Via Drudge, the Washington Post and Politico are suggesting that Virginia governor Tim Kaine is high on Barack Obama's vice presidential shortlist.

Substantively, I don't have strong feelings about Kaine either way at this point. But on a more practical level, did Obama and his vetters watch Kaine's State of the Union rebuttal back in 2006? After watching it, I wrote that Kaine's left eyebrow is "too distracting for the party to ever put him on national television again," prompting the Columbus Dispatch to call this "the site for chatter about 'Tim Kaine's crazy eyebrow."

You really have to watch the C-SPAN Real Player video with the volume off to understand, but here's a screen shot that gives you some sense of what he looked like:

It's true that (a) Kaine got elected in Virginia anyway and (b) vice presidential nominees probably don't have a significant effect on election outcomes. But given that national politics is centered around television, do you want someone who looks that strange on TV on the ticket? Maybe I'm being superficial, but it seems like a legitimate strategic question.

Brendan blogs regularly at Brendan-Nyhan.com

07:55 AM | Permalink

I'm not always a big fan of the initiative process, one of the mechanisms of direct democracy. For the most part, at least in California, the measures have been taken over by the moneyed interests, exactly the opposite of what the Progressive reformers had in mind a century ago.

Yet, there's a majoritarianism to initiatives that's hard to dismiss, and in recent years conservatives have been able to beat back the excesses of the postmodern rights movement with popular revolts from the ballot box.

It's no surprise then, that entrenched minority special interests would work to thwart the will of the voters by abusing the signature petition process by which intiatives qualify for the ballot. John Fund has the story:

The initiative is a reform born out of the Progressive Era, when there was general agreement that powerful interests had too much influence over legislators. It was adopted by most states in the Midwest and West, including Ohio and California. It was largely rejected by Eastern states, which were dominated by political machines, and in the South, where Jim Crow legislators feared giving more power to ordinary people.

But more power to ordinary people remains unpopular in some quarters, and nothing illustrates the war on the initiative more than the reaction to Ward Connerly's measures to ban racial quotas and preferences. The former University of California regent has convinced three liberal states -- California, Washington and Michigan -- to approve race-neutral government policies in public hiring, contracting and university admissions. He also prodded Florida lawmakers into passing such a law. This year his American Civil Rights Institute (ACRI) aimed to make the ballot in five more states. But thanks to strong-arm tactics, the initiative has only made the ballot in Arizona, Colorado and Nebraska.

"The key to defeating the initiative is to keep it off the ballot in the first place," says Donna Stern, Midwest director for the Detroit-based By Any Means Necessary (BAMN). "That's the only way we're going to win." Her group's name certainly describes the tactics that are being used to thwart Mr. Connerly.

Fund details a long list of abuses by BAMN and other left-wing actors: Claiming that random "duplicate" blank lines on a petition sheet is evidence of fraud; completely rewriting an initiative's ballot summary to negatively influence voter understanding of the measure, as in case of Missouri's Secretary of State; and harassing and citing local signature-gatherers for circulating petitions in front of a local library in Kansas City, for example.

The article goes on:

In Nebraska, a group in favor of racial preferences ran a radio ad that warned that those who signed the "deceptive" petition "could be at risk for identity theft, robbery, and much worse."

Those on the left are asssumed to be more concerned with the "rights" of the people, and with the "democratic process." Indeed, leftists are often thought to be more "tolerant" than the mean, old conservative troglodytes.

In truth, it's a mistaken view that liberals are more concerned about "rights," and they're not more "tolerant." In fact, precisely the opposite is true.

Donald blogs daily at American Power

09:20 AM | Permalink

The Wall Street Journal highlights how some labor unions are getting the tens of millions of dollars on this year's election.

The mighty Service Employees International Union (SEIU) plans to spend some $150 million in this year's election, most of it to get Barack Obama and other Democrats elected. Where'd they get that much money?

That's a question the Departments of Labor and Justice are being asked to investigate by the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. Specifically, the labor watchdog group wants Justice to query a new SEIU policy that appears to coerce local workers into funding the parent union's national political priorities.

The union adopted a new amendment to its constitution at last month's SEIU convention, requiring that every local contribute an amount equal to $6 per member per year to the union's national political action committee. This is in addition to regular union dues. Unions that fail to meet the requirement must contribute an amount in "local union funds" equal to the "deficiency," plus a 50% penalty. According to an SEIU union representative, this has always been policy, but has now simply been formalized.

No other major institution could get away with its bosses demanding that every single one of its workers step in line behind its political preferences. This is the sort of imposed political obeisance that infuriates so many workers and turns them away from unions.

And once the Democrats get increased majorities in Congress plus a Democratic president, they will pass the oxymoronic check-off provision to allow unions to win a vote without having secret ballots. Using peer pressure and intimidation, they'll attempt to spread unionization in places where it's been declining. And if the SEIU gets away with these forced contributions this year, expect other unions to follow their example.

Even when the FEC later decides that some of the actions of private groups have violated the law, the fines were dwarfed by the actual contributions that those groups made to the election.

The Federal Election Commission later imposed a $775,000 penalty on ACT for violating campaign finance laws, the largest ever against a 527. Big as it was, the fine equaled less than one cent on the dollar for the $100 million that ACT improperly used to influence a national election. [SEIU President] Mr. Stern was only a founder of ACT. But the political lesson is that the benefit of breaking the rules and potentially winning an election far outweighs a minuscule financial penalty well after the outcome is decided.

The fines should match the amount spent. Now that would be a deterrent.

Betsy blogs daily at Betsy's Page

07:26 AM | Permalink

Here's John McCormack's comment on McCain and the surge from yesterday morning:

The "surge" ... is often shorthand for both the addition of U.S. troops as well as the adoption of a counterinsurgency strategy.

Debate on this shorthand is currently raging across the left blogosphere.

Matthew Yglesias says, for example:

So John McCain said the surge led to the Anbar Awakening even though the Awakening, in fact, happened before the surge began. So he's ignorant. Or maybe dishonest....

Shawn Brimley tries to bring common sense to bear on this: "The word "surge" has always been used to as shorthand referring to President Bush's decision to deploy about 30,000 additional U.S. troops to Iraq in early 2007, the first of which did not arrive in Iraq until later in the spring." McCain is arguing, I guess, that "the surge" doesn't refer to the manpower boost more formally termed the "surge of forces" by the military. Instead, "surge" is, perhaps, short for "counterinsurgency."

The main problems here would be that nobody uses "surge" that way...

Well, that's not correct.

Security studies experts do indeed use the term as a "shorthand" for the Bush administration's overall combined military AND political adjustments designed to bring order and progress to the Iraq deployment.

For example, in "The Price of the Surge," the lead article from the May/June 2008 issue of Foreign Affairs, Steven Simon noted:

In January 2007, President George W. Bush announced a new approach to the war in Iraq. At the time, sectarian and insurgent violence appeared to be spiraling out of control, and Democrats in Washington - newly in control of both houses of Congress - were demanding that the administration start winding down the war. Bush knew he needed to change course, but he refused to, as he put it, "give up the goal of winning." So rather than acquiesce to calls for withdrawal, he decided to ramp up U.S. efforts. With a "surge" in troops, a new emphasis on counterinsurgency strategy, and new commanders overseeing that strategy, Bush declared, the deteriorating situation could be turned around.

Thus, while there are technically discrete elements in the overall approach to strategic adjustment in Iraq, it's generally understoood that reference to the "surge" implies a macro-analytical concept, and the direction of success is evaluated by unpacking the various components in the military/political balance and making additional revisions .

Of course, the whole debate's something of a smokescreen hiding the fundamental issues: Victory in Iraq's impending, and the left forces are out to portray John McCain as a bumbling, fumbling old man, confused about the facts on the ground. This meme combines with a second thrust currently in play on the Iraq debate: that victory in Iraq means American troops can come home, and that Barack Obama's 16-month withdrawal plan is the ticket to "responsibly" ending the deployment.

All of this spin is geared to smothering the fact that Obama's been consistently wrong about the mission in Iraq, and thus his judgement as commander-in-chief is questionable. This strange turn of events sees those who not only opposed the Iraq war from the beginning, but who resisted the initial surge of troops while endlessly announcing the failure of the increase in troops, as the beneficiaries of the administration's resolve and McCain's forbearance.

The New York Times puts it all in perspective:

Conducting a presidential campaign in the middle of a war is somewhat unusual, and several foreign policy experts lament that a great deal of nuance and thoughtful discussion is lost in the political back-and-forth.

If Mr. McCain found himself criticized for seeming to confuse the chronology of events in Iraq, some analysts said Mr. Obama seemed to be giving too little credit to the surge for improving conditions in Iraq. Mr. Obama, who opposed the Iraq war, said in an interview with "Nightline" on ABC this week that if he had to do it all over again, knowing what he knew now, he would still not support the surge.

Mr. O'Hanlon, of the Brookings Institution, said he did not understand why Mr. Obama seemed to want to debate the success of the surge. "Any human being is reluctant to admit a mistake," he said, noting that it takes on added risk in a political campaign.

And Anthony H. Cordesman, of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said the political debate did not always illuminate the issues very well. "There are times, I think, where maybe we really ought to step back from this semantic horror show, and remember that this is a political campaign, it is posturing," Mr. Cordesman said. "Would anyone want either presidential candidate to keep any promise they made today if reality was different in January, or in any point afterwards?"

That's it, then.

An unenlightening semantic debate, which is the forte of left-wing partisans, who've consistently opposed most everything geared to success in Iraq and peace for the Iraqi people.

Here's more examples, from the Huffington Post, "Depends on What the Meaning of the Word 'Is' (Surge) Is," and MyDD, "Depends What The Meaning of "The Surge" Is."

Okay, if ya'll say so...

08:00 AM | Permalink

Rattling around the Internets yesterday was this report that, in an interview with CBS, John McCain misstated the timeline for the Iraq surge and the Anbar Awakening. The Awakening began before President Bush announced the troop increases but McCain's statements made it sound as if the surge directly led to the Sunni revolt against al-Qaida in Iraq.

Now, McCain is denying that he misstated the timeline, insisting that critics misunderstand the meaning of "surge." McCain says the surge included numerous counterinsurgency initiatives, some of which began several months before Bush announced the strategic change in January of 2007. McCain continues to maintain that, without the surge/counterinsurgency efforts, the sheiks who revolted in Anbar could not have succeeded because we could not have protected them.

While McCain can validly argue that our increased troop levels and improved counterinsurgency efforts helped insure the success of the Anbar Awakening and similar Iraqi-led revolts against al-Qaida, he knows full-well that the common definition of the surge is the increase in troop levels President Bush initiated in January 2007. The Anbar Awakening was underway well before then.

I think McCain got caught simplifying history for the sake of a clean argument. It's not that he doesn't understand the order of events it's just that the order of events are inconvenient to his argument. Much like the success of the surge is inconvenient to Barack Obama's arguments. Both men are struggling to present the facts as they stand and not as they wish they stood. We will need some serious media and citizenry vigilance as we go forward in this campaign to make sure both candidates are painting an accurate portrait of Iraq and our successes and failures there.

McCain deserves to get smacked for simplifying events and appearing ignorant of the historical timeline. But his greater point is not wrong. The surge helped insure that the Sunni revolt against al-Qaida succeeded. Will Obama ever admit the same?

Alan blogs regularly at Donklephant.com

08:51 AM | Permalink

For months Republicans have been taunting Senator Barack Obama for not visiting Iraq. From press releases to countdown clocks, it's been a key theme and it's put Obama on the defensive. The GOP has also been hitting him hard for not supporting the McCain surge that has proved fruitful, though not originally popular.

So what does Obama do? He goes to Afghanistan. Then Iraq. He meets with leaders in these countries and talks with soldiers. His aides have scripted him carefully, positioned him wisely and kept him away from any goofy looking hats to prevent another Dukakis-tank photo gaffe.

In an interesting turn of events, German magazine Der Spiegel Saturday quoted Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki as giving apparent backing to the withdrawal plans discussed by Obama, who has pledged to withdraw combat troops from Iraq within 16 months if he is elected. Though Ali al-Dabbagh, the chief spokesman for al-Maliki, said in a statement Sunday that the prime minister's comments were "not conveyed accurately," Der Spiegel is sticking to its story.

Al-Maliki has now given enormous cover to Obama and allowed him to pivot around McCain. The one issue Obama should be on the defensive about has effectively put McCain in a corner.

There's no question that Obama has altered his position on Iraq troop withdrawal. What was once a rigid promise to pull troops out is, well, still a rigid plan to pull troops out--with a new timetable. There's also no question Barry believed the surge would increase violence. He believed it would do the converse. But that conversation is now stale.

Part of the problem is the McCain team's insistence on playing "gotcha" on the success of the surge. McCain's message has remained unchanged: "the surge has worked, the surge has worked." It has worked. But, the next question -- the more important question -- is: "Now that we are winning, are we done here yet?" Americans have a tradition of de-mobilizing too fast from costly wars (post-WW2, we created problems in Berlin, Korea and elsewhere because we simply got rid of the Army so fast). Democracies tire of long wars. Obama will be on the side of American sentiment by saying we need to get out faster. Now that our friends in Baghdad agree with him on the withdrawal plan, he no longer looks like he is out of touch with the situation on the ground. The elected leaders on the ground in Iraq now agree with him.

Obama could even go as far as to acknowledge the surge has worked, and that he made a mistake and it would likely do no harm except for another minor exacerbation from the far left (though it's highly unlikely he'd admit wrongdoing. He, after all, "never doubts himself"). Obama can be vague about whether he is sticking to the 16 months, he just needs to make it clear that he will go faster than McCain.

The McCain camp dared Obama to come to Iraq. So he did. And while Obama is discussing the best way to bring the troops home, McCain is whining about the New York Times not publishing his most recent op-ed on Iraq. Chess verses checkers. Which do you think Americans care more about?

If Obama can make it through this trip without a stumble, controversy or policy goof, he is poised to remove McCain's biggest criticism by turning the tables while McCain appears vulnerable on his biggest strength.

In other words, checkmate.

Andrea Tantaros is a Republican Strategist and former press secretary to the House Republican Conference

08:55 AM | Permalink

I literally could not believe it when I read it (the article is from February), but here we go...because Obama came from a white mother and a highly educated black father...it follows that he's more predisposed to be a Communist.

I know, it sounds like the stuff of fiction, but take a read from Lisa Schiffren of the National Review:

Obama and I are roughly the same age. I grew up in liberal circles in New York City -- a place to which people who wished to rebel against their upbringings had gravitated for generations. And yet, all of my mixed race, black/white classmates throughout my youth, some of whom I am still in contact with, were the product of very culturally specific unions. They were always the offspring of a white mother, (in my circles, she was usually Jewish, but elsewhere not necessarily) and usually a highly educated black father. And how had these two come together at a time when it was neither natural nor easy for such relationships to flourish? Always through politics. No, not the young Republicans. Usually the Communist Youth League. Or maybe a different arm of the CPUSA. But, for a white woman to marry a black man in 1958, or 60, there was almost inevitably a connection to explicit Communist politics. (During the Clinton Administration we were all introduced to then U. of Pennsylvania Professor Lani Guinier -- also a half black/half Jewish, red diaper baby.)

I don't know how Barak Obama's parents met. But the Kincaid article referenced above makes a very convincing case that Obama's family, later, (mid 1970s) in Hawaii, had close relations with a known black Communist intellectual. And, according to what Obama wrote in his first autobiography, the man in question -- Frank Marshall Davis -- appears to have been Barack's own mentor, and even a father figure. Of course, since the Soviet Union itself no longer exists, it's an open question what it means practically to have been politically mentored by an official Communist. Ideologically, the implications are clearer.

I like how the author of this piece of agit-prop talks about New York City as if it's the place where Communists meet, and then goes onto say she doesn't know how his parents met in Hawaii, but hey...there's this Communist that his parents knew and so...

Paging McCarthy...Joseph McCarthy...

And here's the best part...

Political correctness was invented precisely to prevent the mainstream liberal media from persuing the questions which might arise about how Senator Obama's mother, from Kansas, came to marry an African graduate student. Love? Sure, why not? But what else was going on around them that made it feasible?

Yes Lisa, that's why political correctness was invented...precisely to make sure that your inane theories don't get any traction.

Obviously this meme never stuck to Obama, but make no mistake...if this is the level of crazy we were seeing in February just wait until after the convention.

Justin blogs daily at Donklephant.com

08:15 AM | Permalink

ABC's Jake Tapper reports that John McCain is questioning Barack Obama's judgment because he didn't serve in the military:

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., Monday hit Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, not for only being, in his view, wrong on the surge of troops in Iraq, but also for not having served in the military. Arguing that he, unlike Obama, doesn't "need any on-the-job training," McCain said, per ABC News' Jen Duck, that "I also agree with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff who said it would be very dangerous...to do what Senator Obama has advocated."

Added the former Navy flier and Vietnam P.O.W.: "I hope we'll pay attention to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Particularly someone that has no military experience whatsoever."

As Tapper notes, McCain previously responded to Obama's criticism of his position on a GI bill by saying he "will not accept from Senator Obama, who did not feel it was his responsibility to serve our country in uniform, any lectures on my regard for those who did." McCain also once jabbed incorrectly at Obama for using the spelling "flack jacket" rather than "flak jacket."

Practically speaking, these comments are silly. McCain's heroic service as a Vietnam War fighter pilot and POW is not relevant to being commander-in-chief. As Wesley Clark said somewhat tactlessly, "I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president."

But what's really objectionable is the anti-democratic idea that candidates have to serve in the military to serve as president and command American troops. Bill Clinton was handicapped throughout his presidency by this perception, which weakened his leverage in trying to get the military to go after Osama bin Laden. Some liberal pundits and bloggers have bought into a similar notion by describing pro-war conservatives who didn't serve in the military as "chickenhawks," which suggests that only veterans can argue for war.

A related problem is the growing politicization of the military itself, which has an increasingly conservative tilt, especially among officers. Since 9/11, President Bush has used military imagery for partisan purposes and repeatedly attacked Democrats during speeches at military bases. Rather than decrying these tactics, Democrats like John Kerry have fetishized their support from retired officers and hyped any criticism of President Bush by active-duty officers.

It's time to restore balance in this relationship. The presidency is a civilian institution that controls the military, not the other way around.

Brendan blogs regularly at Brendan-Nyhan.com

08:01 AM | Permalink

It's the baseless rumor that just won't go away, that a President Obama might appoint his old law school chum Deval Patrick to a seat on the Supreme Court.

Fun, but my guess is, totally false. I suspect the last thing a newly-elected Obama will want is a polarizing Supreme Court nominee whose hard-line views and actions at the Justice Department earned him the nickname "Quota King" in right-wing circles. Can you imagine the scene at the confirmation hearings as conservative - and moderate Democrat - senators quiz Patrick about his push for, in essence, backroom short-circuiting of the constitutional process for repeal of gay marriage, a prioritization of politics over law that earned him an indirect rebuke from the state supreme court?

However, unless I've been misled about the closeness of the relationship between the two men, I do believe Obama will reach out for Patrick should he win, more likely as a trusted player in an inside job like the White House staff or legal office. And I also believe Patrick might go for it, his protestations to the contrary notwithstanding. He aggressively markets himself as a governor for the long-term, whose most significant initiatives likely won't bear fruit for as much as a decade or more. Exit spin: hey, I've planted the seeds, now it's up to you all to make sure the harvest comes in, my commander-in-chief needs me. See ya.

Then again, who in their right mind would want to walk away from a staggering state economy, a hemhorraging state budget, sagging job-approval ratings, and near-daily sniping from virtually everyone around you?

Jon Keller blogs regularly for WBZ-TV Boston at Keller @ Large

08:13 AM | Permalink

The NYT has handed John McCain a small gift by refusing to publish his column answering Barack Obama's column from last week. In his reply to McCain, NYT editorial page editor, David Shipley spelled out what he wanted McCain to say in a rewritten draft.

It would be terrific to have an article from Senator McCain that mirrors Senator Obama's piece. To that end, the article would have to articulate, in concrete terms, how Senator McCain defines victory in Iraq. It would also have to lay out a clear plan for achieving victory -- with troops levels, timetables and measures for compelling the Iraqis to cooperate. And it would need to describe the Senator's Afghanistan strategy, spelling out how it meshes with his Iraq plan.

It's awfully kind of David Shipley to decide that McCain's plan for Iraq has to include elements such as troop levels and timetables that McCain has specifically said should be determined by conditions on the ground and not by American political concerns. The translation of Shipley's demands are - believe what we and Obama believe or we will not publish you.

If McCain's column had been published, few would have cared. As you read the text of the column as posted on Drudge it's just the standard stuff that McCain has been saying over and over on the campaign trail. But by refusing to publish McCain's column after they published Obama's, the NYT has given McCain the bonus of a talking point on media bias. And conservatives, who are suspicious of McCain, can't stand the New York Times. Every time the Times shows such blatant bias, there are probably some conservative voters somewhere deciding that they can hold their noses and vote for McCain. Nothing unites conservatives more than their dislike of the MSM. And during a week when the networks are displaying their bias in favor of Obama, the NYT is kind enough to pile on some more.

UPDATE: It's so lovely to see that the New York Times was proud of publishing a column by a Hamas spokesman, yet they reject a column from the Republican nominee. Remember this response by the Times' public editor, Clark Hoyt to complaints when the Times ran that Hamas column.

Many readers were outraged, complaining that The Times had provided a platform for a terrorist. One, Jon Pensak of Sherborn, Mass., said that allowing Yousef space in The Times "isn't balanced journalism, it is more the dissemination of propaganda in the spirit of advocacy journalism."

Well, yes. The point of the op-ed page is advocacy. And, Rosenthal said, "we do not feel the obligation to provide the kind of balance you find in news coverage, because it is opinion."

David Shipley, one of Rosenthal's deputies and the man in charge of the op-ed page, said: "The news of the Hamas takeover of Gaza was one of the most important stories of the week. ... This was our opportunity to hear what Hamas had to say."

I agree that Yousef's piece should have run, even though his version of reality is at odds with the one I understand from news coverage. He wrote blandly, for example, about creating "an atmosphere of calm in which we resolve our differences" with Israel without mentioning that Hamas is officially dedicated to raising "the banner of Allah over every inch of Palestine," which would mean no more Israel.

Op-ed pages should be open especially to controversial ideas, because that's the way a free society decides what's right and what's wrong for itself. Good ideas prosper in the sunshine of healthy debate, and the bad ones wither. Left hidden out of sight and unchallenged, the bad ones can grow like poisonous mushrooms.

So they were willing to run the controversial ideas of Hamas, a terrorist group responsible for the death of many Israeli civilians as well as of Palestinians accused of cooperating with the Israelis. Yet the Times wasn't willing to run an opinion column by a presidential candidate from the Republican Party because they don't agree with his approach to the war in Iraq.

The Times is even willing to run a political column by an astrologer!

How delicious of the Times to once again expose its bias so openly. With all the political attention of the day focused on Obama's trip to Iraq, it was going to be hard for the McCain campaign to break through at all. Thanks to the New York Times, there is now a McCain-related story that can gain him a little publicity and put conservatives on the same side as McCain, not a position they always occupy.

Betsy blogs daily at Betsy's Page

07:55 AM | Permalink

Isn't the New York Times really stretching it by attributing an email message to John McCain today?

"I returned to the Senate with greater influence than before I ran, and I used that influence to work with senators on both sides of the aisle," Mr. McCain said in an e-mail message. "I don't believe in hoarding political capital just for the sake of possessing it."

Remember this is John "It's a Google" McCain, who has admitted that aides "go on [the Internet] for me. I will have that down fairly soon, getting on myself." It's generally implausible that any email from a politician to a reporter isn't at least vetted by a press staffer, but in McCain's case there's almost no question that he did not write the email.

Brendan blogs regularly at Brendan-Nyhan.com

07:50 AM | Permalink

I couldn't get very worked up about Jesse Jackson's bitter rant against Barack Obama. Jackson seems so yesterday. All he did was display how jealous he is of Obama and his criticism of Obama for speaking out about the responsibilities of the African American community made Obama look so much better in comparison.

I was rather disgusted at Bill O'Reilly's unctuous defense of himself for not revealing that Jackson had used the n-word in his little rant. O'Reilly said that he wasn't interested in making Jackson look bad. So what? It was definitely news that Jackson, who has led boycotts against Seinfeld because Michael Richards used the n-word was using it himself. Debra Saunders exactly nails O'Reilly's hypocrisy on this.

So why did O'Reilly withhold mention of the more offensive n-word?

O'Reilly told viewers that Jackson had uttered other ugly words, but that he would not air them because they "did not advance the story in one way, shape or form."

Later he said, "I'm not in the business of hurting Jesse Jackson -- because it does hurt Jesse Jackson -- and I'm not in the business of creating some kind of controversy that's not relevant to the general subject: one civil rights leader disparaging another over policy. So we held it back. Some weasel leaked it to the Internet."

Some readers might consider Jackson's remarks off-limits as they represented pre-show chitchat not intended for public consumption. But Jackson is hardly the first public figure to get caught in this snare. He knew he had a microphone on his lapel, that people might hear him, and that what he was saying was in poor taste.

He simply could not help himself.

Granted, whether it should be or not, it is different when a black person, as opposed to a white person, uses the two-syllable n-word.

But when a civil rights leader disparages the very people whom he is supposed to champion -- that's news. And when the black person who uses the n-word word is a civil rights leader who challenged the entertainment industry not to use the word and called for a boycott of "Seinfeld" DVDs after one of the series' stars, Michael Richards, used the slur as a standup comic -- that's big news.

It is news that buries whatever credibility Jackson retained.

Which makes O'Reilly's decision not to broadcast the racist n-word incomprehensible. O'Reilly was giving a pass to Jackson -- something he would not do for an 18-year-old girl who posted a sexual photo on the Internet.

I don't know why Bill O'Reilly was in the Jesse Jackson protection racket. But the next time he shows some video clip that makes somebody look bad and then hauls that person in front of the camera to enter his grandiose "No Spin Zone" the person should challenge O'Reilly right back and ask why he's suddenly in the business of creating this controversy when he tried to hold back on a much bigger story.

I haven't ever thought much of Bill O'Reilly, but this story exposed him for an even bigger buffoon than I'd thought he was before. Note how he had a different reaction about people who criticized Don Imus for his riff on the Rutgers basketball team. At that time, with guest host Michelle Malkin interviewing him, he pretended that he was going to be all fearless in exposing those who criticized Imus but then used racist language themselves.

MALKIN: Well, I guess the rehabilitation of Don Imus will begin. But, I mean, how optimistic are you that the rehabilitation of all of the other hate-mongers and hate-tolerators is going to take place?

O'REILLY: Another excellent question.

I don't care whether their rehabilitation takes place at all. What I'm going to do is, I'm going to spotlight them now. And I think other people will, too, that, when they get back into this groove of hate, we're going to lay it out there, that we're going to layout there the gangster rappers, who they work for, who is paying them.

I wouldn't want to be Snoopy Dogg right now.

(LAUGHTER)

O'REILLY: And I wouldn't want to be Ludacris or 50 Cent, because every move they make is going to be on ""The Factor"."

I guess that that was just some self-promoting spin because Jesse Jackson was one of the biggest mouths out there protesting against Don Imus. But when Bill O'Reilly had an exclusive video shot of the sanctimonious Reverend using the n-word, he tried to bury the tape.

O'Reilly may bluster all he wants, but he's proven that his zone has quite a good deal of spin.

08:43 AM | Permalink

Why?

Two words: Bob Barr.

Republican strategists are privately conceding that the GOP could lose Georgia's 15 presidential electors for the first time since 1992 because of Bob Barr's ballot position as the Libertarian Party presidential candidate.

The most recent Georgia survey by the polling firm Insider Advantage, conducted July 2, shows 46 percent for Sen. John McCain, 44 percent for Sen. Barack Obama and 4 percent for Barr. George W. Bush, who carried all 11 states of the old Confederacy in both 2000 and 2004, had 58 percent of Georgia's vote in the last election.

But can Barr realistically keep that level of support up? Actually, I think he can because we're talking about a very small % of conservatives who simply won't vote for McCain because he's too aligned with Bush when it comes to fiscal and foreign policy matters. There's a healthy number of conservatives who are really angry with the current Republican status quo, and McCain isn't doing enough to convince them that anything will change.

So, do I think Obama has a shot at the state? No. But it'll be close enough that McCain will have to spend money, and that has to drive the Republicans nuts.

Justin blogs daily at Donklephant.com

08:34 AM | Permalink

I know. You're probably thinking "What do I care what Lanny Davis thinks about the Iraq war?" Well, normally I would agree with you, but after reading what he wrote for the Washington Times (yes, the WaTimes), I think you'll agree with me that his opinion is worth reading, considering he at one point was an anti-Iraq war Dem. He's still a Dem of course, but his opinion on the Iraq war has significantly changed. Here's a bit of what he wrote:

But ... then came my first moment of doubt.

I saw on TV in early 2005, in their first preliminary democratic elections, long lines of Iraqis waiting to vote under the hot desert sun with bombs and shrapnel exploding around them. Waiting to vote!

And then there was that indelible image - an older woman shrouded in a carpetlike cape, smiling gleefully and holding her purple finger in the air for the TV cameras, purple with ink showing that she had voted.

Smiling! In the middle of war! At U.S. troops standing nearby!

[...]

Wow, I thought. Is it possible I was wrong?

Is it possible, I wondered, that Iraqis truly did want democracy and freedom and the right to vote and government of the people, just as we Americans do? And were willing to fight for it, with our help?

Wouldn't that be a good thing? Even a great thing?

Maybe another democracy, however imperfect, other than Israel in the Middle East could lead to more moderation, possibly other democracies? Democracies that could serve as bulwarks against al Qaeda-type of terrorist states?

Then in 2005-06 came the increased violence from the Sunni insurgents against American kids, then the sectarian civil war between Sunnis and Shi'ites, with young Americans caught in the crossfire. My certainty in opposing the war and supporting a deadline for getting out re-emerged.

And then in early 2007 came the surge, which so many of us in the antiwar left of the Democratic Party predicted would be a failure, throwing good men and women and billions of dollars after futility. We were wrong.

[...]

Surely we owe the Iraqis who helped us, whose lives are in danger, immediate immigration rights to the U.S. Yet the shameful fact is that most are still not even close to having such rights.

Surely we owe the al-Maliki government and the Shi'ite and Sunni soldiers who put their lives on the line against Shi'ite and Sunni extremists and terrorists at our behest some continuing presence and support and patience as they strive to find peace, political reconciliation - and maybe even the beginnings of a stable democracy.

The only question is, for how long?

Forever? No. 100 years? No.

But for how long? I don't know.

I just know I can't get out of my mind that lady with the purple finger held up, smiling into the camera. If getting in was a m