Let's start with the good news for Barack Obama fans - your guy did his usual excellent job last night. He delivered a well-written speech with his usual energy and eloquence. He looked great and sounded great. Presidential, you might say. He didn't go on too long. He didn't let the adoring crowd stall him out by letting their incessant cheering drag on. He was fine. He'll get a nice bump in the polls, and probably consolidate the progress he made this week uniting his party behind him.

OK, now, the bad news. The speech was too much. Too many promises of too much spending and too many profound changes without any real explanation of how they'll actually happen. Too much talk of a magical, mystical, impossible uniting of a country that has over the last century grown profoundly diverse and ideologically divided in ways that no politician can seriously hope to reverse. Too many nice turns of phrase to the point where none will likely stand out in any swing voter's mind past the weekend, if that. Keep in mind, this is typical of these big presidential nominee convention speeches. That's why so few of them are memorable to anyone but the party insiders.

John McCain will probably repeat the same mistakes next week at his convention. Because that's the kind of culture we have now, a culture of too much. This has always been a big country of big plans and big appetitites. But in recent decades we've become almost obese in so many ways. Too much cultural license without a restraining sense of taste. Too much political extremism. Too much of an edifice complex on things like the Big Dig and the Bush "democratization" of the Middle East. Too much narcissism, too much materialism, too much of everything, when all too often, less is really more. The Republican party has suffered from this disease; that's why they're rightly on the banana peel. But Obama-ism fits the mold too. And it leaves you to wonder - where's a fed-up voter to turn?

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

08:24 AM | Permalink

Former Democratic presidential nominee Michael Dukakis disappeared from the top echelons of the party establishment after his devastating loss to George H.W. Bush in 1988. I recall in 2004, during the Democratic Convention in Boston, where Senator John Kerry was being nominated, commentators still spoke of Dukakis as a disgraced loser who would not be on hand to address the delegates.

So it's interesting to see Dukakis reemerging from obscurity to attend this year's festivities in Denver. Katie Couric, in the video below, interviews Dukakis outside the Pepsi Center arena. The former Massachusetts Governor is apologetic for his loss in 1988, lamenting that he didn't combat the GOP attack-machine effectively. He says this year Obama's got to "fight fire with fire":

See also the background story on Dukakis' return at Scripps News Service, "Even Now, Dukakis Blames Himself for 1988 Blowout":

Twenty years have passed, but Michael Dukakis still kicks himself -- again and again and again.

Seven times in an hour-long chat, he brings up "mistakes" from that 1988 presidential election.

Twice, he flat-out admits that he "screwed it up." He wonders aloud whether he might have been naive. And, lest anybody still wonders who was to blame for his loss to Republican George H.W. Bush, Dukakis keeps repeating that the strategic decisions were "my fault, nobody else's."

Things just didn't work out the way the former Massachusetts governor had hoped. And this after what Dukakis considered a "great," "terrific," "unified," "positive" Democratic National Convention in Atlanta.

Turns out, a great political get-together just isn't enough, particularly if the presidential nominee forgets the most important part of a convention: The morning after.

After the last balloons drop, a presidential nominee has to start the campaign all over again. He has to be ready to fight back against attacks. And, Dukakis says from experience, those attacks are coming.

"What I would change obviously, and what you have to be aware of, is the final campaign is very different from the primary," Dukakis says, sitting in front of a vintage map of Denver at his daughter's stately home in the city's Country Club neighborhood. "You think you've addressed every issue under the sun. You try to do so in your acceptance speech. But it's a whole new ballgame, and you've got to begin, post-convention, as if the campaign has just begun."

After his upbeat convention in 1988, "I just kind of assumed, 'Look, it's just a continuation of what I've been doing: a very positive approach that so far seems to have done what I hoped it would," Dukakis says. "And anyway, that's the kind of guy I am, so we'll just kind of continue . . .' "

But it was a famous miscalculation. Dukakis wanted to stay positive. So he was slow to respond to some brutal attacks on his record, his positions and even his wife's reputation.

By the time he fought back, it was too late.

That's a painful lesson Democrats should never forget, Dukakis says. And it's clear that a sometimes "feisty" Sen. Barack Obama already has taken it to heart, he adds.

In Dukakis' view, any and all attacks have to be countered, swiftly and forcefully, he says. Or else, suffer his fate, a party's standard-bearer who ended up as one of those self-deprecating woulda, coulda, shoulda guys.

Dukakis can help the Democrats this year by reminding them that their soft-on-criminals eschatology had as much to do with their party's defeat 20 years ago as the GOP's well-justified attack strategy.

Donald blogs at American Power

08:01 AM | Permalink

Rudy Giuliani, in his established role as a traveling flack for John McCain, is now speaking with tremendous respect for "his senator," Hillary Clinton, whom he had expected to run against, and who turns big star as we post.

Very subtle.

There's speculation in GOP circles that Giuliani Partners could do well under a McCain presidency, say with fat contracts. Or, if Obama wins, and then looks vulnerable enough in 2012, Giuliani could give the presidency another try.

But of course the ex-mayor was against Clinton before he was for her, as shown by the sample dispatches below. Emphasis, of course, added.

In a dispatch filed yesterday by CBS Giuliani says: "Well, I think it's actually weakness. I mean is it 'tough' to turn down the person that gives you the best chance to win because it unites the party or is it some kind of difficulty in dealing with one of your rivals? I mean honestly, I am just speculating, I don't know," said Giuliani from the beach resort town of Sag Harbor on Saturday.

And this is from September 17, 2007: (AP) Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani denounced Democratic rival Hillary Rodham Clinton on Wednesday for challenging the Capitol Hill testimony of the top U.S. military commander in Iraq.

"Hillary Clinton, questioning Gen. (David) Petraeus, said you had to suspend disbelief," Giuliani said after a brief campaign stop at an Akron restaurant. "Why would you say that about an American general?"

The New York senator appeared skeptical Tuesday of the positive spin Petraeus put on improvements in Iraq, saying, "The reports that you provide to us really require the willing suspension of disbelief."

Giuliani said Petraeus was doing "the best that he can." He also criticized the liberal anti-war group MoveOn.org for running newspaper advertisements that asked "General Petraeus or General Betray Us?"

"I can't imagine why we can't get beyond maligning other people's motives nowadays in politics," said Giuliani, a former New York City mayor.

"There is no reason to do what MoveOn.org or Hillary Clinton have done - which is to make personal attacks on the general." Giuliani had a private fundraising event arranged in Akron but no details were disclosed by his campaign staff.

He arrived in Ohio - expected to again be a key political battleground in 2008 after clinching President Bush's 2004 re-election - following a fundraiser earlier in the day in Morgantown, W.Va. He was to travel to Canonsburg, Pa., and Bluffton, S.C., after the Akron visit.

Dan Janison writes and reports for Newsday's Spin Cycle blog

09:24 AM | Permalink

This is just odd...

McCain is traveling with the U.N.'s World Food Programme, whose work she monitored in Southeast Asia and Africa this spring and summer. McCain plans to meet with Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili and to visit wounded Georgian soldiers. She would also visit representatives of the HALO Trust, which works to remove land mines and on whose board she serves. [...]

Cindy McCain said she has been trying to get into Georgia since the conflict started, but it took time to arrange the logistics. Her husband, she said, is "very supportive. As soon as he saw what was happening -- he and I, we connect on many levels. I mean, he knew immediately [that I would want to go]. I've been to Georgia with him; I know the country."

Imagine if Michelle Obama was taking this trip. Imagine the outrage on the right as they'd accuse her of turning a foreign policy crisis into a photo op. And you know what? They'd be right.

I mean, what else can this trip be seen as since Cindy is essentially going to be in the country for less than a day? Yes, I know she has worked with the UN before, but folks, this is not "monitoring."

Again, just odd.

Justin blogs daily at Donklephant.com

08:33 AM | Permalink

In the wake of Joe Biden's nomination, Fred Barnes drags out the National Journal 2007 Senate ratings to argue that Obama and Biden are the first and third most liberal sentors:

Once regarded as a centrist, Mr. Biden was rated by the National Journal in 2007 as the third most liberal member of the Senate. Mr. Obama was rated the most liberal. Neither has a record of bucking the wishes of liberal interest groups or promoting bipartisanship.

However, as I pointed out back in February, the National Journal ratings are seen as simplistic by political scientists who study voting in Congress. The far more respected ranking produced by UCSD's Keith Poole and UCLA's Jeff Lewis places Obama and Biden as the 11th and 10th most liberal senators (respectively) in the first half of the 110th Senate (2007) and as the 21st and 29th most liberal in the 109th Senate (2005-2006).

By contrast, Poole and Lewis rate the "maverick" McCain as the eighth most conservative senator in the first half of the 110th and the second most conservative in the 109th, so the comparison isn't actually as flattering as Barnes thinks (though see my previous post on the methodological problems posed by his inconsistent voting record).

Brendan blogs at Brendan-Nyhan.com

08:13 AM | Permalink

Barack Obama's selection of Senator Joseph Biden was designed to bolster the Democrats' flagging standings on the national security issue. Biden, a 35-year veteran of the Congress, serving on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, looked to provide foreign policy gravitas to Obama's dangerous inexperience on the international stage.

Yet, as analysts and bloggers take a closer look, Obama's Biden pick may end up being a disastrous liability for the campaign.

For one thing, Biden's holds a near-religious commitment to diplomacy before the resort to military force in a crisis. Biden's hedging has left the Delaware Senator a legacy of vacillation and hypocrisy in foreign affairs. For some background, here's Michael Gordon:

As the Bush administration was fine-tuning its plan to invade Iraq, Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. helped draft a proposed resolution that emphasized the need for diplomatic efforts to dismantle Saddam Hussein's weapons programs but gave President Bush the authority to use military force as a last resort....

Mr. Biden is widely seen as a liberal-minded internationalist. He has emphasized the need for diplomacy but has been prepared at times to back it with the threat of force. An early advocate of military action to quell the ethnic fighting in the Balkans, he has not been averse to American military intervention abroad. As the debates over Kosovo and later Iraq showed, he has been loath to give the United Nations a veto over American policy decisions. But he has also sought to ensure that the United States acted in concert with other nations.

Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. joins the Democratic ticket as an acknowledged foreign policy sage whose 36-year record has won him bipartisan praise as a liberal internationalist who generally hews close to his party's center. But he has sometimes found himself at odds with members of his own party as well as with Republicans.

Biden has frequently favored humanitarian interventions abroad and was an early and influential advocate for U.S. military action in the Balkans in the 1990s. He also advocates U.S. action to stem the continuing bloodshed in Darfur.

Some liberal Democrats remain distressed by his 2002 vote for the Iraq war, which Barack Obama opposed. Other critics say Biden was misguided or even naive in his most recent proposal to resolve sectarian conflict by giving broad autonomy to Iraq's three major population groups, the Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds. And he opposed last year's troop "surge," which by most accounts has contributed significantly to the reduction in violence in Iraq.

What appears to bind Biden and Obama in the realm of foreign affairs, however, is a shared belief in strong cooperation with America's traditional allies and in the use of force only as a last resort. The Democratic standard-bearers reject the belief of President Bush and some other conservatives that the United States should not hesitate to act unilaterally if other nations demur.

Reuters is reporting that Barack Obama's selection of Joe Biden is not popular among Iraqis, who very much dislike Biden's proposal to partition their country....

The Biden partition plan was a bad idea from the beginning, and all Iraqis should be grateful that - so far - it has gained no footing within the executive branch.

Anyway, it is a reflection of the diminishing political significance of the Iraq war that Barack Obama, who secured the Democratic nomination in part by making much of his opposition to the war and his plan to withdraw our troops on a fast schedule, is now able to pick as his running mate a senator who voted for the invasion in 2002 and whose favored "solution" would have required more rather than less American involvement in Iraqi domestic politics.

...Biden is a typical liberal who has no claim to post-partisanship...

His vaunted foreign-policy judgment is seriously flawed. Although he was not as irresponsible as other Democrats in calling for an immediate pullout from Iraq, he opposed the surge and plugged for an unworkable plan to partition the country, one long ago overtaken by events, even though his office was saying as of only a week ago that he still supports it.

The cardinal rule of vice-presidential picks is: Do no harm. It remains to be seen if Biden will meet even this low standard.

Rather than adding to Obama's attractions or neutralizing Obama's liabilities, if he does anything, Biden subtracts from Obama's strengths and contributes to his liabilities.

Obama may have wanted Biden's foreign policy experience, but he may soon find that Biden's track record leaves a lot to be desired. On Iraq, on Iran, and elsewhere...

Donald blogs at American Power

08:06 AM | Permalink

That's the buzz coming from Denver, via Ambinder.

As I mentioned earlier in the day, former eBay CEO Meg Whitman could do numerous things to help McCain, not the least of which is act as a Hillary surrogate for many of those security moms and independent women who saw Hillary as the true candidate for "change."

Also, let's not forget that McCain named Whitman as one of those people whom he admires most at the Saddleback conference recently and who else could talk the talk when it comes to the economy?

Still, there are pretty obvious drawbacks.

For one, few know where Whitman stands on a lot of the hot button issues (she is pro-life), and while that may excite some independents, it'll still scare McCain's religious base...a lot. Basically, there's no legislative record behind Whitman, only private sector work...most of which never sees the light of day.

Ambinder has more negatives...

But eBay's lost a lot of value in ten years. There's a lot about Whitman we don't know. A lot that social conservatives might object to: eBay is very good to its gay employees, for one thing. And Whitman has her heart set on the governors's mansion in California. Is she ready to lead from day one? When was the last time she went to Iraq? Etc. Etc.

Also, does anybody think Whitman would be ready to lead on day one if something happened to McCain. Dems would have a field day with that one.

Still, a female VP for McCain is extremely intriguing notion and I think it would be a game changer. In fact, it would be the only game changer.

Justin blogs daily at Donklephant.com

07:58 AM | Permalink

A handy clip 'n' save guide:

1. Vice presidential selections rarely affect election outcomes.*
2. The selection is therefore only likely to be important insofar as the VP choice (a) helps or hurts the president they serve during his time in office and (b) becomes more likely to be a future president.
3. The selection should therefore be assessed primarily in light of #2, not #1. (It will not be.)

* You could tell a story where Obama's VP could help prevent defections from white working-class voters who would otherwise have voted Democratic (a possibility that was obviously not relevant in past elections). However, this idea is purely speculative and would be difficult to test even after the fact.

Brendan blogs at Brendan-Nyhan.com

08:21 AM | Permalink

After the nonsense this primary season, I can understand why Democrats across the board would want to diminish the importance of these folks.

From Wash Post:

Barack Obama's campaign will call next week for the creation of a new commission to revise the rules for selecting a presidential nominee in 2012 with a goal of reducing the power of superdelegates, whose role became a major point of contention during the long battle between Obama and Hillary Clinton. [...]

The proposed changes grow out of discussions between Obama's campaign team, officials at the Democratic National Committee and representatives of Hillary Clinton's former presidential campaign, Plouffe said. [...]

"The number of super delegates has gotten too large in relation to overall delegates," Plouffe said. "We want to give more control back to the voters.... Everyone thinks there ought to be more weight given to the results of the elections."

Also, this new commission will be looking at changing up the primary schedule, although it doesn't look likely that Iowa or New Hampshire will be moved around...

The other significant change is the call to redraw the primary and caucus calendar. The 2008 calendar drew significant criticism both for the early starting dates for the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primaries, and also because there were so many states crowded into the first month of what turned out to be a five-month campaign.

As envisioned by the Obama and Clinton campaigns, most contests could not be held before March, except for a handful of states authorized to go earlier -- presumably in February rather than January.

I think these are all good changes, but I wish they'd mix up the primary calendar A LOT more. Give other states a chance to go first instead of Iowa and New Hampshire.

Justin blogs daily at Donklephant.com

09:02 AM | Permalink

The long wait is nearly over! Grateful voters will soon be able to read "Mike's Election Guide," by movie maker and deep political thinker Michael Moore. Fortunately for the impatient among us, Rolling Stone has excerpts posted on-line, and they are riveting.

In his "blueprint for losing the most winnable presidential election in American history" (geez, really? More than FDR's landslide 1944 re-election? ), Moore begins with a familiar angry-left litany of laments: Barack Obama is giving far too much credit to John McCain for being, among other things, a war hero; is being far too hawkish by talking tough on Iran and supporting Israel; and is in general brandishing a "peashooter" at a "gunfight." Intriguingly, Moore predicts fallout from all that genteel centrism in the form of ennui among Obama supporters, whom he characterizes as beer-swilling, trash-TV-addicted couch potatoes. (We are left to imagine his view of McCain backers, although an educated guess seems possible.)

But Moore doesn't stop with imperious contempt for the followers and candidate of the campaign he claims to support. He offers Obama a fail-safe political solution, one that could only have been devised by a totemic member of the "me" generation - drop what you're doing and embrace...ME.

Moore imagines that the press will inevitably ask Obama if he really welcomes Moore's endorsement. And what if the Democratic nominee should be so unwise as to downplay his association with a figure on the political fringe? Moore recalls the trauma of watching 2004 nominee John Kerry tell a TV interviewer he had not seen and had no plans to see Moore's anti-Bush polemic, Fahrenheit 9/11. "But he had indeen seen it," claims Moore. "I sat there watching him say this, and I just felt sorry for him and for the election he was about to lose." Yes - that's the same moment we all remember thinking Kerry was toast.

And Moore concludes with that indispensable kicker to any extremist screed - a threat.

Should Obama seek relief from Moore's shadow, "it's not really me you're distancing yourself from -- it's the millions upon millions of people who feel the same way about things as I do. And many of them are the kind of crazy voters who have no problem voting for a Nader just to prove a point. Elections have been lost by just 537 votes. I don't want that to happen to you."

In the spirit of Moore's shamless self-promotion, allow me to note that my book "The Bluest State" (just out in paperback, by the way!) deals at length with baby-boomer political narcissism and its toxic effects on Massachusetts and the national Democratic Party. I wish I'd had Moore's tract handy when I wrote it. I can't imagine a better example of boomer egomania than the sight of one of the nation's fiercest critics of Republican rule threatening to extend it out of sheer vanity and self-serving spite.

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

08:57 AM | Permalink

Many are the riveting questions if Sen. John McCain picks Sen. Joe Lieberman as his running-mate (speculation stirred here). Does it make McCain the Sen. Al Gore of 2008? Does McCain therefore lose, grow a beard, gain weight, and start a foundation? Does Lieberman stand up at this convention, as he did at the other one, but this time give a whole new meaning to his tag line, "Only in America"? Does Lieberman continue to embrace the controversial Rev. Hagee -- as he did just a few weeks ago, and compare him to Moses -- now that McCain has renounced Hagee over the pastor's dicey comments?

Some of Hagee's printed quotes: "The Roman Catholic Church, which was supposed to carry the light of the gospel, plunged the world into the dark ages.

"[John Paul II] will be remembered for staring down Communism and embracing people of all faiths and colors. He will lovingly be remembered for his bold stand against abortion. (Lieberman is avowedly "pro-choice").

"When Hitler signed a treaty with the Vatican in Rome, he said "I am only continuing the work of the Catholic Church."

Dan Janison writes and reports for Newsday's Spin Cycle blog

08:42 AM | Permalink

Here we go again with the familiar election-year ritual of entrenched incumbents ducking debates with their challengers. The Associated Press reports Sen. John Kerry is now saying that while he has instructed aide Roger Lau to "discuss the 'modalities' of a debate" with the campaign of Democratic challenger Ed O'Reilly,  he "just may not necessarily be able to" find time for one. 

Sure he can't. You know how grueling those modalities can be.

Anyway, predictably and justifiably, Kerry is taking his lumps for blowing off O'Reilly. The Globe editorial page spanked him this morning; op-ed columnist Joan Vennochi is said to be preparing her take, and knowing Joan, Kerry better have his asbestos suit on that day. But may I just say: why is anyone surprised? Kerry is simply demanding the same pass taken by Ted Kennedy in 2000 when he declined to debate GOP nominee Jack E. Robinson. In our one-party state, opinion-makers may find such disdain for the democratic process distasteful, but it seems few voters care. Up to a point, that is - while Ted got away with ignoring the hapless Robinson, a similar attempt to duck debates with Mitt Romney in 1994 was unsuccessful.

The funny thing is, with all due respect to O'Reilly, a debate with him offers little danger for Kerry, an accomplished debater. And by the way, WBZ's offer to host a televised debate still stands. But spare me hand-wringing from the political culture if Kerry's decides the modalities just aren't aligned. Why duck a debate? Because he can.

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

09:26 AM | Permalink

June 30, 2008:

McCain himself disowned the Swift Boat nutters in 2004 as "dishonest and dishonorable." I find both attempts to smear the war records of people who volunteered to fight for their country to be repellent. But the far right is too invested in the politics of Vietnam to take the high road.

August 17, 2008:

I've now heard it countless times. McCain has used what appears to be an intensely personal moment in a prison camp as a reason to vote for him in a campaign ad. As he tells it today, it was the pivotal moment in his struggle to survive in the Hanoi Hilton. And yet, in his first thorough account of his time in captivity, in 1973, the story is absent. The story is also hauntingly like that recounted by Solzhenitsen, as told in Luke Veronis, "The Sign of the Cross":

Leaving his shovel on the ground, he slowly walked to a crude bench and sat down. He knew that at any moment a guard would order him to stand up, and when he failed to respond, the guard would beat him to death, probably with his own shovel. He had seen it happen to other prisoners.

As he waited, head down, he felt a presence. Slowly he looked up and saw a skinny old prisoner squat down beside him. The man said nothing. Instead, he used a stick to trace in the dirt the sign of the Cross. The man then got back up and returned to his work.

As Solzhenitsyn stared at the Cross drawn in the dirt his entire perspective changed.

I have one simple question: when was the first time that McCain told this story?

And he didn't stop there.  He has continued on today here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.

That's 12, count 'em, 12 posts to date so far from the same guy who said back in June, "I find both attempts to smear the war records of people who volunteered to fight for their country to be repellent. But the far right is too invested in the politics of Vietnam to take the high road."

Um ... so does this mean Andrew's on "the right" again, or is it a confirmation that he's a far leftie?  Hell, I dunno anymore. In fact, I don't think he even knows.

Read more at SisterToldjah.com

09:12 AM | Permalink

Since when do New York Times reporters use "big government" as an adjective? The lede of a Jackie Calmes story on Friday predicts "a new round of big-government financial regulation" that is vaguely attributed to "experts":

Modernizing the nation's New Deal-era defenses against financial disaster is not high among the priorities that either Barack Obama or John McCain list for the next president. But events could well plop the issue right in the middle of the winner's plate.

After a string of financial scandals and crises, a quarter century of deregulation and free-market experimentation is giving way to a new round of big-government financial regulation, regardless of who captures the White House, experts say.

Though a single expert (Alan Greenspan) is quoted expressing opposition to aggressive new regulation, the characterization of proposed rule changes as "big-government" is an embellishment added by Calmes. It's reminiscent of the way that newspapers adopted the jargon of "death tax" and "partial birth abortion" in the late 1990s and early 2000s.

What's especially striking is that the Times, which is frequently accused of having a liberal bias, used language that is more conservative than even the Bush White House. In a recent interview with Tom Brokaw on Meet the Press, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson called for "[m]ore modern regulation":

[W]e have a regulatory system that is very outdated. It was put in place many years ago, and...

MR. BROKAW: There's going to have to be more modern regulation...

SEC'Y PAULSON: Yes, absolutely.

MR. BROKAW: ...of Wall Street across the board.

SEC'Y PAULSON: Across the board. More modern regulation and more authorities.

Liberal media critics, take note.

Brendan blogs at Brendan-Nyhan.com

09:01 AM | Permalink

I'm surprised, frankly, at the ahistoricism of Andrew Sullivan and Josh Marshall.

These two guys are not only among the very top-tier bloggers on the scene, they are also Ph.D. recipients in political science and history, from Harvard and Brown respectively. Given such esteemed backgrounds, the apparent ignorance of these two on the continuities of Russian history as they relate to the current war in the Caucasus is stunning.

Sullivan, for example, wants to excoriate the "neocons" for what he perceives is their abuse of historical analogies:

It's very bizarre to read the neocons' speaking about Russia as if the Soviet Union were still in existence. Here's a classic slice of the mindset from Max Boot, who wants a third little war in the Caucasus:

It should be no surprise that Russian spokesmen are masters of the Big Lie-their Soviet predecessors practically invented the technique.

Condi Rice, who really should know better, said:

"This is not 1968 and the invasion of Czechoslovakia, where Russia can threaten a neighbor, occupy a capital, overthrow a government and get away with it. Things have changed."

Yes, things have changed: the Soviet Union no longer exists. Wasn't the entire point of the Cold War that totalitarian expansionist states are different than authoritarian ones? Are we now going to elide this Kirkpatrick distinction when it comes to Russia? Putin is not a saint; and his attitude is Cheney-esque in his fondness for secrecy, brute force and contempt for international law. But he is not a communist and he is not attempting to take over the world. The West fought the Cold War based on this distinction. Why should we forget it now it's over?

Andrew Sullivan, who's been on a tear on this story, has another good post on the bankrupt posturing of the neocons, jumping at the hopes of a new Cold War with the Russians, despite the lack of the ideological underpinnings on which we fought the first and any Russian global ambitions or capacity to fight it.

Marshall goes on to throw in a few more digs at the denizens of the American Enterprise Institute (a hothouse of neoconservative ideas), and he suggests that for people like Bill Bennett and Charles Krauthammer, the Georgian crisis is like an "80s era Gilligan's Island reunion flick."

The reality of anti-neoconservative fervor is well-recognized, but in the cases Sullivan and Marshall, their attacks exhibit a sense of irrationalism, almost an "acute paranoia" in reaction to neoconservative analyses of contempory security issues.
If we unpack the statements of Max Boot and Condoleezza Rice, for example, there's nothing particularly exceptional about them.

When Boot suggests today's Russians have mastered the "big lie" propaganda style of the old Soviet Union, he's essentially making a straightforward reference to the longstanding Kremlin practice of authoritarian control of political information for the external consumption of Moscow's antagonists.

Sullivan and Marshall's critique of Boot on this point is especially strange, since most observers of the Georgian war argue that Vladimir Putin - who was an internal security operative in the Soviet KGB's Fifth Directorate - has played a central role in Kremlin military policy, both before and after Dmitry Medvedev's accession to the Russian presidency. The undeflected similarities in Putin's personal role in the crisis - his personal embodiment of institutional path-dependence, from the Soviet era to the present - is astounding

Sullivan's jab at Rice is also highly ill-conceived, as the Secretary of State is a widely-respected expert on Soviet politics and foreign policy. Her reference to 1968 is to Moscow's crushing of Czechoslovakia's "Prague Spring," which was the shift toward a pro-democracy stance in the Czech communist regime, independent of Moscow, on the part of leader Alexander Dubček (and history records uncanny parallels between the Prague Spring in 1968 and the Georgian crisis of 2008, especially the similarities in the world corellation of forces, finding American power in both cases occupied in massive wars on the periphery - Vietnam and Iraq - which functioned to distract U.S. attention from the power-political machinations of the leaders in Moscow).

But beyond these points lies the larger historical context of current Russian international relations.

State power in Russia today reflects an amalgam of Soviet nostalgia and tsarist-era chauvinism. A key variable of concern is the role of Russian political culture dating back centuries. From Peter the Great to Joseph Stalin, leaders of the Russo-Soviet state emerged from a history of economic backwardness, cultural isolation from pivotal events in West (the Renaissance and Reformation), and the strategic vulnerability of Moscow's location along the great plains leading from Central Asia to Western Europe. Repeated wars and conquest subjugated ethnic Russia to external domination and enslavement. Threats of Western encirclement, from Napoleon to Hitler, contributed to a heightened need for psychological security in the Russian state, which in turn contributed to a widespread acceptance of authoritarianism in politics and the home.

Whereas Peter the Great sought to build Russia in the mold of the Western powers, attempting to import the most efffective state-building techniques to the nation (such as commercial and military organization), Stalin, at the height of World War Two - when the Soviets faced totalitarian defeat - appealed to the culture of Mother Russia, knowing that bland calls to defend Leninism would be less effective than the cultural glue of Great Russian Nationalism.

Thus, Moscow's politics in the post-Soviet era has returned in many respects to an earlier, tsarist-nationalist version of perceived strategic isolation and chauvinistic appeal. Indeed, Vladmir Putin's very popularity rests on his shrewd manipulation of popular Russian resentment at the loss of Moscow's previous great power status.

So, when prominent bloggers like Andrew Sullivan and Josh Marshall attack contemporary neoconservatives and GOP officials as hatching some newfangled AEI-style military gambit, it's evident that their goal is not careful analysis of realistic American reactions to genuine Russian brutality and hegemonic assertions, but to attack and delegitimize ideological opponents, amid an election where voters' perceptions of foreign policy experience and judgment may be decisive.

This neocon demonization might be expected among the lower-level hordes of the netroots, but these two are respected and award-winning mainstream journalists.

Donald blogs at American Power

09:09 AM | Permalink

Heard the rumor today? That Colin Powell was going to the Democratic Convention and endorsing Barack Obama?

Well, considering the gossip came from conservative gadfly Bill Kristol, I immediately didn't believe. And soon enough it was dispelled by Powell himself...

"I do not have time to waste on Bill Kristol's musings," Powell told ABC News. "I am not going to the convention. I have made this clear."

But this raises an interesting question: what could Powell's endorsement do for Obama? And then, of course, there's the flip side: what could it do for McCain?

Honestly, I think it could swing a significant number of Independents to either candidate's favor. After all, Powell is one of the more popular moderate political figures we've encountered in the past couple decades, even with that infamous speech at the U.N. looming in the background.

My guess? I think he would have come out for McCain a lot earlier if he was going to support John, so I think he's leaning heavily towards Obama because he shares a similar approach to foreign policy with the Illinois senator. That doesn't mean he'll explicitly endorse Obama, but Powell's silence would be telling in a year like this...especially considering he has been a lifelong Republican...albeit a moderate one.

Now, if he does actually come out for Obama, I think it would be much closer to November. Hell, he may even wait until just a couple weeks before the election, just to make sure the Republicans don't fish something really nasty up. After all, Powell has a reputation to think of too.

So what are your thoughts? Think he's backing Obama, but doesn't want to admit it? Or does he still have a soft spot for McCain? And would his endorsement mean that much?

Justin blogs daily at Donklephant.com

09:25 AM | Permalink

Alert Boston Phoenix scribe David Bernstein has picked up some cable TV chatter about the possibility that Sen. John Kerry might be on the Obama list of possible vice-presidential nominees, to which I say - bring it on!

But wait just a darn second - isn't Kerry also seeking re-election to the US Senate? Why, yes he is, with primary opponent Ed O'Reilly and, should he advance, presumptive Republican nominee Jeff Beatty in line to challenge him.

So enquiring minds want to know - what happens if this Kerry-for-VP talk turns out to be more than just the delusional speculation of mid-August ennui? These are the key facts:

* There is no legal barrier to Kerry running for both VP and Senate. If he does and wins both, under the state law rammed through Beacon Hill in anticipation of Kerry's 2004 election to the presidency, Gov. Deval Patrick (if he's still governor) would have to set an election for the vacated Senate seat within 145 to 160 days of Kerry's Senate resignation. Of course, the legislature could conceivably change the law back again to empower Patrick to simply appoint someone to fill out the six-year term Kerry had just been re-elected to. Gosh, whom do you think he might appoint? Discuss.

* It's too late for Kerry to pull his name off the September primary ballot even if he wanted to, and too late for any other Democrat to get on there in light of a Kerry VP nomination. The only alternative would be to run on stickers, and he or she would have to beat both Kerry and O'Reilly.

* Let's say VP nominee Kerry wins the primary over O'Reilly and sticker candidate John Buonomo. (Or should that be sticky-fingered candidate?) And let's say public outcry over Kerry's electoral double-dip prompts anxious Democrats to prevail on him end his Senate candidacy. (Fat chance, but we're in fantasy land now, pipe down.) What then? Massachusetts law appears to stipulate that the Democratic State Committee would select a replacement. Oh brother. (I recommend DSC member Helen Corrigan of Somerville, as fine a political mind as our commonwealth has ever produced. Sorry Helen, that's probably the kiss of death.)

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

09:19 AM | Permalink

Nassau County Executive Thomas Suozzi, head of the state commission examining property taxes, today blasted the television ads and mailings by opponents of Gov. David A. Paterson's tax cap, saying they were "flailing" and "inconsistent."

Speaking to reporters in a telephone conference, Suozzi accused the liberal Working Families Party and Alliance for Quality Education of "a personal attack" on Paterson. "It's really shocking to me," Suozzi said, referring to the $1.5 million TV campaign calling Paterson's tax cap a "gimmick" and urging residents to voice their opposition to him.

The TV ads, launched yesterday, and followed today by 200,000 mailers are aimed at swaying Assembly members. The State Senate voted 38-20 last week to adopt Paterson's 4 percent cap on yearly increases in school taxes.

Suozzi acknowledged the campaign would make passage of the tax cap "tougher." He also accused the Working Families Party of failing to represent low- and middle-class families who are hurt by raising taxes.

Earlier today, the Alliance for Quality Education held a conference call with experts decrying Massachusetts's adoption of a tax cap. They said schools there were undermined.

But Suozzi said Massachusetts leads the nation in test scores while New York is first in tax burden.

The county executive said he is working to win over skeptical Assembly members on Long Island and Speaker Sheldon Silver (D-Manhattan). Suozzi said he had been "given no indication" that the Assembly would act on the tax cap when it convenes Tuesday in special session.

Suozzi, a Democrat, said he would support members of both political parties if they endorse the tax cap, though he stopped short of endorsing Republican leaders. "I will stand with anyone who supports the tax cap," he said, calling it his "Suozzi Doctrine."

UPDATE: Dan Cantor of the Working Families Party just shot back at Suozzi saying the TV campaign isn't an attack on Paterson. "It's not surprising that Tom Suozzi is trying to defend David Paterson's tax gimmick. After all - it was Suozzi's idea," Cantor said. "But Suozzi is dead wrong to say the Governor has been personally attacked. David Paterson has been around long enough to know what's personal and what's about policy.

"Here's what's personal: the impact on 3 million kids around the state if the Governor and the legislature enact a property tax cap that devastates public education. It will be personal for the families whose children go to school in overcrowded classrooms. It will be personal for the teachers who are fired. It will be personal for the homeowners whose property values will go down with the quality of their local schools."

Dan Janison and James Madore both write and report for Newsday's Spin Cycle blog

09:00 AM | Permalink

First, the story of a man who has never endorsed a Democrat...

Former Iowa Congressman Jim Leach -- a Republican -- endorsed Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama this morning. Leach, as you may recall, lost his bid for re-election in 2006 after three decades representing portions of eastern Iowa in congress. Leach was considered a "moderate" Republican and was a backer of campaign finance reform. Leach did not accept campaign contributions from political action committees.

Then, John Cole provides the appropriate snark considering all of this nailbiting about Obama not leading by more...

If it wasn't enough bad news that Obama only had a 5-7 point lead in national polls instead of a blow-out, this really should set Obama supporters on their heels. I mean, only one former Republican House member from Iowa is endorsing Obama? What about all the other Republican House members from Iowa?

I think this is terrible news for Obama and really am worried about this turn of events.

As I've mentioned in the past, the electoral map definitely favors Obama. But this meme that suggests he should be destroying McCain is definitely a head scratcher.

Justin blogs daily at Donklephant.com

10:26 AM | Permalink

Ah...boomer political leadership in full flower. The untrammelled narcissism. The self-righteous indulgence in situational ethics. The sickly smell of moral relativism left out in the sun too long.

But the John Edwards debacle offers more than just this item's headline, an automatic inductee into the pantheon of political perp quotes alongside the likes of Bill Clinton ("it depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is") and Richard Nixon ("I am not a crook"). It provides a useful opportunity to drain a chronic abcess in the political culture that could promote long term healing.

Edwards disciples (if there are any of you left), stop reading now, I really don't want to hurt your feelings. But the blunt truth is if you never previously noticed what a transparently oleaginous phony Edwards was, you are either extraordinarily naive or, more likely, susceptible to the cult of personality that successful politicians breed. This is nothing new - George Washington had his own image-making machine; Franklin D. Roosevelt fully embraced the emotional appeal of mass-media politics, pioneering techniques that Nixon and John F. Kennedy expanded on; from Huey Long to Ronald Reagan, effective populists of the left and right have relentlessly milked their personal appeal for political capital.

There's nothing inherently wrong with this. In a democracy, much should be demanded from those in political power. If human nature compels us to emotionally invest in a politician as a prerequisite for involvement in the process and high expectations, so be it.

But leave it to the "me" generation to overdo it. Baby boomer activists and voters subscribing to the generational conceit that political activism is an expression of one's deepest personal convictions -  and thus, politicians are a vehicle not just for a social cause, but for the validation of oneself - are distorting the system and enabling appalling egomania. In their clueless, fevered denounciations of Edwards critics over the years, his sycophants egregiously confused the righteousness they felt for their cause with the need to assert the righteousness of the candidate, in the face of glaring signs of the runaway narcissism Edwards has now confessed to. By blowing through all warning signs to build and worship this false idol, the Edwards cult could have crippled the party's chances this fall, and may still have done serious damage, set aside the clear harm done to the groups and social causes that had affiliated themselves with Sen. Oil Slick. This fiasco takes its place alongside other self-righteous boom-era political cults gone overboard, like Operation Rescue, the Ross Perot campaign, and MoveOn.org.

But maybe out of Edwards' slime, something useful might evolve. I propose a deal: if future candidates will abandon messianic politics and stop peddling themselves as personal saviors, we the people will stop investing them with unreasonable expectations. Under this agreement, John Edwards would run as a young, aggressive trial lawyer who would, as president, use those skills to game and bully the system into raising taxes to provide more social services, with an enhanced role for the unions and trial lawyers whose money and clout were the entirety of the Edwards campaign. Voters would review that platform, weigh its potential consequences for the nation, watch Edwards run to guage his toughness and self-discipline, and then decide if he makes the grade. No one would expect Edwards to be a saint (although they might still hope his word would be worth more than it is), and votes for him might be cast based more on what he might do for all of us than on how "good" he makes a voter feel. There would be less fuel for the candidate's narcissism, more realistic expectations among his supporters, and, if elected, less chance of a disproportionate backlash over the collapse that inevitably occurs when the Red Bull of boomer political worship wears off.

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

09:38 AM | Permalink

Senator Coburn is ready for a showdown with the Senate Ethics Committee. At issue is his practice as an obstetrician. When he became senator he had to give up charging for delivering babies because senators are not allowed outside inc