lieberman's "Joementum" - now "Mitt-mentum" - would prevent me from keeping a straight face during the game, which Tagg might find impolite.

Tagg is a Red Sox fan, and I cannot support that policy position.

The question tonight shouldn’t be why anyone is calling for a no-confidence vote on Gonzalez, it should be - who in their right mind could oppose it? Gonzales is an embarrassment, even by this administration's standards, and every additional day he serves as our top law enforcement officer, the more our rule of law, and the public's faith in it, is undermined. Prosecutors were fired for politics and if Gonzales lied about it he needs to go. If he was in the dark as he claims, in many ways that’s even worse.

Gonzales clearly believes he's still the personal counsel of Bush, not the Attorney General. If senators, Republicans as well as Democrats, don't vote “no-confidence,” they too have put politics before America. Aren't we all tired of incompetence and unqualified cronies in vital positions of power? If the answer is yes then Gonzo has to go.

So who killed the immigration bill? Why did it fail? The answers to those questions are "everyone" and "because it wasn't very popular". The Mahablog saw the whole thing coming a mile away:

I haven't heard from anyone who actually likes this bill. I'm told by other liberals that the bill's guest worker program would have instituted a new class of worker with virtually no bargaining powers, and that this almost certainly would suppress the wages of many citizens. Conservatives don't like the bill because the notion of amnesty for illegal aliens sticks in their craw, and of course they want big fences along the Rio Grande.

So there was something for everyone to dislike. Oddly enough, for a bill that was touted as the bipartisan compromise solution to illegal immigration, it's death is being praised as a good thing for those who worship at the high alter of political centrism:

The people voting against cloture were drawn from all corners of both parties. Olympia Snowe and John Kyl voted against cloture; Max Baucus and Bernie Sanders voted against cloture. Mary Landrieu and Mitch McConnell voted against cloture. Barbara Boxer and Susan Collins voted against cloture. Cloture was opposed by the most senior Senator (Robert Byrd) and the most junior Senators (Tester, McCaskill and Webb).

A glance at the vote tally demonstrates that any suggestion that this voting lineup represents situation normal in Senate votes…is fantasy. This bill didn't fail…because the center couldn't persuade the fringe; I suggest that it failed because the center didn't support it. Partisanship didn't kill this bill - bipartisan consensus did.

Keep in mind these guys also consider Fred Thompson and Newt Gingrich to be "their kinds of Centrists," so, I'll be damned if I can figure out how the death of this bill is some sort of accomplishment for "Centrism".

So what next? Well, conservative hardliners didn't get everything they wanted in this bill, so...they'll try to get everything they want in the next bill. Hugh Hewitt pays no attention to the fact that other people besides him didn't like the legislation to begin with:

What should happen next?...Successful implementation of the fence and a credible system for conducting background checks and employment verification...The party doesn't have to embrace Tom Tancredo's deportation agenda...Now it is Mr. Reid's choice: Does he want a bill? If so he will give ground and time to the GOP, and...a new version...shorn of its worst features and bulked up in crucial respects.

Get rid of the worst aspects, and keep the best. Sounds sensible. Here's the problem. Some people don't think building a giant fence is crucial. Some other people think anything less than mass deportation is the same thing as amnesty. In short, not everyone thinks the same way:

There isn't a unitary "immigration problem" that Washington is failing to solve. Rather, various people see various different problems and there's not a consensus as to which problem is sufficiently problematic as to warrant action.

There are, however, a couple of things you can count on:

1) ANY bill that allows ANY current illegal immigrants to stay and apply for citizenship - no matter how difficult we make that, no matter how stiff the financial penalties are - will NOT be accepted by the hard right. The only thing they will accept is, "All illegal immigrants still in the US after this bill is passed will be arrested." Anything less they will consider a traves-shamnesty, and they'll scream like stuck pigs until they kill that bill as well.

2) Political trends aren't exactly going the rightwingers' way. 2008 still looks like it will be an extension of 2006 (although I am aware of Democrats' talent for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory). And while polls make it clear that THIS bill was unpopular with pretty much everyone, they also make it clear that the kind of bill that would make Michelle Malkin happy would have even less of a chance at passage. This is probably the last best chance they had to get the most of what they wanted. When the next attempt at this rolls around, the bill will likely have resolved some of what kept Democrats away, and the "shamnesty" right wing will have even less influence.

PS - Anti-immigration conservatives love to tout polls that show 70% of people disapprove of the immigration bill. This, they say, is proof that they should be listened to. Similar poll numbers that show the unpopularity of the Iraq War in general and the President specifically, however, mean nothing and are just examples of unhinged bias from the EM-ESS-EM Liberal Media, Inc.

There's talk on the street; it sounds so familiar
Great expectations, everybody's watching you
People you meet, they all seem to know you
Even your old friends treat you like you're something new

Johnny come lately, the new kid in town
Everybody loves you, so don't let them down

It's tough being the fresh face in the race. If you have any sort of initial appeal, people still don't know much about you, so they tend to project all their hopes onto you, which would be tough for anyone to live up to. And when you try, expectations are so high, you almost always disappoint. And so it is for Barack Obama. Trying to take away one of his rival's signature issues, Obama came out with a health care plan that got some mixed reviews, like this one from Ezra Klein at the American Prospect:

Obama's plan is not dissimilar from Obama himself -- filled with obvious talent and undeniable appeal, sold with stunning rhetoric and grand hopes, but never quite delivering on the promises and potential. And so he remains the candidate of almosts. But as he told Morgan Miller back in March, there is time yet. And he is so very close.

On the other hand, being an unknown quantity may cause those who ordinarily wouldn't to give you the benefit of the doubt, and let you appeal to an even wider base than you otherwise might. Obama spoke recently of how to help prevent the "quiet riots" of despair in poor communities, by taking responsibility for each other, as well as encouraging responsibility in the individual. Andrew Sullivan thinks that last part sounds familiar:

Notice the conservative pitch for a liberal policy. Obama focuses on young children and ex-offenders. His big government programs are all geared toward fostering conservative social behavior and opportunity. Who does this remind me of? George W. Bush, of course. The rhetoric at least. Perhaps the true legacy for compassionate conservatism will be in the Democratic Party.

But fresh face or not, Obama does have some natural campaign savvy. Take the 8,000 people who made donations in 24 hours to his campaign for a chance to have a sitdown dinner with the candidate. For politics in the 21st century, Daily Kos says, this is how it's done:

Unbelievable. Whether you plan to vote for him or not, Barack Obama has pushed the envelope for...ways to raise money, build a donor database and change the way political campaigns are run.

It means that old-fashioned politics, still matter, but if you have a serious message and want to meet the masses, hire a savvy internet/web master guru to push the envelope even futher. Someone like, Chris Hughes, one of the founders of Facebook. Right now there is no interactive political website out there like Barack Obama's. Not one so user friendly and totally interactive. Whatever you need is right there within the click of the mouse. And it is this ease and friendliness that has drawn people into clicking and finding out more information about Barack Obama. Obama and his team, definately deserve credit for embracing this wholeheartedly and pushing the envelope, furthern than Howard Dean did in 2003.

Of course, the desire to be led by someone other than a "Washington Insider" is a strong one, even if we still wind up electing - and re-electing - those same insiders.
Predictions of Obama's success are ridiculously premature, yet that strong desire compels some people to speculate anyway on what a real newcomer might be like in the White House:

CNN's FRANK SESNO: What if Barack Obama actually wins? He would be an unprecedented president: the first African-American, multi-ethnic, civil rights lawyer, community organizing commander-in-chief. Confidants say his staff would reflect that. Also the fact that he likes and taught constitutional law.

...From all the ethical scandals, to Katrina, to warrantless wiretaps, to the ballooned defense spending, to a disconnect with ordinary Americans -- the Obama Campaign is making the case that in order to clean up the mess we need a president that is not from Washington and has deep connections to the grassroots.

When you're trying to bait someone into doing something they think is a bad idea, and they resist, the only recourse is to up the ante and go so far over the top you goad them into playing your game.

“The candidates that can’t face Fox, can’t face Al Qaeda,” said Mr. Ailes. “And that’s what’s coming.”

That was followed by applause from the crowd which featured several News Corp. executives and journalists from Murdoch-owned papers

One can assume that Fox News chief Roger Ailes meant this to sting. To shame cowardly Democrats into letting him set up their debate. But let's get to the deeper talking point here:

What are they afraid of -- having to answer a tough question? What will they do when they have to respond to an al-Qaeda attack?

Yes. "Tough questions" like, "When did you stop beating your wife?" and "Why do you hate America?"

But while Right Blogistan stroked their beards and nodded at Ailes' bon mot, everyone else was laughing their collective behinds off at Ailes' telling analogy:

You said it, Roger, not me. But only because you beat me to it...Yes, FOX News = Al Qaeda. I'm sure they're glad that's off their chests.

At least we agree about the nature of (his) organization…I guess he validates the theory you shouldn't negotiate with terrorists.

Roger is really disappointed that he couldn't get Jack Bauer to host the debates so he can get down to some serious interrogations...I mean so he can use his most excellent expansive questioning skills on the Democrats.

Ahhh. Comedy Gold. Thanks Roger, but on a more serious note, Ailes getting more shrill in his baiting of Democrats isn't really helping him any:

First, let's not forget that it was Roger Ailes, not anyone on the left, who compared Fox News to terrorists. Second, by attacking Dems, and spurring applause from Murdoch's media lackeys, Ailes is pretty much proving the Dems' point for them. Third, Fox News really needs to get a grip on this hysteria about Dems avoiding one of the network's debates. And fourth, for Ailes to suggest that Dems are afraid of the Republicans' news network is just silly. He must know better.

Hey, who knows? Maybe Ailes thinks it perfectly reasonable if Rush Limbaugh acted as moderator? Digby says it best (yet again), calling Ailes strong-arm baiting for what it is:

What the Democrats are saying is that unlike George W. Bush they aren't dumb enough to legitimize the enemy's propaganda. By pretending that Fox is a news network instead of the official house organ of the Republican Party the Democrats would be doing what Bush has done with al Qaeda - behaving with such predictable idiocy that it inspires the other side's recruiting.

Tell you what, when the GOP candidates agree to let one of their debates be hosted by MoveOn.org and hosted by Michael Moore, I'm sure Democrats will agree to a debate on Fox.

It might be time for our President to take another gaze into the eyes of Vladimir Putin and do a little soul sensing, because recent exchanges between the two leaders have been a symphony of sour notes. Remarks from Putin started things off, calling himself the world's only true democrat, citing chronic US homelessness, torture, and detentions without trial. While Putin laying claim to any kind of democratic mantle is laughable, he does have a point:

Save (for) his comment about being a "democrat" (meaning, pro-democracy), what exactly did Putin get wrong? That our foreign policy under Bush and the Republicans isn't a tad imperialistic? That we don't expect the world to shut up and do what we say? (Hell, that's the way Bush and the GOP treat domestic dissent as well.) That torture, homelessness and the ongoing abuse that is Gitmo isn't a mockery of our very democracy? Sure is, and it doesn't take a former communist spy leader to see it.

Rightwing reaction was typical. They don't like no fuhreners tellin' us we ain't great:

You’ve GOT to be kidding me right? What the Hell do the “homeless” have to do with anything other than to say that someone else should be forced to take care of them and that socialist policies should be implemented? And torture? What? Three square and culturally correct meals a day for terrorists is torture? This from someone who is former KGB?

Oh this is just too rich! Pootie Poo! Darling! Get over yourself. You already lost one war … sure is was a “cold” one … but trust me, you’ll lose the next one too if you try anything funny.

Belligerent, condescending, dismissive AND insulting. Of course, Bush himself would never respond that way. Instead he...told Putin not to hyperventilate and announced he's planning a missle defense system in Russia's backyard. This, predictably, got the Russian president a wee bit upset, which led him to issue a threat against all of Europe. This makes some bloggers a little nervous, to say nothing about how the rest of western civilization feels:

Is it possible that President Bush could bobble this back-and-forth with the Russians any worse than he has to date?...What is the president doing exactly? Can he be set up with a minder? Can the whole White House be set up with one, for that matter? We need an escalation in tensions with the Russians at the moment? We don't have our hands full? Can someone step in and help the White House exercise any degree of competence in this situation? It's bizarre and embarrassing and even dangerous.

Bush has since tried to play down the threat the missile system poses to Russia and cool down the talk of the next Cold War, announcing we're not at war with Russia, which is something I'm personally relieved over. Putin then caught the White House flat footed, proposing the missile shield be built in Azerbaijan. Which makes better sense on a number of levels:

Azerbaijan is a hell of a lot closer to the "rogue regimes" Bush says we need the system to defend from. It is a moderate Muslim state and US ally. And Azerbaijan is becoming an "energy hub" nation, more in need, perhaps, of defense than Poland or the Czech Republic. And such a compromise would also relieve the mounting tension between Russia and the US...Bush isn't known for compromise though. Instead, he's known for belligerance and wanting things all his way. So we'll see where this goes.

I'm sure everything will be just fine. With the diplomacy angle being worked by such tactful people as Bush, Cheney, Hadley, Rice...

.......oh god...

They Heart Huckabee! Displaying charm, a belief that God exists and a lack of knowledge on whether nor not the earth is actually more than 6.000 years old, many conservative bloggers felt Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee came away with last night's most improved performance:

I have no desire to vote for Mike Huckabee. But he totally, fully, and completely dominated this debate...Rudy did great on all the war on terror questions, but Huckabee shined on every single question. Well done to him. I think Huckabee rises to the top tier and Brownback sinks to the second tier.

And speaking of Huckabee, Rudy and God, some bloggers felt God's presence at the debate, as if summoned from on high by Huckabee's impassioned defense of him to smite his enemies! Or to just mess with Rudy's audio:

The highlight of the GOP debates: God silences Giuliani during his defense of his abortion stance, after being compared to Pontius Pilate (in reference to the crucifixion of Christ where Pilate did not agree, but did nothing to stop the act). The building (or immediate area) was struck several times with lightning, cutting power to his microphone. Better yet, he acknowledged God's presence by saying that he was afraid of the timing of the strikes, and all the other candidates moved away, as if to let God do his dirty work. So for those of you who believe in coincidence only and not God, what were the odds of that???

Let's see...I use these things every day, and they're more sensitive than a baby's skin. The odds of a wireless mic going out during a lightning storm? Ehhh...1 in 10, 12 tops. In fact, I'm surprised God didn't smite that heathen Ron Paul while he was at it.

But not everyone was watching the debate for the horse race aspect. Progressive bloggers had a good deal to debunk, such as the candidates' collective misunderstanding of the military's "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy:

Contrary to what the GOP candidates believe, it's not okay for gay people to serve so long as they don't have sex - that isn't the policy...John McCain and Rudy Giuliani not only defended the ban, but explained how there's no need to change the policy on banning gay Arabic-speaking-linguists right now. I mean, we're in the middle of a war and having more Arabic speakers can't possibly help us find and stop Arab terrorists.

Giuliani and McCain didn't exactly burninsh their foriegn policy credentials among people who actually klnow things:

Wolf Blitzer asked Rudy Giuliani, for example, whether he’d use nuclear weapons against Iran to prevent the country from completing a nuclear program. The former mayor said he wouldn’t “take any option off the table,” adding:

“Iran is a threat, a nuclear threat, not just because they can deliver a nuclear warhead with missiles. They’re a nuclear threat because they are the biggest state sponsor of terrorism and they can hand nuclear materials to terrorists. And we saw just last week in New York an attempt by Islamic terrorists to attack JFK Airport; three weeks ago, an attempt to attack Fort Dix.”

Now, the plots at JFK Airport and Fort Dix weren’t nearly as serious as Giuliani has suggested, but more importantly, what did they have to do with Iran? Nothing. For Giuliani, they were Islamic radicals, and Iran has Islamic radicals, ergo, they should be lumped together...

And in a classic "He said What?" moment, Mitt Romney attempted to rewrite recent history, saying if Hussein had just let the International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors do their job, we wouldn't be IN Iraq now .

Except that, as anyone who's been paying the slightest bit of attention for the last 5 years could tell you, it didn't happen like that:

Question: does Romney genuinely not know that both the IAEA and Hans Blix's team had hundreds of inspectors in Iraq prior to the war? And that those inspectors found nothing?

Or does he know it perfectly well and has simply calculated that no one in the media cares enough about this stuff to make a big deal out of a howler like this? In any sane world, this kind of thing would be enough to disqualify a candidate from running for dogcatcher, let alone president of the United States.

A "null set" indeed.

My advice to Lewis I. "Scooter" Libby? Dust off your Johnny Cash CD's and lose the nickname, because while it may not be Folsom Prison you'll be stuck in, you are going to jail, and I just don't see "Scooter" as going over real well there. Reaction was swift, and that primal scream you're hearing online is the rightwing howling at the treatment of one of their own. Pam Oshry at Atlas Shrugs shows us why she's a blogger and not a lawyer:

Shameful. All of it. And Joe Wilson was a complete liar when all was said and done...Remember there was no leak, no charge of leaking - just guilty of being a Republican.

Few people on the internets do both crazy AND obtuse with such flair. See, Joe Wilson wasn't on trial, Libby was. And Libby actually did break some laws. In fact, I'll let one of her fellow conservatives explain it for her:

Regardless of the ludicrous nature of a three-year investigation where the perpetrator never got charged with the initial suspected crime, Libby got what he deserved, having lied to investigators and the grand jury. People cannot commit perjury to block an investigation and expect to simply walk away from it. A jury concluded that Libby did exactly that, and the sentence is commensurate with the crime.

Personally, I think the words Cap'n Ed used are a little to verbose for Pam, but...The Carpetbagger Report calls it a case of lawbreaking born of hubris, and reminds us that pride goes before the fall:

Libby climbed to the top of political power in DC, and then, suffering from an acute case of Bush White House Blindness, risked it all to go after a perceived enemy.

Libby intentionally leaked the name of an undercover agent. He did so for the cheapest and most senseless of reasons — because the agent’s spouse was making it harder for Libby and his friends to lie about a war. Then, when push came to shove, Libby lied about his conduct under oath.

...We'll no doubt hear plenty of talk from White House allies about the need for sympathy, and the usual talking points about "underlying crimes," but today's sentence looks like justice to me.

So now the next stage of this legal circus will take the spotlight, as speculation runs rampant over if and when Bush will pardon Libby. It wasn't that long ago that President Bush criticized his predecessor Bill Clinton over a slew of last-minute pardons, vowing to take a tougher stance. No one really thinks Bush will stick to that of course. In fact, some people not only think Bush will pardon Libby, they're counting on it:

I want Bush to pardon Libby. I want every Republican candidate running for President and Congress to be forced to applaud Libby's pardon...I want every wingnut in the blogosphere to be forced to undermine their own credibility from here to eternity by endlessly recycling their lies about Valerie Plame not being covert, and by contending -- falsley, relentlessly and deliciously self-destructively -- that a pardon does not presume guilt.

Don't get me wrong. I'd love to see him do time. But even more than that, I'd love a Bush pardon to provide an incontestable X-ray of this crowd's sclerotic soul.

I hear the train a comin´
it´s rolling round the bend
and I ain´t seen the sunshine since I don´t know when,
I´m stuck in Folsom prison, and time keeps draggin´ on
but that train keeps a rollin´ on down to San Anton...

There's a saying that goes something like this: "Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach. Those who can't teach, administrate. Those who can't administrate, consult."

Bob Shrum is a consultant. In fact, you could say he's the Buffalo Bills of presidential campaign consultants - multiple trips to the Big Game, and just can't win it. Over his career, his win-loss record on presidential campaigns is 0-8. In fact, the closest Shrum came to a successful presidential campaign was Jimmy Carter's - which, of course, Shrum quit after 9 days. It's this kind of record that makes Shrum's new book No Excuses: Concessions of a Serial Campaigner something of a novelty:

Walking around Washington, D.C., telling people you’re reading Bob Shrum’s forthcoming memoir turns out to be a fantastic small-talk gambit. People are astounded, confused, sympathetic. Someone gave him a book deal? Who would read that? Who would buy it? Good questions, all. But none quite as good as the question of why Shrum wrote the book.

Indeed, some of the book's anecdotes, like how he convinced a skeptical John Edwards to vote for the Iraq War, begs the question: If you knew then that making a candidate go against their instincts was a bad idea, why are you writing about it now? It seems the answer would be "Beltway Insider Myopia"

...this passage seems to perfectly sum up a certain type of loser beltway mentality that has been infecting Democrats for too long. On the one hand, there was Elizabeth Edwards, who was rightly skeptical of anything the Bush administration was trying to sell. On the other hand there was a cadre of foreign policy "experts" and professional political operatives who conceptualized the decision to go to war in Iraq not in terms of whether or not it was a good foreign policy decision, but rather in whether or not opposing the war would make someone look too left-wing, and whether or not someone was in Congress long enough to have the credibility to combat that charge. This is truly a view through the looking glass, where the Democratic political establishment is playing by its own set of made up rules that bear no resemblance to the way the public actually makes political decisions.

Shrum would not be the first to write a book after the fact, saying how wrong he was and how he should've done things differently (see Tenet, George) - and he's certainly not the first to be accused of writing a book attacking Democrats that has an overly casual relationship with the truth (see Klein, Edward). Fellow Kerry campaign staffer Andrei Cherny took to the Huffington Post to correct a number of things in Shrum's book, starting with his own name:

I have no animosity for Bob Shrum...I hope Bob Shrum's new book does well, that it makes it on to the bestseller lists. As long as it's on the fiction list...First off, my name is "Andrei Cherny," not "Andrei Cherney." When you have a name like mine, you get used to having it misspelled. But paging through his book, this was the first clue I had that the fact-checker had been tied up, gagged, and thrown into a dark basement.

The technical term here is "ouch."

Since his Presidential campaign consulting efforts have since died a slow, painful death, Shrum is making his bid for an afterlife as an author. And even now, he undermines Democrats from beyond the grave.

Bob Shrum did FOX News' handiwork for them on last night's (6/4/07) Hannity & Colmes by allowing the sections of his new book that maligned presidential candidate John Edwards to be highlighted and by making only a weak attempt to put them in any kind of larger context...If Shrum didn’t recognize what was going on, he ought to give back every cent he made as a political expert. But he did next to nothing to counter it....Was Shrum…unaware that he was playing right into the FOX News agenda or was he so eager to sell his book that he didn't care?

Et tu, Shrummy? But it's unclear as to whether or not Shrum's swipes at Edwards and others in his book will have much, if any, effect considering their source:

Shrum is in many ways precisely what has been wrong with the Democratic party over the past two or three decades - a man never willing to take a strong stand when a weak one would do. So when Bob Shrum decides to pull out the long knives in an attempt to shiv John Edwards, that can only mean one thing: John Edwards must be a pretty frickin' sweet candidate for the presidency.

Talk about praising with faint damnation...

A presidential debate this early is sort of like a pre-season football game. Even if you "win", it doesn't really count for anything, and there's always the chance you'll injure yourself and ruin your regular season. Still, interested bloggers rate who seemed to do the best anyway, even if they don't like the answer:

There were times when her robo-lecture act began to wear down my ear-drums, but, in general, Senator Clinton bestrode the debate as an authoritative figure. In fact, I've never witnessed a U.S. political debate in which a woman clearly dominated as she did tonight...It kills me to admit it. But there you are. And as it sinks in, a dreadful specter emerges. Think June 2008. Think Romney vs Clinton. Plastic vs Perma-Freeze. It could happen.

And while most reviews say he may not have won "most likely to succeed", First Read says Barack Obama gets the award for "most Improved":

He seemed much more at ease answering 60 second questions than he was during the first debate. There are still times when he "ums" too much which can give the viewer the sense that he's meandering, but that's a style point. He was clearly at ease and more comfortable than last month and looked and sounded as presidential as anyone on stage.

Yes, Obama's got the gift of the gab. And one debate participant is a little miffed about that. After the debate, Chris Dodd posted the follwing graphic on his campaign's blog, showing the amount of talk time each candidate got.

Obama leads the pack with 16 minutes, followed by Clinton, Edwards, Richardson...In fact, you can start to see a pattern emerge:

Obama, who received 16:00 minutes of talk time, "won" the debate in an important quantitative measure: he received the most free media time. Also, combined, Clinton, Obama, Edwards and Richardson, the top four candidates in both national and early state polls, received 52:56 of talk time. That is far more allotted time than the combined 31:05 total of Biden, Dodd, Gravel and Kucnich. In a little more detail, one can even see four tiers of talk time:

Tier One: Obama (16:00), Clinton (14::26)
Tier Two: Edwards (11:42), Richardson (10:48)
Tier Three: Kucinich (9:02), Biden (7:58), Dodd (7:28)
Tier Four: Gravel (5:37)

These tiers closely resemble the actual state of the campaign, which raises a question: did CNN proportionally dole out time to candidates based on the current campaign standings?

Perhaps someone can ask debate moderator Wolf Blitzer that. Assuming, of course, he's done coming up with more overly simplistic, hypothetical scenarios:

Blitzer tried to take complex issues and reduce them to show-of-hand stunts...Instead of a nuanced discussion on how the U.S. might operate in a post-Bush world, Blitzer simply demanded that candidates raise their hands if they were for getting bin Laden....Finally, as the moderator pressed his "who's-against-genocide" show and tell, Clinton called him on his antics...She got a deserved round of applause from a crowd that was as annoyed as the candidates were with Blitzer.

Democratic Candidates: 1

The Beard: 0

Slipping in under the rader late last week, Gen. David Petraeus predicted the surge was going to work just fine, thank you, and that by September, it would be working SO well, we'd have to stay there longer. This why some people consider the term "military intelligence," especially under this administration, to be an oxymoron. As it turns out, the ground truth in Iraq is somewhat less rosy. The Carpetbagger Report notes this soft bigotry of lowered expectations:

As for the politics of all of this, when the White House unveiled its surge policy in January, they raised expectations. Lawmakers (and the nation) were told that we’d start to see progress quickly. Benchmarks were laid out, highlighting what we could expect to see. Creating a stable security environment in Baghdad, for example, was supposed to be complete in July. Then it was September. Now, it’s nowhere in sight.

It's hard to build a stable democracy when your tools are broken, or worse, rebelling against you:

If the Iraqis we are training and supporting are turning around and killing our soldiers, why are we persisting in this strategy? The Iraqi policemen and soldiers will not change their loyalties based on a heavy US presence. They will only adhere to a multi-sectarian Iraq when the politicians establish the basis for nationwide peace. Judging by the performance of Iraq's political elite, that day is a long way off.

For conservatives, the fault lies not with Iraqis unable or unwilling to stand up, but with the administration for not being brutal enough, and of liberals of course, for being a bunch of pessimistic deafeatocrats:

The NYT hacks join the Bushbots in the kabuki that pretends our upcoming withdrawal from Iraq must be blamed on the failures of the Iraqis, rather than the failures to properly prosecute the regional war against Islamist-supporting regimes by the Bush adminstration, and the opposition to victory from the Dems, the NYT, and the rest of the MSM, that are the real causes.

I've read my Sun Tzu, and I'm fairly certain that nowehere in The Art of War does he consider "clapping louder" to be a real military strategy. The fact that US troops are having to secure the same areas of Baghdad over and over and over again, is causing a lot of people to experience deja vu:

We've been here before with Operations Lightening, Forward Together, and Forward Together Part Deux. We know the script, they know the script, and we keep on replaying the script. We expect the Iraqi Army and police to be competent and listen to the great and authoratitive wisdom of their US officers without thinking about what is motivating a Shi'ite infantry battalion to fight and to fight hard. We expect units to actually show up at 95% strength and to care about what is happening at a place where they have no direct stake. We expect an Iraqi government that is composed of sectarian Shi'ite parties to crack down on sectarian Shi'ites.

Doing this once is a mistake, twice is a crime, and repeating it a third time is insanity. We're at the fourth major repetition of this same basic operational plan with the same level of success, so where are we now --- the outright delusional?

Remember, insanity is defined as doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting different results.

One final thought from me tonight on the tone, if not the substance, of this debate on immigration.

If you've watched this show with any regularity, you know I’ll never be confused with a big supporter of President Bush. But on this divisive issue of immigration, I’m proud to say that I don't agree with Rush, Sean, or any of the other rightwing nuts in calling out George W.

Is the bill perfect? No.

But it’s more right than wrong and I don't think it's a coincidence that it's one of the only issues I’ve seen the president so passionate about. As a border state governor he knows the different between reality and rhetoric and as you can see from this press conference last month, he spoke from the heart and not a scripted speech.

(Hat Tip Chris Dodd)

Ahem....(composing myself).

Let me try to get through this without breaking out into peals of ironic laughter....

In his attempts to counter the backlash against the bipartisan immigration reform bill, President Bush has said he fears the attitude of the bill's opponents could lead to America losing it's soul. Strong words of rebuke for the conservative base that overwhelmingly opposes this legislation. And he's not the only one to use such harsh language. Former Bush-nominee for Sec. of Labor, Linda Chavez, - no moonbat liberal, she - took to the posts at Townhall to tell immigration reform opponents exactly what backers of this bill think of them:

Some people just don't like Mexicans -- or anyone else from south of the border. They think Latinos are freeloaders and welfare cheats who are too lazy to learn English. They think Latinos have too many babies, and that Latino kids will dumb down our schools. They think Latinos are dirty, diseased, indolent and more prone to criminal behavior. They think Latinos are just too different from us ever to become real Americans.

Over at Hot Air, Allahpundit - never one known for self-awareness - is shocked, just shocked at this behavior (emphasis his):

First it was Chertoff, then Bush, now Chavez: three Republicans, one of them president, another a cabinet member, the third a would-be cabinet member, all not merely criticizing the base's position on amnesty but impugning their character for taking that position.

....heh.....snrrkkk!!!.....hmmfff....Sorry. Where was I? Oh yeah...

On today's Wall Street Journal editorial page, Peggy Noonan runs to her room, throws herself on her bed and rips the autographed photo of Dubya to shreds. She writes down the names of all of his buddies, just so she can cross them out with her purple sharpie. She gives back the ring, the fur coat, the flowers. Everything. "How could he do this?", she asks. "To a fellow conservative?"

The president has taken to suggesting that opponents of his immigration bill are unpatriotic--they "don't want to do what's right for America." His ally Sen. Lindsey Graham has said, "We're gonna tell the bigots to shut up." On Fox last weekend he vowed to "push back." Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff suggested opponents would prefer illegal immigrants be killed; Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez said those who oppose the bill want "mass deportation." Former Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson said those who oppose the bill are "anti-immigrant" and suggested they suffer from "rage" and "national chauvinism."

Why would they speak so insultingly, with such hostility, of opponents who are concerned citizens? And often, though not exclusively, concerned conservatives?

...Nghfff!!!.....Can't...hold...back.......

Ohhh Lordy! ......"Impugning the character"..."insultingly"..."with hostility"...."opponents who are just concernbed citizens." Oh my stars and garters! Peggy and the rest of the rightwing base have spent the last six years swooning over Bush's every move, pumping their fists and yelling "Yeah!" every time Bush and the entire Republican party apparatus belittled, insulted and demonized their political opponents, and now...It's all ending in tears. I'm crying too, but these tears are of laughter. And I'm not the only one who's a little light on the sympathy:

I'm enjoying watching Bush's base- the same base that cheered lustily every time the administration accused war opponents of helping the terrorists and undercutting the troops- get all hot and bothered when the same tactics are used against them.

When you live by the bigotry card, you die by the bigotry card. Because you reap what you sow:

It's not like the immigration debate hasn't played out along the typical GOP game plan - if you don't have anything to rally the base, pick on a minority and make them a threat to all of western civilization. The Republicans have already worked their way through blacks, women, Jews, gays, then Muslims, and now Latinos. Perhaps Bush is getting concerned that the bigotry-well is starting to run a little dry - after all, to twist the words of Martin Niemöller, once you've demonized everyone, there's no one left to demonize.

It's always nice to go into the weekend on a good laugh. While Allahpundit, Peggy and the rest complain that no one could have predicted the President and his inner circle would demonize their political opponents, all I can think of is the fable of the scorpion and the frog:

"Hellooo Mr. Frog!" called the scorpion across the water, "Would you be so kind as to give me a ride on your back across the river?"

"Well now, Mr. Scorpion! How do I know that if I try to help you, you wont try to kill me?" asked the frog hesitantly.

"Because," the scorpion replied, "If I try to kill you, then I would die too, for you see I cannot swim!"......

Halfway across the river, the frog suddenly felt a sharp sting in his back and, out of the corner of his eye, saw the scorpion remove his stinger from the frog's back. A deadening numbness began to creep into his limbs.

"You fool!" croaked the frog, "Now we shall both die! Why on earth did you do that?"

The scorpion shrugged, and did a little jig on the drownings frog's back.

"I could not help myself. It is my nature."

Then they both sank into the muddy waters of the swiftly flowing river.

Faith is a very personal thing. Two people may believe in the same God (or lack thereof), and yet have very different views about how to exhibit that belief, even whether or not they should, because, as I said, faith is a very personal thing. But for our elected leaders, we seem to hold this as an issue of paramount importance. So every four years, we make our candidates prove that their faith is strong enough to make judgements based on sound morals, but not so overwhelmingly zealous that it shuts others out, as we are a religiously diverse nation. Diarist ZSMorgan at Daily Kos describes the paradox:

The Religious Right believes in compassion on a personal level, evangelism on an institutional level…The Religious Left believes in compassion on the institutional level, evangelism on the personal level. The problem lies in the difficulty of doing God's work without naming God in the act. We believe so much in religious freedom, that we sometimes fear our own faith...I don't know if I have a solution. The solution is the universal acceptance that faith is not required for morality, which I'm sure a few will be hard to convince.

Sheesh. Talk about an understatement. It turns out that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are struggling with this very issue. How to show those who wear their religion on their sleeves that they too are spiritual people, and yet not put off those who believe in the separation of church and state, and that one's faith should be a private issue? It's an uphill battle, to be sure, as Democrats have spent the last few decades letting conservatives beat them over the head with the false assertion that because they don't evangelize, Democrats are godless heathens. Even without the deck being stacked against them like that, as the Kos diarist points out, this would be a tough needle to thread for anyone. So, to help them with this struggle, the Dem frontrunners have hired consultants to advise them on how to reach out to a group that actually supports many of their positions (care for the poor, thou shalt not kill, that sort of thing). Of course, to the "holier than thou" set, this just proves they're heathens:

"Hired strategists" says it all. No matter what else is said or done, a politician who needs to hire a "strategist" is, at the very least, unsure of his faith. And a huckster, looking for the best way to fool a sufficiency of voters.

"Judge not, lest ye be judged." "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."....Doesn't proselytizing about religion require one to have at least some familiarity with the actual Bible? Here's the rub, a candidate - or blogger, or even an entire political party - can advertise itself as holier than thou, but that doesn't make it so. Marlene Elwell, a prominent Christian-right activist, was hired-then-fired by the McCain campaign, and now says "you came away with the strong sense that they had contempt for the faith-based community." Which comes as no surprise to anyone who has, for years now, watched the Republican party pander and give lip service to the religious right without, y'know, actually doing anything for them:

The senator just doesn't seem to much care about the religious right, but he tried running for president once while keeping the Dobson crowd at arm's distance, and learned that his campaign would have to suck up a lot more the second time around...

What’s more, the other fired staffer, Judy Haynes — a former top Christian Coalition official hired to work under Elwell — said in a separate interview that the McCain team exhibited “a contempt for Christians.”

“It’s an attitude about the Christian community that they don’t like to have to do [outreach] but that they need to do it,” Haynes said, referring to the McCain campaign’s religious outreach plan. “Like, if we can get what we want without having to get too close [to religious people] and not make a big display, we’ll do it.”

Well, yes, that’s exactly what the McCain campaign wants to do. They don’t actually like the fundamentalist base. They’re only pretending.

Just remember, the quality of someone's faith - much like a politician's commitment to the issues you care about - is in the eye of the beholder.