Dreaming of a Clintonless Democratic Party

Still yet another reason to hope that the Clintons will simply go away:

It’s one thing for a good presidential candidate to embrace a bad idea. It’s worse when the candidate knows it’s a bad idea. It’s worse still when the candidate attacks her rival for failing to embrace a bad idea. And it’s the worst when the candidate feels so strongly about the bad idea that she starts running television commercials about it.

Of course he's talking about Hillary Clinton and her support of John McCain's incredibly stupid gas tax holiday. Now we know it's stupid because Fred Barnes thinks it's a good idea. It's so stupid that even Thomas Friedman thinks it's stupid and He's rarely right about anything. Jonathan Alter calls it what it is:
Political Pandering
Suspending the federal gas tax is a crass ploy for votes. Why Hillary Clinton and John McCain should know better.

Hillary Clinton has now joined John McCain in proposing the most irresponsible policy idea of the year—an idea that actually could aid the terrorists. What's worse, both of them know that suspending the federal gas tax this summer is a terrible pander, and yet they're pushing it anyway for crass political advantage.

Clinton and McCain have learned a destructive lesson from the Bush era: as Bill Clinton said in 2002, it's better politically to be "strong and wrong" than thoughtful and right. The goal is to depict Barack Obama as an out-of-touch elitist. By any means necessary.

I could highlight a long debate among economists on suspending the gas tax, but there is no debate. Not one respectable economist—and not one environmentalist or foreign policy expert—supports the idea, unless they are official members of the Clinton or McCain campaigns (and even some of them privately oppose it). To relieve suffering at the pump, send another rebate check or provide tax credits or something else, but not this.

So why is it so stupid? Alter explains:

* It's a direct transfer of money from motorists to oil companies, which are getting ready this week to again report record obscene profits. If the federal excise tax were lifted, oil companies would simply raise prices and pocket most of the difference. Clinton's proposal to recover the money with a windfall profits tax on oil companies sounds nice but won't happen. That tax was easily blocked by the Senate in December and would likely be blocked again.

* It offers taxpayers only peanuts. The Congressional Budget Office says the average savings to motorists this summer would be a total of $30. Did I miss something, or was that measly number somehow not included in Clinton's explanation of her support?

* It sends more hard-earned money to the Middle East, which is terrible for our national security. Remember, 15 of the 19 terrorists on 9/11 came from Saudi Arabia. How did they get the terrorist training? The madrassa indoctrination? Oil money.

* It worsens global warming by encouraging gasoline consumption. When you flee your house in 2020 because of flooding, remember which politicians pandered.

* It makes it more likely you'll have a car accident or will waste even more time in traffic. The proceeds from the gas tax go for highway construction and upgrades. Because the tax (24.4 cents a gallon on diesel fuel) was last raised 15 years ago, our infrastructure is a mess, with potholes and dangerous crossings practically everywhere. Thousands of repair projects will be further delayed.

* It will cost 300,000 construction jobs, according to the Department of Transportation. Makes it kind of ironic when Clinton starts her rallies saying she wants "jobs, jobs, jobs."

* It will cost the U.S. Treasury at least $8.5 billion and probably much more, according to state highway officials. For McCain that's no money at all—merely one month in Iraq. For Clinton it's money she's already spent. She has said in the past that any proceeds from a windfall profits tax would go for renewable energy. The $8.5 billion figure assumes the tax would be reapplied after Labor Day. Fat chance. The one-year costs are probably closer to $30 billion.

* It won't happen anyway because Congress isn't usually quite that stupid, and if it is, President Bush would veto the bill.

What I have heard few talk about are the reasons behind the sky rocketing fuel prices. Of course we have reached peak oil which I first discussed here almost four years ago. But that doesn't explain why the US is being hurt much more than Canada, Europe, Australia and New Zealand. The reality is that oil costs a lot more dollars because the dollar buys a lot less. A majority of Americans now realize that the occupation of Iraq is responsible for much of our economic woes. That includes the price Americans pay for gasoline. The occupation of Iraq costs about three billion dollars a week. That money is all being borrowed driving up the national debt and driving down the value of the dollar. Now an gas tax holiday won't increase the supply of oil and if anything will decrease the value of the dollar driving up prices even more.

Now John McCain has admitted he doesn't know anything about economics so perhaps he doesn't realize how stupid the gas tax holiday is. I can't believe that Hillary Clinton doesn't know any better making her support even worse.

None of the above....

....or what if none of them are electable!
I suggested below that Hillary Clinton's campaign strategy of making Obama unelectable might be working but in the process she was making herself even less electable than he. But what about John McCain. Now here is a candidate that should be unelectable. He is in favor of continuing an occupation that over two thirds of Americans want to end. On nearly ever issue he promises to continue the policies of a president who has the highest unfavorable reading ever recorded. And the few remaining Bush supporters don't trust him. As Frank Rich pointed out this morning 27 percent of the PA Republicans showed up to vote against John McCain in a primary that is all but meaningless.

I made a prediction two years ago:

I'm not going to predict any individuals but I will predict that the election will be decided by at least two strong third party candidates. I'm not saying one of them will win but they will decide the election. Of course it won't be the first time, Ross Perot's race gave Bill Clinton the win in 92 and Ralph Nader gave the election to George W. Bush in 2000.

This time it will be different there will be two strong third party candidates, one on the left and one on the right. If Hillary gets the nomination there will be a large chunk of the Democratic base will be looking for an alternative.

I was wrong - no strong third party candidates have materialized. So who will decide? Those who simply decide not to participate. McCain's best chance is against Hillary. Many Republicans who might not vote will to keep Hillary Clinton out of the white. Hillary has managed to offend the black voters and the urban white voters. Obama will not inspire the Republicans as much and may pick up some Libertarian and even Republican votes. The only thing that Hillary's campaign has accomplished is to make her the least electable of the three.

As for me - I won't vote for Clinton or McCain and I won't be a part of inflating Ralph Nader's ego. For me it will be none of the above. I will work hard to make sure that progressive Democrats are elected to the House and the Senate.

Update
It's the Independents stupid.
I'm an Independent and I won't vote for Hillary Clinton. I think this is about right.
CLASH OF THE INDEPENDENTS

April 27, 2008 -- It's electability, stupid.
That's what Hillary Clinton and her surrogates have been spinning to super-delegates and anyone else who will listen since she lost her grip on once-inevitable nomination.

There's just one problem – when it comes to independent voters, those crucial swing votes in swing states, Hillary doesn't hold the electability edge: Barack Obama does.

Independent voters favor Obama by a 2 to 1 margin over Hillary – 49% to 24% – according to a NBC/WSJ poll taken after the Jeremiah Wright scandal in late March. His approval rating among Republicans is almost twice Hillary's as well – 19% to 10%.

Crossover appeal is the key indicator of electability – especially for Democrats. Despite Democratic dominance of Congress during most of the 20th Century, no Democratic president managed to win more than 51% of the popular vote, with the exceptions of FDR and LBJ. What's the lesson? Democrats especially depend on Independent voters and even some centrist Republicans to win the White House.

That's true now more than ever: Independent voters are the fastest growing and largest segment of the American electorate, as detailed in former Clinton and Bloomberg pollster Doug Schoen's new book "Declaring Independence: The Beginning of the End of the Two-Party System."

Obama's Independent edge has already had an impact in key 2008 swing states like Virginia, where independents made up 22% of the February 12th open primary. Obama won their support by a 2 to 1 margin, on his way to a 64-35 blowout victory.

As I said above Hillary is the least electable of the three candidates. She has alienated large portions of her own party, Independents will not vote for her and she can anticipate virtually no cross over votes. And Joe Gandelman talks about the very thing that made me go from Clinton to Obama.

And — also something we have noted repeatedly in our posts here — Clinton generates another reaction among many independent voters who detest the Rovian-style negative campaigning politics of division, seeming use of code words, and personal destruction (now widely covered in news reports as the Clinton campaign seeks to drive up Obama’s negatives more than make the case for her strengths against McCain):

Update II
More on McCain's problems.

In which universe?

John McCain has a tough job ahead of him. The Bush kool-aide drinkers are down into the mid 20s. Bush has the highest disapproval rating ever recorded but McCain needs the kool-aide drinkers. St John must distance himself from George W. Bush to win but if he alienates the Bush cultists he can't win anyway even if Hillary attempts tom throw the election his way. OK, the cultists and the hard core rednecks won't vote for Obama but the might just sit it out. Tony Snow had his debut on CNN today and said McCain is trying to distance himself from Bush on the easy stuff like Katrina. But here was the shocker. Who does Snow think could help McCain? The only man in the US less popular than George W. Bush, Dick Cheney. Come on Tony, you are going to have to do better than that. In which universe would Dick Cheney be an asset to McCain's campaign? Certainly not this one.

Jeff Merkley and President McCain

Jazz and I will be talking to Oregon US Senate candidate Jeff Merkley on Mid Stream Radio this morning at 10:00 PDT. You can call in at 646-595-3963. It has become even more important that Senator Gordon Smith be defeated in November since it appears that the Republicans have nominated the only Republican who could possibly win and that the Democrats will nominate one of the only two candidates who could possibly lose.

I don't believe that Hillary Clinton can win at this point. She was carrying a lot of baggage going into this campaign and has picked up a lot more. And is the US ready for a black president? Looking at the results of first Ohio and now Pennsylvania I suspect the answer is no. Obama will simply not get the vote of the white working class voter. I would like to blame Hillary's Rovian campaign for this but I can't. The Republicans would have played the card in the general election.

The only salvation for this country is for John McCain to have a very hostile House and Senate.

Good for him - shame on her

Obama has discovered that the cynical Clinton campaign is just as capable of using Rovian slash and burn politics as the Republicans and he's fighting back. His only regret:

"Now, I am the first to admit that some of the words I chose, I chose badly," he said, "So I’m not a perfect man and the words I chose, I chose badly. They were subject to misinterpretation, they were subject to be twisted and I regret that.

But he stands by what he said:

"And what really burns me up is when people suggest that me saying that folks are mad, they are angry, they are bitter after 25, 30 years of seeing jobs shipped out, pensions not fulfilled, healthcare lost, the notion that people are surprised and are suggesting that I'm out of touch because I spoke honestly about people's frustrations, that tells me there's some politics going on," he said.

And he took a major swipe at Hillary's great adventures in hunting which were not unlike her adventures in Bosnia:

Obama said he was disappointed with her for her response and then launched into a new criticism of Clinton over her recent admission of being a hunter, and compared her sarcastically to Annie Oakley.

"She’s running around talking about how this is an insult to sportsmen, how she values the Second Amendment, she's talking like she's Annie Oakley! Hillary Clinton's out there like she's on the duck blind every Sunday, she's packin' a six shooter! C'mon! She knows better. That's some politics being played by Hillary Clinton. I want to see that picture of her out there in the duck blinds."

Now I'm a late victim of the Hillary derangement syndrome but I have to tell my friends Jazz and Chuck - you were right, I was wrong. I was continued to defend her will into January and even when I switched sides I said I would vote for her in November. Now I'm not so sure. Her sell centered cynicism and her adoption of Rove style politics has lead me to think that she is as much a part of the problem as John McCain. I have always had a problem with her DLC corporate connections.
And of course there are her neocon leanings that Justin Raimondo discussed in a cover story for American Conservative magazine. But until recently she still looked better than John McCain. I must admit that I am no longer so sure. Andrew Sullivan thinks that the Hillary campaign may have gone too far and that it will end up hurting her. He has some comments to prove it. Obama had been closing in on Clinton is PA - we will have to see what the racking polls have to say this week. While I never mark the box next to John McCain's name at this moment I'm not sure I would be able to mark the box next to Hillary Clinton's either.

Update
John Cole wonders......

Billy Kristol assures us that Obama is a Marxist in the NY Times in yet another embarrassing editorial, and my question for you is:

Who will be the first Hillary supporter to link this as a serious reason that Obama should not win the nomination?

Home Grown Terrorist

The US economy was the victim of a terrorist attack in 1999. We really didn't notice until several years later. The terrorist was not a brown skinned man from the middle east but a US senator, Phil Gramm of Texas. When Jazz and I talked to Shaun Mullen on Mid Stream Radio yesterday he promised us the details today and here it is:
John McCain's Terrorist In Pinstripes
Go read the entire piece at The Moderate Voice or at Shaun's own blog, Kiko's House but here is a teaser.

Phil Gramm, who is co-chair of McCain's campaign, is not just another lobbyist. He is the man most responsible for the repeal of Depression-era banking regulations that have led directly and inextricably to much of today's economic turmoil, and parlayed that classic example of legislative legerdemain into a lucrative lobbying career for the very people who scratched the smug Texan's back -- as well as McCain's -- on Capitol Hill.

Gramm was the biggest of the big guns behind the 1999 repeal of the banking regulations -- the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act -- which was officially called The Financial Services Modernization Act. (Don't you just love the name!)

Shaun points out that Gramm's bill, which is in large part responsible for the current economic melt down, was blessed by the Clinton administration. Shaun concludes with this:

Considering the pain and suffering that Gramm's masterwork has caused ordinary Americans, it is not hyperbolic to say that he is a terrorist, he just doesn't wear funny looking headgear and carry a Kalashikov.

McCain acknowledges that he's "no expert" and "doesn't understand" the economy. That is worrisome enough, but that he is relying on a terrorist in pinstripes to figure things out for him is . . . well, terrifying.

If this is success..... Part II

The other day:
St John McBush says US succeeding in Iraq

We're succeeding. I don't care what anybody says. I've seen the facts on the ground," the Arizona senator insisted a day after a roadside bomb in Baghdad killed four U.S. soldiers and rockets pounded the U.S.-protected Green Zone there, and a wave of attacks left at least 61 Iraqis dead nationwide.

Well it's just getting more successful everyday:
Areas of Baghdad fall to militias as Iraqi Army falters in Basra

Iraq’s Prime Minister was staring into the abyss today after his operation to crush militia strongholds in Basra stalled, members of his own security forces defected and district after district of his own capital fell to Shia militia gunmen.

With the threat of a civil war looming in the south, Nouri al-Maliki’s police chief in Basra narrowly escaped assassination in the crucial port city, while in Baghdad, the spokesman for the Iraqi side of the US military surge was kidnapped by gunmen and his house burnt to the ground.

Saboteurs also blew up one of Iraq's two main oil pipelines from Basra, cutting at least a third of the exports from the city which provides 80 per cent of government revenue, a clear sign that the militias — who siphon significant sums off the oil smuggling trade — would not stop at mere insurrection.

In Baghdad, thick black smoke hung over the city centre tonight and gunfire echoed across the city.

The most secure area of the capital, Karrada, was placed under curfew amid fears the Mahdi Army of Hojetoleslam Moqtada al-Sadr could launch an assault on the residence of Abdelaziz al-Hakim, the head of a powerful rival Shia governing party.

All that black smoke must be the sweet smell of success.

If this is success.....

.....I'd hate to see failure!
St John McBush says US succeeding in Iraq

We're succeeding. I don't care what anybody says. I've seen the facts on the ground," the Arizona senator insisted a day after a roadside bomb in Baghdad killed four U.S. soldiers and rockets pounded the U.S.-protected Green Zone there, and a wave of attacks left at least 61 Iraqis dead nationwide.

Now McClatchy sees things a little differently:
Is 'success' of U.S. surge in Iraq about to unravel?

BAGHDAD — A cease-fire critical to the improved security situation in Iraq appeared to unravel Monday when a militia loyal to radical Shiite Muslim cleric Muqtada al Sadr began shutting down neighborhoods in west Baghdad and issuing demands of the central government.

Simultaneously, in the strategic southern port city of Basra, where Sadr's Mahdi militia is in control, the Iraqi government launched a crackdown in the face of warnings by Sadr's followers that they'll fight government forces if any Sadrists are detained. By 1 a.m. Arab satellite news channels reported clashes between the Mahdi Army and police in Basra.

The freeze on offensive activity by Sadr's Mahdi Army has been a major factor behind the recent drop in violence in Iraq, and there were fears that the confrontation that's erupted in Baghdad and Basra could end the lull in attacks, assassinations, kidnappings and bombings.

The only way the obvious reduction in violence could be maintained was for political reconciliation to occur. It has not and in fact because of the actions of the al Malaki government it has become even less likely. As we have pointed out here before the main reason violence is down in Baghdad is that the ethnic cleansing of the city was nearly complete before the surge began. As McClatchy notes another big reason was the truce by Sadr's Mahdi Army which is on the verge of breaking down in large part because of actions by the al Malaki government. And a third reason is the Awakening Council model of Sunni militia members which is also on the verge of breaking down at least in part because the al Malaki government fears them and so refuses to give them official legitimacy. We have seen an increase in the violence every month this year and without any movement on the political front we can expect that to continue. McClatchy also points out that coverage of Iraq has decreased dramatically over the last year. As the violence increases again so will the coverage. Iraq will once again be a big issue long before November which will make life very difficult for Mr McCain.

I don't think this will help!

McCain has a problem he can't do anything about - he's 72 years old. So when Brit Hume tried to help him out by describing his Iran/al-Qaeda mix up as a "senior moment" I don't really think he helped him out very much.

I think it’s probably just a blip, but it was a bigger blip than he wanted or needed at the time. I think the overall impression of the trip was this is a man welcomed by, knowledgeable of and comfortable with foreign leaders across a big part of the globe. But the mistake, nonetheless, raises questions not about his knowledgability—we all kinda believe he has that—the question, perhaps, about his age, which is an issue. You know, the feeling was not that he’s a dope, didn’t know his way around, that he might have had a senior moment there, and I think that’s unfortunate for him. But I think probably the trip was a net plus.

Keep on spinning Brit. I really don't think the country is ready to trade a wet brained drunk for another president with Alzheimer's. Do you really want someone who might have a "senior moment" when he answers that now infamous phone call in the middle of the night. Somehow I think ignorance might play better. Of course he could always promise to have Lieberman in a nearby bedroom at all times.

Update

Our friend Jill at Brilliant at Breakfast reports that all of the bobble talking heads on TV think that St Johns "senior momment" won't hurt him and that his trip was a plus. This in spite of the fact that 4,000 Americans have now been killed, the "Green Zone" is under a constant barrage of motor and rocket fire and 57 Iraqi's were killed. That surge sure is working John.

Poor David

David Broder's column this morning has a tone of sadness and disappointment. Broder thinks that McCain should have used his trip to the mid east to distance himself from George Bush but instead it was more stay the course and actually demonstrated that he is just as clueless as Bush himself.

It is obvious that the Democrats are planning to run against McCain by linking him as tightly as possible with President Bush, the instigator of the Iraq war and the captain of a seriously shaky economy.

As a member of the minority party in a largely dysfunctional Senate, there is little McCain can do to rescue the economy. But the Baghdad visit offered him a chance to deal with the other big barrier to his election -- his close identification with Bush's policies in a war now into its sixth wearying year.

[.....]

Petraeus told Barr that he and Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker had "repeatedly noted that it's crucial that the Iraqis exploit the opportunities that we and our Iraqi counterparts have fought so hard to provide them."

That clearly opened the door for McCain, as a prospective president, to signal to the government of Nouri al-Maliki that his patience with the political impasse is not inexhaustible.

[.....]

Bush and Maliki have both called those steps vital benchmarks, but Bush has refused to threaten any consequences for Iraqi obduracy. If McCain had told Maliki that he cannot continue to dither, he could have accomplished two important goals.

Because Clinton and Obama have publicly committed to a quick start in reducing U.S. combat forces in Iraq if either becomes president, a warning shot from McCain -- even without a timetable -- would put the Iraqis on notice that the next president would not be as accommodating as Bush.

And politically, it would send a dramatic message that McCain is not in lock step with Bush, while once again aligning him with Petraeus.

So far as I can judge from the few public statements McCain uttered while in Baghdad, the senator said no such thing.

When CNN's John King asked him during his visit to comment on Petraeus's "frustration with the pace of political progress," McCain gave a bland response.

With Bush's approval rating at a new low, 31 percent, John McCain continues to sound like John McBush. But I'm sorry Mr Broder, this should come as no surprise - John McCain above all else loves war and if Iraq were to stabilize politically there would be no reason for the US to stay there. Your White Knight is not a good guy after all and in fact he's one of the most dangerous people we could have in the Oval Office in coming years.

One of the most dangerous people!

Yesterday John McCain either gave up straight talk for good or demonstrated that he doesn't have a clue about Iraq. It got more play in the MSM than I thought it would, for example this by Michael Cooper of the New York Times.
McCain Missteps on Iraq; Democrats Pounce

JERUSALEM — Senator John McCain’s trip overseas was supposed to highlight his foreign policy acumen, and his supporters hoped that it would showcase him in a series of statesmanlike meetings with world leaders throughout the Middle East and Europe while the Democratic candidates continued to squabble back home.

But all did not go according to plan on Tuesday in Amman, Jordan, when Mr. McCain, fresh from a visit to Iraq, misidentified some of the main players in the Iraq war.

Mr. McCain said several times in his visit to Jordan — in a news conference and in a radio interview — that he was concerned that Iran was training Al Qaeda in Iraq. The United States believes that Iran, a Shiite country, has been training and financing Shiite extremists in Iraq, but not Al Qaeda, which is a Sunni insurgent group.

Mr. McCain said at a news conference in Amman that he continued to be concerned about Iranians “taking Al Qaeda into Iran, training them and sending them back.” Asked about that statement, Mr. McCain said: “Well, it’s common knowledge and has been reported in the media that Al Qaeda is going back into Iran and receiving training and are coming back into Iraq from Iran. That’s well known. And it’s unfortunate.”

It was not until he got a quiet word of correction in his ear from Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut, who was traveling with Mr. McCain as part of a Congressional delegation on a nearly weeklong trip, that Mr. McCain corrected himself.

“I’m sorry,” Mr. McCain said, “the Iranians are training extremists, not Al Qaeda.”

Mr. McCain has based his campaign in large part on his assertion that he is the candidate best prepared to deal with Iraq, and the Democrats wasted little time in jumping on his misstatement to question his knowledge and judgment.

Josh Marshall was quick to jump all over both John McCain and Hillary Clinton.

But this is really just the tip of the iceberg with McCain. In almost every discussion of foreign policy, not just today but in previous years, what stands out is McCain's inability to see beyond the immediate issues of military tactics to any firm grasp of strategy or America's real vital interests. His free willingness to commit to a decades long occupation of Iraq is an example, his push for ground troops to be introduced during the Kosovo War is another. His refusal, almost inability, to grapple with the political failure of the surge is the most telling one if people will sift through its deeper implications.

[.....]

Hillary Clinton has stipulated to McCain's qualifications as Commander-in-Chief; and Obama, implicitly, does the same. But his record actually shows he's one of the most dangerous people we could have in the Oval Office in coming years -- not just because he's a hothead in using the military, but more because he seems genuinely clueless about the real challenges and dangers the country is facing. He's too busy living in the fantasy world where our future as a great power and our very safety are all bound up in Iraq.

The fact is John McCain is clueless when it comes to foreign policy and when that is combined with his attitude that there is no such thing as a bad war he is indeed the last and most dangerous person you would want in the White House. I would assume that the Democrats already have a commercial with him singing bomb bomb bomb Iran . Maybe it's not old age and he has always been bat shit crazy but old age doesn't help.

Obama hits a home run - McCain swings and misses

Polls will show that Barack Obama hit a home run today saying what he needed to say about race in America. (See update below) Meanwhile John McCain showed the American people and the world that he is just as clueless about Iraq as he is the economy.
A McCain Gaffe in Jordan

AMMAN, Jordan -- Sen. John McCain, traveling in the Middle East to promote his foreign policy expertise, misidentified in remarks Tuesday which broad category of Iraqi extremists are allegedly receiving support from Iran.

He said several times that Iran, a predominately Shiite country, was supplying the mostly Sunni militant group, al-Qaeda. In fact, officials have said they believe Iran is helping Shiite extremists in Iraq.

Speaking to reporters in Amman, the Jordanian capital, McCain said he and two Senate colleagues traveling with him continue to be concerned about Iranian operatives "taking al-Qaeda into Iran, training them and sending them back."

Pressed to elaborate, McCain said it was "common knowledge and has been reported in the media that al-Qaeda is going back into Iran and receiving training and are coming back into Iraq from Iran, that's well known. And it's unfortunate." A few moments later, Sen. Joseph Lieberman, standing just behind McCain, stepped forward and whispered in the presidential candidate's ear. McCain then said: "I'm sorry, the Iranians are training extremists, not al-Qaeda."

The mistake threatened to undermine McCain's argument that his decades of foreign policy experience make him the natural choice to lead a country at war with terrorists. In recent days, McCain has repeatedly said his intimate knowledge of foreign policy make him the best equipped to answer a phone ringing in the White House late at night.

Do you really want an old clueless fool answering that phone with his finger on the button? Justin Logan at CATO sums it up very well.

Yet another lesson that talk can be simultaneously straight and wrong. The persistence of this sort of unified field theory of terrorism is truly remarkable. Anyone who’s reading the newspapers knows that Iran is, of all countries in the region, most supportive of the Iraqi government. Don’t take my word for it: ask Iraqi President Jalal Talabani, who referred to President Ahmadinejad on his recent victory lap visit to Iraq as a “brother.” And then there’s al Qaeda in Iraq, which is not so supportive. It can be difficult to keep all this straight, but the man’s running for president on the basis of his *ahem* peculiar expertise in fighting terrorism, after all.

Update
Charles Murry at the NRO's Corner on the Obama speech

I read the various posts here on "The Corner," mostly pretty ho-hum or critical about Obama's speech. Then I figured I'd better read the text (I tried to find a video of it, but couldn't). I've just finished. Has any other major American politician ever made a speech on race that comes even close to this one? As far as I'm concerned, it is just plain flat out brilliant—rhetorically, but also in capturing a lot of nuance about race in America. It is so far above the standard we're used to from our pols.... But you know me. Starry-eyed Obama groupie.

Mr Murry isn't going to have as many friends after that.

Dick And John's Road Trip

Dick Cheney and John McCain both went to Iraq this weekend so they could demonstrate just how well the surge is working. Of course Iraq did not cooperate.
Cheney cites 'phenomenal' Iraqi security progress as bombing kills 40

BAGHDAD — Vice President Dick Cheney on Monday made a surprise visit to Baghdad, where he pledged that U.S. forces would "not quit before the job is done" and said that a massive troop buildup had achieved "phenomenal" improvements in security.

At sunset Monday, however, a female suicide bomber killed at least 40 people and injured more than 50 when she blew herself up in a crowded pedestrian area near a Shiite Muslim shrine in the southern holy city of Karbala, according to government and hospital officials. Among the victims were several Iranian pilgrims who'd come to worship at the Imam Hussein shrine, one of Islam's most sacred sites.

And the U.S. military announced the deaths of two soldiers who were killed Monday when their Humvee struck a roadside bomb north of Baghdad, bringing the number of American troop deaths to at least 3,990 since the war began.

Meanwhile St John made a taxpayer financed photo-op trip to Iraq but the surge is working so well he won't be visiting the market he put up as an example a year ago. Last year he visited the the open-air Shorja market, guarded by 100 US troops and three blackhawk helicopters. Not even that would be enough today as the market is controlled Sadr's Mahdi Army and is not considered safe for Americans.

And from the LA Times Garrett Therolf went to Iraq to find some feel good stories and couldn't find many and was once again forced to mostly report bad news.

Way too early to worry

Zogby has conducted a poll including Ralph Nader that shows McCain beating both Clinton and Obama. It shows Nader getting five or six percent which is ridiculous. The Supreme Court alone should be enough to convince all but one percent or less not to throw their vote away. And there are the other issues that will haunt McBush in the general election.

• Iraq: St John McBush is constantly reminding us that the surge has been a success. Juan Cole reports that the daily death count is once again increasing - 20 in January, 26 in February and 39 so far in April. And even General David Petraeus seems to be contradicting McCain as to how successful the surge has been.
• The Economy: The economy continues it's death spiral in spite of what George W. Bush might say. The dollar is no longer welcome even in third world countries. The FED was forced to bail out Bear Stearns in order to postpone a complete meltdown. The FED is all but powerless to halt the decline and the US faces what may perhaps be the worst recession since the great depression. It's not going to get any better between now and November and this is what McBush had to say a couple of months ago:

  “I don’t believe we’re headed into a recession,” he said, “I believe the fundamentals of this economy are strong and I believe they will remain strong. This is a rough patch, but I think America’s greatness lies ahead of us.”
  

  This of course was shortly after he admitted he didn't know anything about economics.

And we shouldn't forget John McCain himself - he's an angry old man who often says really stupid things. He may have a the lead now simply because he's not getting any news coverage.

As I said below I think it is a good thing that Hillary is vetting Obama now. It's much better if the dirt comes out now than in October. We should pay attention but not panic.

More on Fallon Resignation

Many if not most of us jumped to the conclusion that the resignation of Navy Adm. William Fallon, the head of U.S. Central Command was the first step to an attack on Iran.
Juan Cole disagrees:

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates denied Tuesday that the abrupt resignation of Admiral William Fallon as CENTCOM commander indicates an imminent war against Iran. I think Gates's denial is credible. There is no sign of an American war on Iran, which would involve key positioning of warships, materiel and troops. There is no congressional mandate for such a thing, despite the non-binding Kyl-Lieberman resolution in the senate. A provocation is not out of the question, but it would be a risky move in an election year and could easily backfire on the Republican Party (ask Aznar in Spain).



My guess is that the real reason for moving Fallon out is not Iran but Iraq, and that he is being made to step down for the same reason that Donald Rumsfeld was. He does not agree with the long-term troop escalation or 'surge' in Iraq. He doesn't believe that counter-insurgency will work in Iraq in the medium term. And as an admiral, he has his eye on potential trouble spots such as Taiwan and North Korea, and is frustrated that the hands of the US are tied as long as it is bogged down in the Iraq quagmire.



Having such a big dissenter as CENTCOM commander is inconvenient for the Republican Party at a time when John McCain is admitting that if he fails to convince the American people that the surge is succeeding, he will lose the presidency. That is, Fallon may have run afoul not of Cheney on Iran but McCain on Iraq. This may be Bush's first favor to the Republican nominee, who after all had a career as a naval officer himself.

I think there may be some truth to that, at least I hope so. I suspect the thing that may have ended Adm. Fallon's career was the Esquire article. The Bush administration has demonstrated unlimited tolerance of incompetence but zero tolerance for dissent.

The continuing air tanker saga

Boeing's loss of the Air Force tanker contract continues to make waves. Perhaps the Northrup Grumman/EADS proposal is better. Perhaps the embarrassment that resulted from Boeing's unethical conduct in 2003 was a factor. That said this could still hurt John McCain:
McCain advisers lobbied for European plane maker

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Top current advisers to Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign last year lobbied for a European plane maker that beat Boeing to a $35 billion Air Force tanker contract, taking sides in a bidding fight that McCain has tried to referee for more than five years.

Two of the advisers gave up their lobbying work when they joined McCain's campaign. A third, former Texas Rep. Tom Loeffler, lobbied for the European Aeronautic Defence and Space Co. while serving as McCain's national finance chairman.

[.....]

"The aesthetics are not good, especially since he is an advocate of reform and transparency," said Richard Aboulafia, an analyst with the aerospace consulting firm Teal Group. "Boeing advocates are going to use this as ammunition."

McCain, a longtime critic of influence peddling and special interest politics, has come under increased scrutiny as a presidential candidate, particularly because he has surrounded himself with advisers who are veteran Washington lobbyists. He has defended his inner circle and has emphatically denied reports last month in The New York Times and The Washington Post that suggested he helped the client of a lobbyist friend nine years ago.

He has also cast himself as a neutral watchdog in the Air Force tanker contract, one of the largest in decades.

And McCain himself is getting some of the blame.

But Boeing supporters already have begun to accuse McCain of damaging Boeing's chances by inserting himself into the tanker deal.

One of them, Rep. Norm Dicks, D-Washington, said the field was "tilted to Airbus" because the Pentagon did not weigh European subsidies for Airbus in its deliberations -- a decision he blamed on McCain. Everett, Wash., is where Boeing would perform much of the tanker work, and Dicks is a senior member of the House Appropriations defense subcommittee.

In December 2006, just weeks before the Air Force was set to release its formal request for proposals, McCain wrote a letter to the incoming defense secretary, Robert Gates, warning that he was "troubled" by the Air Force's draft request for bids.

The United States had filed a complaint with the World Trade Organization alleging that Airbus unfairly benefits from European subsidies. Airbus in turn argued that Boeing also receives government support, mostly as tax breaks.

Under the Air Force proposal, bidders would have been required to explain how financial penalties or other sanctions stemming from the subsidy dispute might affect their ability to execute the contract. The request was widely viewed as hurting the EADS-Northrop Grumman bid.

The proposed bid request "may risk eliminating competition before bids are submitted," McCain wrote in a December 1, 2006, letter to Gates. The Air Force changed the criteria four days later.

Dicks said the removal of the subsidy language was a "game-changer" that favored EADS over Boeing.

This has become an issue for both the right and the left. As Jazz explained here the right is enraged that a defense contract would be given to the French. The left is enraged that good union jobs would be outsourced to France.

Update

It would appear that St John received some cash from EADS after his intervention.

McCain, the presumptive GOP presidential nominee, played a crucial role in blocking the deal to build air tankers from going to U.S.-based Boeing, instead paving the path for EADS to score the loot. He framed his decision as an example of political integrity; Boeing has previously been exposed of contract abuse. But a review of campaign finance donations and lobbying records suggests that money and personal lobbying may have also been in play.

On January 15, 2007, McCain appeared at Alabama Gov. Bob Riley's gubernatorial swearing in ceremony and formally called for multiple bidders in the tanker deal. The push for an open process had only one true beneficiary, however, and that was the Northrop Grumman/EADS consortium, which was poised to be Boeing's sole competitor.

A day after McCain made his proclamation, the contributions began to flow. John Green, a lobbyist for EADS donated $2,100 to the senator's presidential campaign. Ten days after that, Michelle Lammers, the "Chief of Staff" for EADS North America, gave $250 to the McCain campaign. It was her first political contribution ever. Less than a month later, the long-time head of EADS' government affairs program, Samuel Adcock, made a $2,100 donation to McCain. And eleven days later, Ralph Crosby, the head of EADS North America, donated $2,300 himself.

Update II

I agree for the most part with this editorial in my local paper, The Oregonian today.
Boeing's stinging defeat on air tankers

From a purely provincial viewpoint, it's disappointing that the Air Force picked a European supplier over Boeing to build its next generation of refueling tanker aircraft.

The $35 billion contract would have created 44,000 jobs in the United States, most of them in the Northwest, according to Boeing. The company's failure to secure the deal becomes even more painful when you consider that it could grow to more than $100 billion, making it one of the biggest military purchases in history.

But the Air Force appears to have acted properly. It based last week's decision not on what's best for Boeing and the Seattle area, but on what's best for the nation and its defense.

Predictably, a furious outcry has arisen from politicians in Washington state and Kansas, where most of Boeing's manufacturing occurs. Air Force officials, however, counter the backlash with a convincing argument that they chose the better offer, one that will produce a better, bigger airplane at lower cost to U.S. taxpayers with delivery sooner than Boeing can offer.

Concerns about lost jobs in the United States also are being overstated in this controversy. The winning bidder is a partnership between America's Northrop Grumman and the parent company of Europe's Airbus, known as EADS. It says the new tanker will be assembled in Alabama and outfitted with General Electric engines, also built mostly in this country, supporting a total U.S. work force of about 25,000.

Boeing backers also warn there's risk in outsourcing sensitive defense contracts to foreign entities. This argument ignores the global nature of military procurement in an age when Boeing and other U.S. companies sell military aircraft and other defense hardware worldwide.

For its part, Boeing complains that the bidding process was flawed and skewed toward the EADS-Northrop combine. Congress should look into those complaints and make sure the competition was fair and open.

But Boeing needs to do some self-examination, too. The company could have locked up the tanker deal several years ago if it hadn't been for a procurement scandal that led to prison terms for a former Air Force official and a top Boeing executive, along with the departure of the company's chief executive.

Does the latest Boeing setback reflect a company that still has lessons to learn? Does it suggest arrogance, overconfidence or flagging competitiveness?

Amid all the protectionist rhetoric, those are worthwhile concerns for America's legendary aircraft manufacturer.

IL 14, The Republicans and Obama

While there is a danger of reading too much into Bill Foster's win over Jim Oberweis in the special election held in Illinois this weekend there is also a danger in reading too little. Captain Ed has some legitimate criticism of the Illinois Republican Party and the candidate they picked but the fact remains the NRCC spent over a million dollars, 20% of their cash on hand in an unsuccessful attempt to hold the seat. Voter turnout was low which in the past has given the Republicans the edge but this time it looks like they are the ones who stayed home. And perhaps the most significant is that Obama campaigned for Foster and McCain for Oberweis giving Obama an early victory over McCain in a Republican district.

Yesterday, little-known Democrat Bill Foster scored a major upset and won the congressional seat held for 20 years by former House Speaker Dennis Hastert, a Republican. The race was a proxy war between Barack Obama and John McCain.

This should be a big plus for Obama and the Democratic leadership should pay attention.

Foster also sent a message to congressional Democrats who are getting week in the knees when it comes to telecom immunity - Foster is against it and he won.

There has been a minimal attempt to try to spin this on the right side of the blogosphere. Most like Ed have blamed the candidate or the Illinois Republican Party.

This brings me to a related point, the Republicans and Obama. Until recently the Republican and media types have gone easy on Obama, Not because the liked him but because they thought he would be an easier target in November. I can't blame them for that, I was in that camp until recently. They suddenly find that is not the case. They also realize the odds of winning in November are not really very good and they would really rather have Hillary Clinton than Barrack Obama in the White House. The have started to be critical and attack Obama now but Hillary is still doing all the work for them.

It's the economy stupid!

Paul Krugman believes that the economy will be the issue in November. I think he is correct although Iraq will be a bigger issue by October than it appears to be now. Krugman also believes that Clinton is better equipped to take advantage of American's economic anxieties. From what I've seen up to this point I would have to agree. As David Brooks says:

Besides, the real softness of the campaign is not that Obama is a wimp. It’s that he has never explained how this new politics would actually produce bread-and-butter benefits to people in places like Youngstown and Altoona.

If he can’t explain that, he’s going to lose at some point anyway.

While Iraq will be a problem for John McCain the economy is a real problem as Mark Silva explains:

As if the economy weren't already stepping up as a driving force in the 2008 presidential race, the Labor Department announced this morning that 63,000 jobs were lost in February.

This marks the biggest slide since March 2003, and cements a two-month reversal in an economy that had added employment each month for more than four years.

It's another telling measure of the "slowdown'' in the economy that President Bush has described -- or perhaps the "recession'' that many economists say is already under way.

And the new February jobs-report adds another element to the campaign for the candidates hoping to succeed Bush in January.

Sen. Hillary Clinton, fresh from a strong primary victory in the economically challenged once-great industrial state of Ohio, is portraying herself as the candidate best prepared to serve as a steward of the economy. Sen. Barack Obama maintains that his ideas for innovation will help spur the economy. The Republican who will face one of them in November, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, is promoting a continuation of the Bush tax cuts as key to spurring the economy.

As Brooks points out Obama is being pressured to jump into the gutter with Clinton.

The consultants, needless to say, gravitate toward the tactical interpretation. And once again the cry has gone up for Obama to get tough. This advice gets wrapped in metaphors. Obama has to start “throwing punches” or “taking the gloves off.”

Beneath the euphemisms, what the advice really means is that Obama has to start accusing Clinton of things.

[.....]

These attacks are supposed to show that Obama can’t be pushed around. But, of course, what it really suggests is that Obama’s big theory is bankrupt. You can’t really win with the new style of politics. Sooner or later, you have to play by the conventional rules.

[.....]

As the trench warfare stretches on through the spring, the excitement of Obama-mania will seem like a distant, childish mirage. People will wonder if Obama ever believed any of that stuff himself. And even if he goes on to win the nomination, he won’t represent anything new. He’ll just be a one-term senator running for president.

In short, a candidate should never betray the core theory of his campaign, or head down a road that leads to that betrayal. Barack Obama doesn’t have an impressive record of experience or a unique policy profile. New politics is all he’s got. He loses that, and he loses everything. Every day that he looks conventional is a bad day for him.

If Obama wants to win the nomination and the general election he should all but ignore Hillary Clinton. He needs to start talking about specific economic proposals - progressive ones. He needs to point out the John McCain's only economic proposals consist of extending the Bush tax cuts and borrowing money forever to stay in Iraq. Brooks is right - if he jumps into the gutter with Hillary Clinton he will lose.

McCain and Iraq

Survey USA published some electoral maps today - sorry but they are nonsense at this point. McCain has been telling us that the surge he supported is a grand a glorious success. We have seen violence in that country steadily increase since the first of the year and just today a pair of bombs in Baghdad killed 53. Steve Chapman takes a look at McCain and Iraq over at Real Clear Politics:
McCain's Consistent Folly on Iraq

On the campaign trail, John McCain has retreated on immigration, changed his mind on tax cuts and admitted economics is not his strong suit. But all that's unimportant, we are told, because he was Right On Iraq -- back at the beginning, when he endorsed the invasion, and again over the past year, when he has stoutly supported the surge. So, whichever Democrat he faces, the November election could be a referendum on the Iraq war and his support for it.

If so, that may not be a plus for McCain. McCain has been consistent about Iraq, in the sense of being consistently wrong. If the American people get a long look at what he's said and a clear picture of our fortunes in Iraq, he may yearn for the days when he was being pilloried for offering "amnesty" to illegal immigrants.

McCain portrays himself as uniquely clear-eyed about the war. In fact, those eyes have often been full of stars. When Army Gen. Eric Shinseki forecast that more troops would be needed for the occupation, McCain didn't fret. Shortly before the invasion, he said, "I have no qualms about our strategic plans." As the online magazine Salon reports, he predicted the war would be "another chapter in the glorious history of the United States of America."

Yes indeed, John McCain has been consistent on Iraq - consistently wrong. And about that surge:

The point of the surge was to catalyze rapid progress that would facilitate our departure. But now the Pentagon says that come July, we’ll still have more troops than the 132,000 we had before. When Lt. Gen. Carter Ham was asked if the number will fall below 132,000 by the time Bush leaves office, he replied, “It would be premature to say that.”

McCain says the current “strategy is succeeding in Iraq.” His apparent definition of success is that American forces will stay on in huge numbers as long as necessary to keep violence within acceptable limits. We were told we had to increase our numbers so we could leave. Turns out we had to increase our numbers so we could stay.

Five years after the Iraq invasion, we’ve suffered more than 30,000 dead and wounded troops, incurred trillions in costs and found that Iraqis are unwilling to overcome their most basic divisions. And no end is in sight. If you’re grateful for that, thank John McCain.

Over at Cato At Liberty Justin Logan has more.

As has always been the case, men like John McCain define leaving as losing and staying as success. If we stay in Iraq for 100 years, that’s “success.” If we leave, ever, we’ve lost.

I’d only add to Chapman’s column that, before the war, media darling St. John of Arizona was one of the most naive proponents of the “greeted as liberators” school of thought, assuring Larry King on September 24, 2002 that “I believe that the success will be fairly easy.” Five days later, McCain was back on CNN, assuring the American people that “I believe that the United States military capabilities are such that we can win a victory in a relatively short time. And I, again, I don’t think it’s, quote, ‘easy,’ but I believe that we can win an overwhelming victory in a very short period of time.” And so forth.

Iraq remains a powder keg with a very short fuse. The surge added a longer fuse but put more powder in the keg at the same time. The odds our that keg is going to blow up in St John's face before November.

McCain's Bush Problem

As Jazz pointed out yesterday and I discussed here John McCain's biggest problem in November will not be Clinton or Obama but George W. Bush. Writing at Larry Sabato's Crystal Ball Dr. Alan Abramowitz agrees.
THE REAL THREAT TO MCCAIN?
Disgruntled GOP moderates could impact party unity

A lot of Republicans are unhappy with their party this year. Some conservative Republicans, following the lead of talk show hosts such as Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, have been threatening to sit out the November election or vote for a third party candidate because they don't consider their party's presidential nominee, John McCain, to be sufficiently conservative.

Since emerging as the clear frontrunner for the Republican nomination on Super Tuesday, Mr. McCain has been working hard to win the support of conservatives by stressing his hawkish views on Iraq and his conservative positions on social issues such as abortion. In a further effort to ease the concerns of conservatives, McCain recently promised to oppose any tax increases during his term as president.

But a careful examination of the evidence from the 2006 midterm elections as well as voting patterns in recent primaries indicates that it isn't conservatives who pose the biggest threat to Republican unity in the fall. It's moderate-to-liberal Republicans who represent the biggest challenge to John McCain in uniting his party against the Democratic nominee, especially if that nominee is Barack Obama.

While conservatives may continue to complain about McCain, they will almost certainly end up voting for him against a much more liberal Democrat. But a large number of moderate-to-liberal Republicans could actually defect to the Democratic nominee if they perceive McCain as moving too far to the right in his effort to appease party conservatives.

In the 2006 midterm elections, defections by moderate-to-liberal Republicans contributed to the Democratic takeover of the House of Representatives and were largely responsible for Republican defeats in three major Senate races in states that had voted for George Bush by wide margins in 2004: Missouri, Montana and Virginia.

John McCain has morphed into John McBush in order to win favor from the "conservative" base. This will cost him votes among independents to be sure but when one looks at the 2006 midterm elections it could also cost him 10 to 15 percent of the Republican votes. By jumping in bed with George W. Bush McCain has made the 2008 election one about the Bush administration.

McCain ‘Is Not Going To Change’ My Foreign Policy
~George W. Bush, March 5, 2008

Enough said!