Looking for lunch-hour reading? I'd recommend Justice Samuel Alito's concurring opinion in Ricci v. DeStefano. Alito's devastating narrative argues that the real reason the city of New Haven threw out the results of its fire-fighter exam was "the desire to placate a politically important racial constituency." The chief culprit is the Reverend Boise Kimber, a political fixer straight out of Bonfire of the Vanities.

Conventional wisdom holds that the Court's negation of Judge Sotomayor's Appeals Court holding in Ricci won't affect her confirmation. Probably! But the parts of her confirmation hearings dealing with Ricci certainly will make the most news, and may harm her favorability ratings. In a recent column for Time, Christopher Caldwell noted that:

Affirmative action has been a revolution in American rights and in our ideas of citizenship. To judge from almost all polls and referendums over the past few decades, it is reliably unpopular. Judges prop it up. Since the election of the first black President, it has been a shoe waiting to drop. The rationale it rests on — that minorities are cut off from fair access to positions of influence in society — has been undermined, to put it mildly. Elevating a hard-line defender of affirmative action is thus a provocation in a way that it would not have been in years past.

And the debate over affirmative action that the Ricci decision provokes will not redound to the Democrats' advantage.

That's President Obama's description of his economic team's philosophy in this fascinating interview with the Times's David Leonhardt. Run, don't walk, to read it.

Two takeaways. In the first, Obama describes his touchstone for economic policy:

[D]oes it allow the average American to find good employment and see their incomes rise; that we can’t just look at things in the aggregate, we do want to grow the pie, but we want to make sure that prosperity is spread across the spectrum of regions and occupations and genders and races; and that economic policy should focus on growing the pie, but it also has to make sure that everybody has got opportunity in that system.

This is a president concerned with distributive justice to a great degree. And big government is the means by which he can try to achieve his desired distributional outcomes.

In the second takeaway, Obama relates the heartbreaking story of his grandmother's final days:

I don’t know how much that hip replacement cost. I would have paid out of pocket for that hip replacement just because she’s my grandmother. Whether, sort of in the aggregate, society making those decisions to give my grandmother, or everybody else’s aging grandparents or parents, a hip replacement when they’re terminally ill is a sustainable model, is a very difficult question. If somebody told me that my grandmother couldn’t have a hip replacement and she had to lie there in misery in the waning days of her life — that would be pretty upsetting. ...

So that’s where I think you just get into some very difficult moral issues. But that’s also a huge driver of cost, right?

I mean, the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives are accounting for potentially 80 percent of the total health care bill out here. ...

Well, I think that there is going to have to be a conversation that is guided by doctors, scientists, ethicists. And then there is going to have to be a very difficult democratic conversation that takes place. It is very difficult to imagine the country making those decisions just through the normal political channels. And that’s part of why you have to have some independent group that can give you guidance. It’s not determinative, but I think has to be able to give you some guidance. And that’s part of what I suspect you’ll see emerging out of the various health care conversations that are taking place on the Hill right now.

What's going on here? To me, Obama is laying out the intellectual case for health care rationing while acknowledging the potential human costs of such a policy. He's saying that, in order to contain costs, under a universal health care program his grandmother might have been denied that hip replacement, or forced to pay for it herself. This is the natural consequence of a universal policy, which would bankrupt the country without some form of rationing care - or put another way, some form of making care more expensive for those the government chooses not to treat for financial reasons. On the actual rationing mechanism, Obama punts, saying that "an independent group" should make recommendations.

In his column last week, Krauthammer anticipated Obama's argument:

In an aging population, how do you keep them from blowing up the budget? There is only one answer: rationing.

Why do you think the stimulus package pours $1.1 billion into medical "comparative effectiveness research"? It is the perfect setup for rationing. Once you establish what is "best practice" for expensive operations, medical tests and aggressive therapies, you've laid the premise for funding some and denying others.

It is estimated that a third to a half of one's lifetime health costs are consumed in the last six months of life. Accordingly, Britain's National Health Service can deny treatments it deems not cost-effective -- and if you're old and infirm, the cost-effectiveness of treating you plummets. In Canada, they ration by queuing. You can wait forever for so-called elective procedures like hip replacements.

Rationing is not quite as alien to America as we think. We already ration kidneys and hearts for transplant according to survivability criteria as well as by queuing. A nationalized health insurance system would ration everything from MRIs to intensive care by myriad similar criteria.

"Social Security used to be the third rail of American politics," Krauthammer concludes. "Not anymore. Health-care rationing is taking its place -- which is why Obama, the consummate politician, knows to offer the candy (universality) today before serving the spinach (rationing) tomorrow."

Tomorrow may come sooner than you think.

Former British prime minister Tony Blair gave an important speech to the Chicago Council on Global Affairs last week. Everyone should read it. And while you print it out, you might as well print out Blair's March 18, 2003, speech to the House of Commons arguing for the deposition of Saddam Hussein and his July 18, 2003, speech to a joint session of the U.S. Congress on the war on terror and the alliance between the United States and the United Kingdom. Taken together, these three speeches are the best guide to Blair's world view. And they establish him as one of the most important political figures of the (still young!) twenty-first century.

Choice cuts from last week's speech:

The struggle faced by the world, including the majority of Muslims, is posed by an extreme and misguided form of Islam. Our job is simple: it is to support and partner those Muslims who believe deeply in Islam but also who believe in peaceful co-existence, in taking on and defeating the extremists who don't. But it can't be done without our active and wholehearted participation.

It is one struggle with many dimensions and varied arenas. There is a link between the murders in Mumbai, the terror attacks in Iraq and Afghanistan, the attempts to destabilise countries like Yemen, and the training camps of insurgents in Somalia.

It is not one movement. There is no defined command and control. But there is a shared ideology. There are many links criss-crossing the map of Jihadist extremism. And there are elements in the leadership of a major country, namely Iran, that can support and succour its practitioners.

And:

The ideology we are fighting is not based on justice. That is a cause we can understand. And world-wide these groups are adept, certainly, at using causes that indeed are about justice, like Palestine. Their cause, at its core, however, is not about the pursuit of values that we can relate to; but in pursuit of values that directly contradict our way of life. They don't believe in democracy, equality or freedom. They will espouse, tactically, any of these values if necessary. But at heart what they want is a society and state run on their view of Islam. They are not pluralists. They are the antithesis of pluralism. And they don't think that only their own community or state should be like that. They think the world should be governed like that.

And:

'Look there are people in this world who are crazy,' a friend said to me the other day, 'leave them to be crazy.' Except the problem is that they won't leave us in the comfort of our lives. That's not the way the world works today. The Holy Land, that from Tel Aviv to the River Jordan, could fit within a small US state, is many, many thousands of miles from here. But, whether there is peace there or not, will affect our peace.

"[I[t is time to wrench ourselves out of a state of denial," said Blair, who concluded his speech thusly: "We have to rediscover some confidence and conviction in who we are, how far we've come and what we believe in. By the way, I think this even about the economic crisis. It is severe. It's going to be really, really hard. But we will get through it and not by abandoning the market or open economic system but by learning our lessons and adjusting the system in a way that makes it better. But, on any basis, this system has delivered amazing leaps forward in prosperity for our citizens and we shouldn't, against the gloom, forget it."

There's a school of thought that says Republicans should look to the Tories for lessons on how to recover lost power. Perhaps so. But if you are trying to find a language for your convictions, a way to explain why it's necessary to fight jihadism and expand the democratic capitalist realm, look to Blair.

NPR: "Power Lines Upset Cows' Compass."

It turns out that - I am not making this up - Dave Barry has a blog. Which he updates frequently! Here's Dave on his worst Christmas tree memory. Enjoy.

Robert Kagan on sovereignty in the age of terror:

Rather than simply begging the Indians to show restraint, a better option could be to internationalize the response [to the Bombay attacks]. Have the international community declare that parts of Pakistan have become ungovernable and a menace to international security. Establish an international force to work with the Pakistanis to root out terrorist camps in Kashmir as well as in the tribal areas. This would have the advantage of preventing a direct military confrontation between India and Pakistan. It might also save face for the Pakistani government, since the international community would be helping the central government reestablish its authority in areas where it has lost it. But whether or not Islamabad is happy, don't the international community and the United States, at the end of the day, have some obligation to demonstrate to the Indian people that we take attacks on them as seriously as we take attacks on ourselves?

Would such an action violate Pakistan's sovereignty? Yes, but nations should not be able to claim sovereign rights when they cannot control territory from which terrorist attacks are launched. If there is such a thing as a "responsibility to protect," which justifies international intervention to prevent humanitarian catastrophe either caused or allowed by a nation's government, there must also be a responsibility to protect one's neighbors from attacks from one's own territory, even when the attacks are carried out by "non-state actors." ...

Would the U.N. Security Council authorize such action? China has been Pakistan's ally and protector, and Russia might have its own reasons for opposing a resolution. Neither likes the idea of breaking down the walls of national sovereignty -- except, in Russia's case, in Georgia -- which is why they block foreign pressure on Sudan concerning Darfur, and on Iran and other rogue states. This would be yet another test of whether China and Russia, supposed allies in the war against terrorism, are really interested in fighting terrorism outside their own borders. But if such an action were under consideration at the United Nations, that might be enough to gain Pakistan's voluntary cooperation. Either way, it would be useful for the United States, Europe and other nations to begin establishing the principle that Pakistan and other states that harbor terrorists should not take their sovereignty for granted. In the 21st century, sovereign rights need to be earned.

Read the whole thing, as they say.

From Bloomberg, “How the Democrats Created the Financial Crisis” by Kevin Hassett

This being a time of crisis, it is no time for finger pointing. Then again, why not?

In this searing and much-discussed piece, Hassett explores who is responsible for enabling the twin ticking time bombs of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to endanger the entire economy. Hint: One of the presidential candidates is a culprit. Additional hint: He’s not the one who served in Vietnam:

If that bill had become law, then the world today would be different. In 2005, 2006 and 2007, a blizzard of terrible mortgage paper fluttered out of the Fannie and Freddie clouds, burying many of our oldest and most venerable institutions. Without their checkbooks keeping the market liquid and buying up excess supply, the market would likely have not existed.

But the bill didn't become law, for a simple reason: Democrats opposed it on a party-line vote in the committee, signaling that this would be a partisan issue. Republicans, tied in knots by the tight Democratic opposition, couldn't even get the Senate to vote on the matter.

That such a reckless political stand could have been taken by the Democrats was obscene even then. Wallison wrote at the time: ``It is a classic case of socializing the risk while privatizing the profit. The Democrats and the few Republicans who oppose portfolio limitations could not possibly do so if their constituents understood what they were doing.''

Now that the collapse has occurred, the roadblock built by Senate Democrats in 2005 is unforgivable. Many who opposed the bill doubtlessly did so for honorable reasons. Fannie and Freddie provided mounds of materials defending their practices. Perhaps some found their propaganda convincing.

But we now know that many of the senators who protected Fannie and Freddie, including Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Christopher Dodd, have received mind-boggling levels of financial support from them over the years.

Perhaps the senators’ credulity regarding Fannie and Freddie’s propaganda and the behemoths’ campaign contributions are merely an inconvenient coincidence. Then again, perhaps not.

You’ll want to read the whole thing.

1) From the New York Times, “A Fine Mess” by William Kristol

2) From the American Scene, “Welcome to History” by Jim Manzi

Is it a sign that we truly are approaching the End Times that the Boss and John Conyers agree on something of vital importance? Both find the administration’s plan to give Henry Paulson a $700 billion blank check to buy up all the country’s bad mortgage debt in all of its many guises profoundly disturbing. Kristol writes:

Everyone seems to agree on the need for a big and comprehensive plan, and that the markets have to have some confidence that help is on the way. Funds need to be supplied, trading markets need to be stabilized, solvent institutions needs to be protected, and insolvent institutions need to be put on the path to a deliberate liquidation or reorganization.

But is the administration’s proposal the right way to do this? It would enable the Treasury, without Congressionally approved guidelines as to pricing or procedure, to purchase hundreds of billions of dollars of financial assets, and hire private firms to manage and sell them, presumably at their discretion There are no provisions for — or even promises of — disclosure, accountability or transparency. Surely Congress can at least ask some hard questions about such an open-ended commitment.

The Wall Street Journal finds Conyers concurring:

Draft legislation proposes sweeping powers for Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson to buy and sell mortgage-related securities however he sees fit. Aside from requiring periodic reports to Congress, the bill provides no oversight of the bailout's management -- and specifically bars any court or agency from reviewing it.

Congressional Democrats said they were wary of handing a lame-duck administration what one aide called a "blank check."

House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers Jr. (D., Mich.) "is very concerned about the breadth of the draft language, and we are working to insure that reasonable limits are included," a committee staffer said.

One must ask precisely what the administration is up to here. Was the initial deal sheet that granted Paulson such sweeping powers a mere “jumping off point” from which the administration could begin wrangling with Congress? Or did the administration sense Congress’ collective terror and figure individual Congressmen would just go along with whatever Treasury proposed? After all, Barack Obama hasn’t exactly led from the front on this matter (he’s still trying to decide what he thinks about last week’s AIG bailout), and John McCain’s clumsy efforts to offer anything substantive last week were disastrous. The typical, cautious senator has probably decided it’s in his best interest just to stay out of the way of this particular locomotive and rejoin the fray once the blame game has commenced.

So what tweaks does the Paulson “plan” cry out for? The always insightful Jim Manzi puts it plainly and simply:

What will be essential is that:

1. These (Treasury “purchases”) are temporary, and these positions be unwound as rapidly as possible. This includes not just the actions of the past two days, but also getting the federal government out of the insurance business (AIG) and the home lending business (Freddie and Fannie) as rapidly as is consistent with orderly unwinding of these positions.

2. The ultimate resolution assures that prior investors in these financial institutions and their executives bear very large financial penalties. Irresponsible homeowners should as well. Expect big political battles over the definition of “irresponsible”.

If done in this way, we can (in the hopeful case) work through the problem with limited actual costs to the taxpayers as assets are sold off, while limiting moral hazard and long-run government control of financial assets. But there are many very bad downside cases.

Add proper oversight to make sure Treasury is disposing of its responsibilities in a capable manner, and we’ve got ourselves a plan.

Everyone understands the need for prompt and serious action to make sure the American financial system doesn’t go belly-up. Well, almost everyone – you can find the stray Ron Paul-types out there who would rather see a Great Depression redux than have their libertarian principles compromised. While most of us find the thought of a massive bailout unpalatable, the thought of the American credit markets seizing up sucks far more. But thinking people should still ask whether granting a $700 billion blank check to Hank Paulson is the proper antidote.

The many individuals I’ve spoken with who have a serious understanding of financial markets have universally expressed their minimal to middling regard for Secretary Paulson’s job performance. What’s more, since Paulson is a banker and not a trader, he doesn’t seem like the guy you would give $700 billion to and say, “Go have some fun in the world’s most complex securities market.” Certainly not without proper statutory and congressional supervision.

In the spirit of coming together at a time of crisis, I suggest we all applaud Treasury’s aggressive approach to staving off a true financial catastrophe. But that doesn’t men we have to suspend common sense and prudence as we look for the best way forward.

From Political Punch, “Does Obama Support the AIG Bailout” by Jake Tapper

Barack Obama - still voting present after all these years.

In dilating endlessly on the AIG bailout, Barack Obama declined to say whether or not he supported it. He did, however, condemn the bailout as sadly reflective on John McCain. But again, he didn’t deign to say whether or not he thought the bailout was a good thing. How depressing! If ever we needed someone with magnificent judgment, it’s now.

“The fact that we have reached a point where the Federal Reserve felt it had to take this unprecedented step with the American Insurance Group is the final verdict on the failed economic philosophy of the last eight years," Obama said. "While we do not know all the details of this arrangement, the Fed must ensure that the plan protects the families that count on insurance. It should bolster our economy's ability to create good-paying jobs and help working Americans pay their bills and save their money. It must not bail out the shareholders or management of AIG.

“This crisis serves as a stark reminder of the failures of crony capitalism and an economic philosophy that sees any regulation at all as unwise and unnecessary," Obama continued. "It’s a philosophy that lets Washington lobbyists shred consumer protections and distort our economy so it works for the special interests instead of working people; a philosophy that says we should give more and more to those with the most and hope that prosperity trickles down to the rest. Instead, the pain has trickled up – from the struggles of Main Street all the way up to the crises on Wall Street.

“Despite his eleventh hour conversion to the language of reform, Senator McCain has subscribed to this philosophy for twenty-six years in Washington and the events of this week have rendered it a colossal failure," Obama continued. "It is time for a new economic strategy, guided by the principle that America prospers when all Americans prosper, where common-sense rules of the road ensure that competition is fair, open, and honest. That is the strategy I will pursue as President, and I will bring the change we need to restore confidence in our financial markets and strength to our economy,” said Barack Obama."

You'll notice that Obama doesn't really assert anywhere in here that he supports -- or opposes -- this bailout.

There’s a staggering amount of Obamian economic ignorance on display here. Let’s start with the “crony capitalism” charge. Who, pray tell, were AIG’s cronies the past two years? I don’t recall the Democratic congress rushing through a rash of oversight or regulatory measures. Of course, Obama is using the cliché of “crony capitalism” in the same manner he often uses his rhetoric – as an impressive way of saying nothing while seeming to be uttering some remarkable profundity.

Here’s some more bad news for Obama – in spite of his pathetic class warrior Schadenfreude over Main Street’s difficulties trickling up to Wall Street, that’s not what happened here at all. Wall Street made its own mess, creating the subprime crisis by issuing million of mortgages that defied economic sense. What will happen is that as Wall Street struggles with this mess, the pain will in fact trickle down to Main Street. Getting a mortgage will be much more difficult than it was. Homeownership will drift out of reach for many Americans. Unless Wall Street can pull itself together fast. To put it simply, Senator Obama seems to have no understanding of the symbiotic relationship between Wall Street and Main Street. He seems to believe that Wall Street is a nattily dressed predator that preys on ordinary folks like his humble next door neighbors the Rezkos. That’s what Saul Alinsky probably thought.

Obama also seems to have no grasp of why the AIG bailout was necessary. It wasn’t because a lot of consumers would have lost their homeowners’ policies or life insurance. If AIG had gone under, those profitable parts of AG’s business portfolio would have been scarfed up by eager third parties before sundown. To give you (not to mention Senator Obama) the Reader’s Digest version of things, the parts of AIG that write consumer policies are essentially a separate company from the part that’s in trouble. The reasons for this are too boring to get into, but it has a lot to do with state regulatory guidelines that cover consumer insurance policies.

So what’s the part that’s in trouble? If you’ve sensed a pattern this week and already guessed it has something to with the subprime mortgage mess, give yourself a gold star. And maybe you should consider seeking the Democratic nomination for president in 2012. AIG also wrote de facto insurance policies for subprime mortgages and mortgage-backed securities for the banking community. What were they insuring? They were offering insurance against the possibility that the holders of those mortgages would default. Which as you know by now, they have. Selling such policies turned out be a very poor business decision.

Here’s where things got potentially sticky – the American financial community has been planning on AIG making good on its insurance policies, sort of the way you expect Allstate to make good on your homeowner’s policy when your house burns down. If AIG failed to meet these obligations, it would have been a devastating blow to the American financial community. “Devastating” in this context could have meant something like that bank run in “It’s a Wonderful Life” on mega-steroids but without that annoying Uncle whose carelessness almost got George thrown in jail. The terms “illiquid,” “insolvent,” and “panic” would have received frequent use.

Contra Senator Obama, the government didn’t bail out AIG because the guys at the Fed and Treasury wanted to do a solid for their pals at AIG. AIG got bailed out because its failure would have been catastrophic. Furthermore, the Fed’s terms for the bailout were Draconian. AIG stockholders and executives aren’t laughing all the way to the bank this morning. The company’s CEO is gone, his departure a condition of the bailout.

I’ve written many times here that I believe Senator Obama is a fundamentally good man. This is an opportunity for him to show his qualities as a leader. It would be helpful if he would try to calm the markets rather than further agitate them. I wouldn’t dare hope for him to express his confidence in the markets or the economy – since he obviously understands neither, such a declaration would ring hollow anyway. But since he doesn’t understand the issues to such an extent that he’s unwilling to take a position on whether or not the AIG bailout is a good thing, is it too much to ask for him to refrain from playing the arsonist?

From the Politico, “As Markets Reel, The Blame Game Begins” by Jeanne Cummings

First, let’s start with this little passage that hits Washington right where it lives:

We have to pity the government in a lot of ways,” says Robert F. Bruner, dean of the Darden School of Business at the University of Virginia. “Wall Street innovates so rapidly, it’s difficult for government to keep up.”

Asked what Washington should have done, one industry insider said: “Nothing. Unless they’re going to start telling firms how to invest. Government can do that in China. It can’t do it here.”

Impotent and stupid – that’s the Washington I know!

It is a sad fact of life that the smart kids will choose to go to Wall Street and pull down seven figures a year rather than to Washington to serve as a regulator. Such are the curses of a free market economy. Of course, the senate is chock full of smart kids like Chuck Schumer, Chris Dodd and Barack Obama. But they can’t keep up with the smart Wall Street guys when they have so many unkissed babies to tend to. What’s more, certain malign presences in our economy like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac found many Democratic congressmen to be spectacularly cheap dates. The fact that that these entities could purchase Chris Dodd’s affection for six figures is a steal bigger than the Louisiana Purchase.

With Washington looking to point fingers in regards to the fall of Lehman, it’s worth recounting the chain of events that led us to today (or rather Sunday):

1) Alan Greenspan’s Fed made loads of cheap money available.

2) Money will be put to use. It does not wind up in enormous mattresses gathering dust. After all the smart uses were exhausted, Wall Street began looking to dumbers uses, or riskier uses if you will. Foremost among these riskier uses was issuing subprime mortgages.

3) The availability of subprime mortgages had two immediate effects. First, it created a whole new class of potential homeowners. As this new class of homeowners drove demand through the roof, the value of your house (and mine) increased dramatically.

4) Unfortunately for everyone involved, a lot of these people defaulted on their subprime loans. Thus, the subprime mortgage market disappeared while foreclosed homes glutted the housing market. That meant a sharp decline in demand and a sharp increase in supply hit the housing market simultaneously, making the value of your house (and mine) decrease dramatically. In terms of where this crisis hits the typical American, this item is the bogey. The typical American lost a huge chunk of his net worth thanks to the housing crisis, and it won't fully bounce back until…well, nobody knows when.

5) The erstwhile homeowners who took out loans they couldn’t afford lost their homes and faced financial ruin. The firms who issued subprime loans and the firms who purchased subprime mortgage backed securities that the erstwhile homeowners couldn’t make good on also faced financial ruin.

So what can the government and its various agencies do in such a situation? Fannie and Freddie had to be saved – “too big to fail” was right, and that’s what made the shenanigans of those quasi-governmental agencies so scandalous. But Lehman? Life and the economy will go one.

Fed Governors will study for years the original Greenspan sins that set this course of events in motion. Meanwhile, Greenpsan will probably be taking to the airwaves to defend his tattered legacy. As far as the subprime lending industry that proximately triggered the crisis, theoretically the government in the future could set up a regulatory regime that puts mortgages out of reach for certain risky home buyers. Happily, I bet that idea sounds as noxious to liberals as it does to conservatives.

So government and politicians can only do what they do best – blindly cast blame on a matter that they don’t fully understand. Let’s not forget we have two presidential candidates who have spent a combined fifteen minutes in the private sector. I would love to see Charlie Gibson have a few minutes on camera with Barack Obama and ask in his impatient schoolmarm way, “Exactly what did Lehman Brothers do on a day in/day out basis?” I would expect an irrelevant homily on the virtues of “Main Street” as opposed to “Wall Street” in response.

In a free market, good decisions will be rewarded and poor decisions will be punished. That happens at the individual level when a person takes a mortgage that they can’t afford. And it happens at a bigger level when a company like Lehman pursues an “aggressive” strategy that ultimately proves imprudent.

What makes me laugh – ruefully, I assure you – is when our office seekers trot around the country promising “accountability” for Wall Street. Lehman just went bankrupt – in a market economy, things don’t get more “accountable” than that.

What everyone wants to know is how serious the current situation is. Step back from the ledge, and for goodness sakes ignore Senator Obama’s ignorant hysterics. What we have now is a market correction. Firms that made poor decisions are being devoured by the market’s unforgiving nature. Today the Dow is steady, the American economy having easily withstood the shock of the weekend’s events. Most salubriously, the moral hazard that the government sponsored with past bailouts and craven enabling (see Fannie and Freddie) is now a memory. In evaluating future risks, finance houses will no longer consider the moving target of federal intervention if/when things don’t work out.

The weekend’s events were terrible news for Lehman’s employees not to mention the countless vendors who depended on the firm. The bad news also extends to New York City, which will have the burden of a moribund financial sector to lug around for the foreseeable future. It stinks that things work out this way sometimes. But so it goes in a free market economy.

From the Weekly Standard, “Tax Cuts, Real and Imaginary” by Newt Gingrich and Peter Ferrara

As you know, I have a self-imposed guideline that prohibits linking to pieces that appear in our own magazine. No reason to offend my unlinked colleagues. Anyway, new rule – this guideline will not apply to men or women who served as Speaker of the House or in a higher office.

I’m linking the Gingrich/Ferrara piece not just to curry favor with a man as powerful as Newt (although that would be plenty reason enough) but because the campaign’s renewed focus on Obamanomics and the Democrats’ purported tax cut plans make the article especially relevant. In short, the Obama campaign’s rhetoric on tax cuts is hollow at best, deliberately deceitful at worst:

The latest data from the Congressional Budget Office and the Internal Revenue Service show that the lowest 40 percent of income earners as a group actually receive net payments from the federal income tax system. (They get 3.8 percent of total federal income tax revenues instead of paying any income taxes.) The middle 20 percent of income earners pay 4.4 percent of federal income taxes. Thus the bottom 60 percent of income earners together, on net, pay less than 1 percent of all federal income taxes. (These workers earn 26 percent of national income.)…

When Obama says that he will cut taxes for 95 percent of Americans, he is talking about his proposal for a $500 refundable income tax credit for all but the top 5 percent of income earners. For the bottom 40 percent of income earners, this will be just another check from the federal government rather than a reduction in tax liability. It is another sharp increase in government spending rather than any sort of tax cut. An arbitrary cash grant does not, moreover, do anything to improve the economy or incentivize productive business. That only comes from cutting tax rates. What Obama is proposing here is really quite similar to George McGovern's 1972 plan to send everyone a $1,000 check, which voters rightly saw as a crass vote-buying scheme rather than serious policy.

Tax cuts, handouts – what’s the difference? Although the Obama campaign will be the first to remind you that words matter, it’s not their way to get bogged down in the semantical weeds. This issue also provides an opening for the McCain campaign to focus on a little substance this week in an area where McCain sits right in the sweet spot of popular opinion. Americans love tax cuts and are wary of grandiose governmental plans to spend still more of their money. Gingrich and Ferrara contrast the McCain and Obama plans this way:

John McCain is proposing to reduce our federal corporate tax rate to 25 percent. The top income tax rates borne by noncorporate small businesses and investors should be reduced to 25 percent as well. Obama is taking the opposite tack, calling for increases in the income tax rates that small businesses pay and additional tax increases for larger corporations (such as the so-called windfall profits tax on oil companies that would only further hurt the American economy with higher energy costs).

With two-thirds of the American people now owning stocks, capital gains taxes are another middle America issue. Obama proposes to increase the top capital gains tax rate by 33 percent, which will cause a decline in the value of stocks held by middle-income families. History has also proven, time and again, that rising capital gains tax rates cost the federal government money. From 1968 to 1975, the capital gains tax rate was raised four times, and capital gains tax revenue fell by more than 50 percent. When capital gains tax rates were raised by 40 percent as part of the compromise in the 1986 tax reform act, revenues fell by 40 percent the next year, and by 1991 they had fallen by 63 percent.

McCain is proposing to retain the current capital gains rate of 15 percent.

We will of course have our tactical fun in the week ahead. I’m already looking forward to the Obama campaign taking its gloves off for the 17th time and shrieking “Swiftboating!!” for the 17 millionth time. But the McCain campaign shouldn’t allow itself to think that the Obama campaign’s stumbles, amusing though they may be, are sufficient for victory. McCain and Palin will have to keep reminding the public who they are and what they stand for. Especially in areas like tax policy where their message will resonate.

From the New York Times, “Hanging on to Biden’s Every Word” by John Broder

The New York Times finally has noticed that a garrulous gaffe machine serves as Barack Obama’s running mate:

(Biden’s) a human verbal wrecking crew.

This is the fellow who nearly derailed his nascent presidential campaign last year by calling Mr. Obama “articulate and bright and clean,” and who noted that a person needed a slight Indian accent to walk into a Dunkin’ Donuts or 7-Eleven in Delaware, his home state.

The man who, reading his vice-presidential acceptance speech from a teleprompter, bungled Mr. McCain’s name and called him “George.” (“Freudian slip, folks, Freudian slip,” he explained.)

The man who, on the day Mr. Obama announced him as his running mate, referred to his party’s presidential nominee as “Barack America” and noted that his wife, Jill Biden, a college professor, was “drop-dead gorgeous” but, problematically, possessed a doctorate.

The man who has said he is running for president (not vice president) and who confused Army brigades with battalions. Who referred to Ms. Palin as the lieutenant governor of Alaska.

Aides to Mr. Obama said that Mr. Biden’s propensity to misspeak could pose problems, particularly in the vice-presidential debate on Oct. 2. They are watching his performance but have not tried to rein him in. They have assigned two veteran minders to travel with him — David Wilhelm, a former Democratic National Committee chairman, and David Wade, a former spokesman for Senator John Kerry.

Only two aides to put together this verbal Humpty Dumpty after his various and many falls? Wilhelm and Wade promise to be the busiest guys in politics the next seven weeks, unless the Democrats smarten up and remove Biden to a secluded location for the duration of the campaign.

(Lefties in the audience, please take note – it’s possible to write about politicians that you don’t support without using words like “despicable,” “evil” or other terms that suggest you’re a human bile machine. The anger’s a turnoff. If you don’t believe me, check out the polls.)

From Real Clear Politics, “Obama On His Heels” by Jay Cost

On Sunday, David Axelrod appeared on Fox News Sunday and declared that Team Barry wasn’t running against Sarah Palin. This pronouncement signaled that the Obama campaign had finally realized that attacking John McCain’s running mate (not to mention the country’s most popular politician) was a loser of a strategy.

Coming after ten days of thrashing, Axelrod’s statement showed an awareness, however belated, of the Obama campaign’s glass jaw. Hugh Hewitt made the “glass jaw” observation last night – it’s amazing how easily the entire Obama apparatus has been thrown off stride not to mention off message. With the campaign entering its homestretch, the Obama team has seemingly become incapable of doing anything other than nipping at Sarah Palin’s heels. The days when Obama surrogates were minimizing John McCain’s Vietnam service are a comparative high point.

In this typically astute essay, Cost points to the problems afflicting Team Barry and how they may be portentous:

The Obama campaign's decision to attack is a risky one. Negative campaigns are always tricky, but this one is especially so. To some degree, Palin has been treated unfairly since her debut as McCain's vice-president. What the McCain campaign wants to do is tie all criticisms of Palin to the unfair ones, and ultimately remind people of how Hillary Clinton was treated. Team McCain is especially eager to do this for anything that comes out of Obama's mouth - hence the "lipstick on a pig" spot, which in turn induced a response from Obama.

We can assign winners and losers in this little skirmish; we can decide who has truth on his side and who does not. But that misses the point. Here we have yet another day when the focus is on the GOP's youthful, smiling, attractive, witty, female vice-presidential nominee. And for yet another day our ears are filled with the sounds of the Democratic nominee decrying how unfair the Republicans are - as if only one side hits below the belt.

Ultimately, I'm not a huge believer in the importance of "winning" news cycles. I do think, however, that the battle for the news cycle is an exhibition of a campaign's ability to move its message. And it has become clear that the McCain campaign is better at this. This "lipstick on a pig" incident will probably not affect a single vote - but it shows that the McCain campaign is ready and able to defend any real gains it might have made among white women. Once again, it's doing a better job getting its message across.

Nobody would have predicted this on June 3rd. That was the day Obama boldly stood in the Excel Energy Center and proclaimed an exciting new moment in American politics. Meanwhile McCain, sweating profusely, stood in front of a green screen and gave a rambling, disjointed speech. The contrast in messages was stark. Three months later, it's just as stark - but now it's Obama that's sweating and McCain that's exciting. What a turnaround.

And now I’ll offer some of my legendary free advice to the Obama campaign and its angry contingent of frothing media supporters – the only chance you had to make Sarah Palin a liability for the McCain campaign was to irrevocably damage her during her initial introduction to the country. Think of how it happened to Dan Quayle in 1988. Credit where it’s due – you guys gave it the old college try, disseminating scurrilous rumors and trying to convince the public of her great evil. (By the by, if any publication or individual who spread the particularly vile and ludicrous rumor about Palin not being the mother of her fifth child has since apologized for doing so, I’ve missed it.)

Despite the lunatic left’s best efforts and fondest wishes, Sarah Palin will not be a liability to the McCain campaign. She will be an asset. Since destroying her is now out of the question, she should be as relevant to the Obama campaign as Joe Biden is to the Republican campaign. And yet Palin is all Team Barry can talk about. If ever there was a sign that the Obama campaign has lost its bearings, that’s it.

So Team Barry and its supporters should forget about Palin and get back on message. Assuming they have a message left.

From the Wall Street Journal, “The Foreign Policy Difference” by Fouad Ajami

An op-ed piece bylined by Ajami is always cause for excitement. You know you’re about to read something packed with original insights and expressed with great elegance. Today’s work is no exception, as Ajami tackles the real weakness in Barack Obama’s campaign – he has rejected the notion of American exceptionalism that is unique to this country and cherished by the vast majority of its citizens who don’t live in too close a proximity to Harvard Yard:

The Obama candidacy must be judged on its own merits, and it can be reckoned as the sharpest break yet with the national consensus over American foreign policy after World War II. This is not only a matter of Sen. Obama's own sensibility; the break with the consensus over American exceptionalism and America's claims and burdens abroad is the choice of the activists and elites of the Democratic Party who propelled Mr. Obama's rise…

The crowds in Berlin and Paris that took to him knew their man. He had once presented his willingness to negotiate with Iran as the mark of his diplomacy, the break with the Bush years and the Bush style. But he stepped back from that pledge, and in a blatant echo of President Bush's mantra on Iran, he was to say that "no options would be off the table" when dealing with Iran. The change came on a visit to Israel, the conversion transparent and not particularly convincing.

Mr. Obama truly believes that he can offer the world beyond America's shores his biography, his sympathies with strangers. In the great debate over anti-Americanism and its sources, the two candidates couldn't be more different. Mr. Obama proceeds from the notion of American guilt: We called up the furies, he believes. Our war on terror and our war in Iraq triggered more animus. He proposes to repair for that, and offers himself (again, the biography) as a bridge to the world.

You’ll want to read the whole thing.

From the Washington Post, “You’re Not Accountable, Jack” by Bob Woodward

This gripping story recounts the amazing and pivotal role retired General Jack Keane played in getting David Petraeus the commitment he needed from the administration when the congressional vultures were circling above the Iraqi war effort. Below is the story’s high point in which the president unequivocally spells out his support for his commander in Iraq in a message that Keane would deliver:

I want Dave to know that I want him to win. That's the mission. He will have as much force as he needs for as long as he needs it.

When he feels he wants to make further reductions, he should only make those reductions based on the conditions in Iraq that he believes justify those reductions. These two concerns that we are discussing back here in Washington -- about contingency operations and the needs of the Army and the Marine Corps -- they are not your concerns. They are my concerns.

I do not want to change the strategy until the strategy has succeeded. I waited over three years for a successful strategy. And I'm not giving up on it prematurely. I am not reducing further unless you are convinced that we should reduce further.

As we come up on the first anniversary of David Petraeus’ memorable testimony before congress (the “Betray Us” testimony, if you will), it’s easy to forget just how much resolve the president and his supporters in the senate like John McCain had to show to see the surge through. The cut-and-run caucus was then in full flight, eager to proclaim the surge a failure and the war lost. Although most present-day pundits can’t bring themselves to appreciate anything about the current White House occupant, history will take note of his resolve. Asked later by Woodward why he issued the back channel communiqué to Petraeus, Bush responded,

“I just want Dave to know that I want to win and whatever he needs, obviously within capabilities, he'll have. I don't want my commander to think that they're dealing with a president who's so overly concerned about the latest Gallup poll or politics that he is worried about making a decision or recommendation that will make me feel uncomfortable.”

From the Washington Post, “Too Cool to Fight” by Richard Cohen

Before reading on, please be advised that I will not be held responsible for the coffee you are about to spit over your monitor. Proceed at your own peril.

Richard Cohen has served up a piece of pro-Obama fluff so ludicrous in its hyperbole that historians will likely savor it for generations. I’ve excerpted some of the highlights below, but you’ll want to read the whole thing:

Thank God for Sarah Palin. Without her jibes, her sarcasm, her exaggerations, her smug provincialism (Ed. Note - Supreme Irony Alert!!!!), her hypocrisy about family and government, her exploitation of mommyhood, and her personal attacks on Barack Obama, the Democratic base might never be consolidated…

Now Obama's opponents are going straight for his strength. At least twice at the GOP convention, speakers mocked Obama's service as a community organizer. "He worked as a community organizer," Rudy Giuliani said. "He immersed himself in Chicago machine politics."

And then Palin herself followed up with one of her aw-shucks low blows: "I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a community organizer, except that you have actual responsibilities."

In the biographies of both presidential candidates are episodes of pure wonderment. No man can read about McCain's time as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam and not wonder, "Could I do that?" For most of us, the answer -- the truthful answer -- is no.

For Obama, that episode has nothing to do with physical courage but much to do with moral commitment. At age 22 -- a graduate of Columbia University and already making good money as a financial researcher, he walked away to work with the unemployed and alienated in Chicago.

What a great point! It’s so true – Obama becoming a community organizer should provoke the exact same amount of “pure wonderment” in us as McCain declining early release and withstanding five years of torture at the Hanoi Hilton. Once again, what a brilliant insight!

While I am experiencing a moment of “pure wonderment” right now, it has nothing to do with either candidate. It has everything to do with Richard Cohen’s apparent desperation. Obama’s greatest strength is his tenure as a community organizer? The man’s résumé may be even worse than even I’ve given it credit for.

HT: Allah

From Townhall.com, “Is Trig at the Heart of Media's Reaction to Palin?” by Mona Charen

Charen offers an excellent contribution to the growing field of theories as to why the left has suffered such a complete meltdown over Sarah Palin:

Fully 80 percent of parents who receive a diagnosis of Down syndrome in their unborn children elect to abort. But it's not unusual at all among committed pro-lifers (to bring such a child to term). I have met many in the course of speaking to pro-life audiences. And for every couple that has chosen life for a handicapped child, there are thousands and perhaps millions more who have abjured prenatal testing because under no circumstances would they abort their children. I cannot count the times I've amazed pro-choice people with the news that there are even waiting lists of couples who stand ready to adopt Down syndrome babies.

The example of people living their principles by embarking on the undeniably difficult path of raising a handicapped child is a hard one to dismiss. In fact, it's hard not to admire. Don't most of us, deep down, really think that the most humane and honorable thing is to treat all life as sacred? Even if you are not religious or have no belief in God -- doesn't it appeal to an enlightened humanism to give support and love to the handicapped? In fact, most pro-choice people probably treat the handicapped with terrific compassion and care. They doubtless support civil rights legislation like the Americans with Disabilities Act, additional school spending, and generous Social Security benefits. They'd be the first to hold the door for someone in a wheelchair, and they'd be friendly toward anyone with obvious mental retardation.

But for themselves, they would abort. And there stands Sarah, Trig Palin in her arms, a beautiful ambassador for the path of humility, duty, honor, and grace. It's no wonder she was in their crosshairs from the get go.

Not to split hairs, but I’ve heard the number of parents who choose to abort their unborn children after a Down syndrome diagnosis is over 90%. I suspect that even most pro-choice people would agree that this ghastly figure is a stain on our society. It’s something that history will view with raw contempt.

But why would Palin’s choice so enrage the left? To best understand that, you need some experience wallowing in the left wing blogs. The favorite charge liberals like to hurl at conservatives is “Hypocrite!” Glenn Greenwald even wrote a tiresome book devoted to that single topic – how conservatives are a bunch of hypocrites.

That’s where the whole “chickenhawk” meme comes from. The problem liberals already faced in this election is that it’s tough to call John McCain a chickenhawk. If as president John McCain ever had to order men into battle, it would be impossible to argue that he lacked the moral authority to do so. Even before Sarah Palin joined the ticket, liberals had to accustom themselves to a less target rich environment than they enjoyed in the Bush/Cheney years.

Now along comes Sarah Palin, a social conservative. Unfortunately for the left, she has failed to live out their pre-ordained narrative regarding social conservatives. She hasn’t done the equivalent of tap her toes in an airport restroom looking for gay sex or send salacious instant messages to teenage pages. Instead, she has done what the left senses is the equivalent of John McCain’s Vietnam heroism – she has stuck to her principles even when doing so was difficult.

The irony here is that only the pro-choice left views Palin’s decision to bring Trig to term with awe and thus horror. Pro-life people figure she did the obvious right thing, and no medals are in order. For pro-life people who are serious about their convictions (and doubtlessly Palin herself), aborting Trig would never have been a consideration. For the left, the situation is different.

Virtually everyone in society when confronted with the 90+% abortion rate of Down syndrome fetuses reacts with horror or at least dismay. How dare Sarah Palin, that moose-hunting rural rube, show herself to be the moral superior to our nation’s sophisticates?

From the Washington Post, “Program Aids Veterans Entering Corporate World” by Keith Richburg

This is one of the most interesting and inspiring stories you’ll find out there today:

NEW YORK -- Ed Pulido joined the Army at 18 and spent 19 years in uniform. He lost his left leg four years after being wounded by a roadside bomb in Baqubah, Iraq. And when he was discharged in 2005, with a Bronze Star and a Purple Heart, he decided to the devote the rest of his life to work with a foundation helping the families of veterans who have been wounded or killed.

But he had one problem, he said: "How to initiate the contacts with corporate leaders, to be able to fundraise and to network."

That's where Sidney E. Goodfriend came in.

Goodfriend spent 25 years as a banker on Wall Street, mostly at Merrill Lynch. But, he said, he had made enough money, he was looking for a career change, and he wanted to make a contribution through public service.

With his own money, and using his Wall Street connections, Goodfriend, 48, founded a group called American Corporate Partners, which pairs returning veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan with mentors from the corporate world. He has enlisted six companies -- Campbell's, PepsiCo, Home Depot, Verizon, General Electric and investment bank Morgan Stanley -- that have each promised to offer returning vets 50 mentors, in eight cities.

The mentors pledge to spend four hours each month for a year meeting with their assigned veteran, and the meetings could take most any form: lunch, a fishing trip, a golf outing.

"These folks come back, and in their first year, they don't know anybody, and they especially don't know anybody in the corporate sector," Goodfriend said. "There is no way for them to transition easily into corporate America."

Goodfriend says later in the article that he’s been turned down by many more companies than the six who have signed up for mentors. Sadder still, Goodfriend got 800 applications for the 300 mentee spots currently avaliable. These applicants heard of the program just by word of mouth. Now that American Corporate Partners’ story has appeared in the Post, that number is sure to swell. In short, the demand for mentors is high, and as yet unmet.

Congratulations to Campbell’s, PepsiCo, Home Depot, Verizon, General Electric and Morgan Stanley for giving something back to the men and women who are so deserving. Hopefully other successful American companies who are in a position to do so will follow their example.

(Anyone in corporate America who has an interest in pursuing this and needs help contacting American Corporate Partners, feel free to contact me at soxblog@aol.com and I’ll try to help get the ball rolling.)

From Mother May I Sleep With Treacher, “Here's how Palin should handle those who are trying to destroy her, sometimes known as 'the press'" by Jim Treacher

Treacher, one of the sharpest and funniest guys on the web, knows how Palin should handle the jackals in the press if/when they should escape their cage:

Patterico has this caveat:

“Of course, these interviews aren't conducted by jackals trying to trip her up with pop quizzes about the identity of the leader of Podunkstan. It will indeed be interesting to see how she handles those sorts of questions, but I won't be cringing for her — I'll be looking forward to watching her take off the heads of the idiots who ask her the questions.”

Yeah, if she's as clever and strategic as she's shown herself to be over the last 10 days, her answer to hostile interviewers who want to play Pop Quiz -- which is pretty much all of them -- should be along these lines:

"You do realize that presidents and vice presidents have support staffs, don't you? When a vice president needs an answer to something like that, she gets it almost before she finishes the question. I can send you a box set of The West Wing if you need a refresher. What a great show. It also portrayed the importance of speechwriters in presidential politics, which apparently our distinguished opponents thought everyone had forgotten the other night. Maybe because real-life speechwriters don't tend to look like Rob Lowe? Or maybe only Democrats are allowed to have them.

"But back to your question. You seem to be implying that if I don't know something you didn't learn about until you were preparing for this interview, somehow that means I'm not qualified for office. I realize you're just doing your job, but don't you think the American people want a leader, not a Jeopardy winner?

"And by the way: Did you ever ask John Edwards that question?"

Smiling all the while.

From the Daily Kos, “Tie-Breakers. Advantage Obama. Advice? Take Nothing for Granted” by Joe Trippi

Having scrubbed itself of the ugly Trig Trutherism that more prestigious publications still wallow in, the Daily Kos is still able to host diaries written by respectable people like Joe Trippi. Trippi, the strategic genius behind both the 2004 Howard Dean and 2008 John Edwards campaigns, tries to reassure the Netroots that all remains well in their hour of doubt:

If the race stays closely fought to the end, there are a number of possible tie-breakers that could decide the outcome:

1. Polls are likely underestimating the turnout of young voters because many of these voters use cell phones and pollsters are having a difficult time including their views with accuracy. Obama has a big advantage with these voters. As a potential tie-breaker – ADVANTAGE OBAMA.

2. Polls are likely underestimating African-American turnout in the election for the same reason. Many of these households have cell phones instead of landlines, have only recently been registered to vote, or do not get through the screening questions of pollsters including "did you vote in the last election?" As a potential tie-breaker – ADVANTAGE OBAMA

3. The Bradley Effect. So named because when Tom Bradley, the African-American Mayor of Los Angeles ran for Governor of California polls showed him up by 10points – he lost the election. Pollsters later determined that many white voters had failed to tell pollsters the truth about how they intended to vote. I was Tom Bradley’s Deputy Campaign Manager in 1982. I saw the "Bradley effect" up close at the age of 26 – it was real. It is 26 years later and I can tell you two things for sure it isn’t the minus 10 points that it was in 1982 but it isn’t zero either. There will be an overestimation of the number of white voters casting ballots for Obama. As a potential tie-breaker – ADVANTAGE McCAIN.

I’ve always found Joe Trippi’s conviction that he has a monopoly on common sense rather endearing. In 2004, Trippi’s candidate Howard Dean raised a bazillion dollars on the internet. Figuring he had cracked some sort of code, Trippi sought to bring the same sort of magic to the John Edwards campaign in 2008. In spite of Trippi’s internet expertise, Edwards raised about $75 and a couple of pledges to host coffees outside Des Moines via his online operation.

Of course, the Dean campaign caught lightening in a bottle in 2004. Actually, it would be more accurate to say it received lightening in the bottle. It’s not like the campaign discovered a repeatable formula for raising online funds, any more than the 2008 Ron Paul campaign left a roadmap that normal, elect-able candidates will be able to follow in 2012.

Trippi shows the same kind of egotism in this essay. It may come as a shock to him, but he’s not the only one who’s figured out that the 2008 race is a tough one to poll. It will further shock him to know that all reputable pollsters are actively trying to figure out how they should weigh each of the factors that Trippi points to.

So will the pollsters systematically understate Barack Obama’s support as Trippi maintains? If only there were some empirical data we could look at to see how the pollsters did in similar races…Wait a minute! Barack Obama has already competed in a bunch of little elections called primaries. And guess what? He did not systematically over-perform the pollsters’ predictions. Quite the contrary – anyone who remembers New Hampshire, Indiana and Texas might recall that Obama had the uncanny habit of underperforming expectations.

Admittedly, those of us who hope for a McCain victory are feeling a little bullish this morning and are finding the polls more hospitable than has typically been the case. But one campaign verity that Trippi overlooked remains quite relevant: Campaigns that begin braying, “Don’t believe the polls!” seldom win.

From the New York Times, “A Heartbeat Away” by William Kristol

The Boss and I both found David Axelrod’s Fox News Sunday declaration, “We’re not running against Governor Palin,” to be rather pregnant with implications. After ten days of wild and sometimes unnervingly insane thrashing, the Obama campaign has decided to cease its hostilities against Sarah Palin and beat a manly retreat.

Of course, much damage has already been done - to the Obama campaign, not Palin. In the preceding days, Barack Obama himself had gone on the attack against Sarah Palin. The top of the ticket attacking the bottom of the other ticket is unprecedented. Did Ronald Reagan attack Geraldine Ferraro? Did Bill Clinton go after Jack Kemp? It’s a rule in politics that you only aim up; by aiming down, Barack Obama diminished himself. By whining about being picked on by a girl and manfully vowing that he would not allow said girl to bully him, he diminished himself further. It’s hard to believe given the way the Obama campaign has determinedly machine-gunned its foot that Palin has only been part of the ticket for ten days.

The problem with the Obama campaign’s plan to cease Palin related hostilities is that putting this genie back in the bottle won’t be easy. The anti-Palin pit-yorkies in the media are as unlikely to honor the call for a ceasefire as they were last week when Obama beseeched them to back off from the unfounded and unseemly rumors that they found so irresistible:

Will that coverage continue to be as belittling of Palin as much of it has been so far? Probably. It’s not just that many in the media don’t like her politics and don’t identify with her socially or culturally. They’re offended that McCain picked Palin without, so to speak, consulting them. The establishment media take pride in their role as gatekeeper to our political process and social discourse.

So the gatekeeper media’s reaction has been: Who is Sarah Palin to suddenly show up on the national stage? We didn’t vet her. And we don’t approve of her.

Thus Martin Peretz, editor-in-chief of the venerable New Republic for the last 34 years, wrote a blog post Thursday while he was “still reeling from last night’s malign hysteria at the Republican convention. This is a rotten crowd, even the pious Christian Huckabee and certainly Mayor Giuliani and the aspiring vice president, Sarah Palin.”

Despite reeling from the speeches, Peretz was able to “give [Palin] her due: she is pretty like a cosmetics saleswoman at Macy’s.” He continued that it was “good to see that the Palin family didn’t torture poor Bristol, at least in the open.” And he concluded: “Yes, please God, do bless America and rescue us from these swilly people.”

From the Iowa Hawk, “When America's Communities Need Organizing, America's Community Organizers Will Be There to Organize Them” by David Burge

We all knew Dave was the most brilliant satirist on the internet (or anywhere in the media for that matter). What we didn’t know was that Dave is also a community organizer. Naturally, he is mortified by Republican attacks on his vocation and is rushing in to set the record straight:

What do community organizers do? As you know, Americans today are struggling with problems. These problems include rising unemployment, energy cost, alienation, animosity, corporations, and increased death. Like no other time in our history, Americans are staring into an abyss of a hellhole of helplessness. And this is where community organizers like me come in and provide needed solutions. Specifically, America's community organizers:

• reach out and work with communities in various ways.
• liaison with, and for, community agencies for service within affected areas.
• fight to make a difference.
• raise awareness.
• deal with community issues.
• raise awareness in the community of how we are making differences about undealt-with issues .
• when necessary, refer inquiries to outreach coordinators.
• Help coordination agency administrators identify and address outreach opportunities.
• model timetables and conceptualize benchmarks.
• issue guidelines for poster contests and interpretive dance festivals.
• Gather voter registrations, win valuable prizes.

And that's just the beginning.

From the Wall Street Journal, “Why McCain Still Has a Chance to Win” by Peter Robinson

Forget the somewhat off-key title, which I would wager Robinson had nothing to do with. (That’s how it goes when you contribute op-eds to major dailies – trust me.) You’ll love this column, as it more clearly articulates the differences between Barack Obama and John McCain than anything I can recall reading. It also offers McCain some free advice in advance of his Thursday night speech which had better be pretty darn good:

The man is a patriot. Grasp that and you have grasped John McCain. Refusing 40 years ago to accept early release from his imprisonment in the Hanoi Hilton and running for president today -- both are of a piece. Seen in this light, even Mr. McCain's shortcomings make a certain kind of sense. McCain-Feingold? Bad legislation. But you can almost understand why he backed it.

Mr. McCain sees the money sloshing around Washington as an insult to America -- and he takes such insults personally. Patriot though he is, Mr. McCain is too imbued with the military ethic (which of course eschews ostentatious displays) to trumpet his patriotism.

And this brings me back to the question with which I started. To place himself in the company of President Reagan, I believe, Mr. McCain need only overcome his inhibitions for an hour, using his acceptance speech on Thursday night to tell the American people about his feelings for this Republic.

Between his relief efforts for the victims of Gustav and the fund raising for the GOP that falls to him as the new leader of the party, Mr. McCain might simply sit down for a few moments today or tomorrow, ponder the following quotation, then holler to his speechwriters to sit down and take notes while he renders the ideas it conveys into his own words. "I have always believed," said Ronald Reagan, "that there was some divine plan that placed this great continent between two oceans to be sought out by those who were possessed of an abiding love of freedom and a special kind of courage."

Mr. Obama may be able to offer voters all the attractions of high rhetoric, but Mr. McCain can offer something else: an uncomplicated love of country.

From the Washington Post, “Palin’s Pregnancy Problem” by Sally Quinn

Behold the logical train wrecks and serial cheap-shots that ensue when big media types pretend to try to understand the Evangelical community:

And now we learn the 17-year-old daughter, Bristol, is pregnant. She and the father of the child plan to marry. This may be a hard one for the Republican conservative family-values crowd to swallow. Of course, this can happen in any family. But it must certainly raise the question among the evangelical base about whether Sarah Palin has been enough of a hands-on mother…

Southern Baptist leaders like Richard Land and Al Mohler have praised McCain's choice. But these are the same men who support this statement from the 2000 Baptist Faith & Message:

"A wife is to submit herself graciously to the servant leadership of her husband even as the church willingly submits to the headship of Christ. She, being in the image of God as is her husband and thus equal to him, has the God-given responsibility to respect her husband and to serve as his helper in managing the household and nurturing the next generation."

I wouldn’t expect Quinn to know about the Biblical concept of “servant leadership” and how it means a lot more than the quote that she so jarringly wrenches out of context. (I didn't understand it when I first reported on it in regards to Mike Huckabee. )Then again, perhaps Quinn is more astute than I was and does know about the concept and was just taking a disingenuous potshot.

A further thought – is Quinn not a reporter? Al Mohler isn’t a particularly hard guy to get a hold of. I even had dinner with him once. A supremely decent individual, he didn’t strike me as the type who wants to keep women in perpetual servitude. If Quinn really wanted Mohler’s thoughts on the matter, she could have gotten him on the phone and asked him. But I would wager Quinn knew as well as I know that Mohler’s response wouldn’t have squared with her predetermined narrative.

In other words, any such conversation would have inconveniently interfered with one of the most distasteful opinion columns to run in the Post in recent memory.

From Time.com, “Where Palin Made Her Name” by Nathan Thornburgh

This is a touching and extremely well written profile of Wasilla, AK and its most famous resident:

It's Friday night, and there have got to be 500 people packed into the Sluice Box, a beer-soaked clapboard honky-tonk at the Alaska State Fair — the state's biggest event all year — just down the highway from Governor Sarah Palin's hometown of Wasilla. The legendary Hobo Jim, Alaska's official state balladeer, the guy who has opened sessions of the legislature with a song, is onstage, working blue…

He plays a Patsy Cline cover. They cheer. He gives shout-outs to the military, then to the great Alaska Railroad. They cheer. He plays the Star-Spangled Banner. They cheer.

Then he takes a set break so everyone can step outside to smoke and watch the fireworks pop off above the adjacent field. When the finale comes, a burst of greens sizzlers, they cheer.

Back inside: "How many of you've seen the Discovery Channel Deadliest Catch? Ice Road Truckers?" Cheer. "We're getting famous up here!" Huge cheer.

"And now our governor's going to be Vice President!" Roar.

Read the whole thing. Although short, it’s one of the best profile s of Palin and her hometown that you’ll see anywhere.

From NRO, “The Hostess with the Moosest” by Mark Steyn

Steyn has at least momentarily emerged from his self-imposed semi-seclusion to remind us of how much we miss him:

First, Governor Palin is not merely, as Jay describes her, "all-American", but hyper-American. What other country in the developed world produces beauty queens who hunt caribou and serve up a terrific moose stew? As an immigrant, I'm not saying I came to the United States purely to meet chicks like that, but it was certainly high on my list of priorities. And for the gun-totin' Miss Wasilla then to go on to become Governor while having five kids makes it an even more uniquely American story. Next to her resume, a guy who's done nothing but serve in the phony-baloney job of "community organizer" and write multiple autobiographies looks like just another creepily self-absorbed lifelong member of the full-time political class that infests every advanced democracy…

Third, real people don't define "experience" as appearing on unwatched Sunday-morning talk shows every week for 35 years and having been around long enough to have got both the War on Terror and the Cold War wrong. (On the first point, at the Gun Owners of New Hampshire dinner in the 2000 campaign, I remember Orrin Hatch telling me sadly that he was stunned to discover how few Granite State voters knew who he was.) Sarah Palin and Barack Obama are more or less the same age, but Governor Palin has run a state and a town and a commercial fishing operation, whereas (to reprise a famous line on the Rev Jackson) Senator Obama ain't run nothin' but his mouth. She's done the stuff he's merely a poseur about. Post-partisan? She took on her own party's corrupt political culture directly while Obama was sucking up to Wright and Ayers and being just another get-along Chicago machine pol (see his campaign's thuggish attempt to throttle Stanley Kurtz and Milt Rosenberg on WGN the other night)…

Sixth (see Kathleen's link to Craig Ferguson below), I kinda like the whole naughty librarian vibe.

I left out numbers, two, four and five to make sure you follow the link. For goodness' sake, read the whole thing.

I normally don’t link to the work of my Weekly Standard colleagues in these Required Reading thingies, fearing that doing so could set off a frenzy of bribery and what-not as everyone lobbied for inclusion. But I have to make a one-time exception today because our coverage both here and in the nation’s leading dailies of the Sarah Palin selection has been so damn excellent:

1) From TWS, “Let Palin Be Palin" by William Kristol

“That's why Palin's spectacular performance in her introduction in Dayton was so important. Her remarks were cogent and compelling. Her presentation of herself was shrewd and savvy. I heard from many who watched Palin--many of them not predisposed to support her--about how moved they were by her remarks, her composure, and her story. She will have a chance to shine again Wednesday night at the Republican convention.”

In other words, lefties who think they’re going to get a deer-in-the-headlights are headed for serious disappointment.

2) From TWS, “Providential Palin” by Fred Barnes

“She brought down Alaska's governor, attorney general, and state Republican chairman (see my "Most Popular Governor," July 16, 2007). She killed the "bridge to nowhere." She used increased tax revenues from high oil prices to give Alaskans a rebate. She slashed government spending. She took on the biggest industry in Alaska, the oil companies, to work out an equitable deal on building a new gas pipeline. Obama can't match even one of these accomplishments.”

Yes, it’s true – Palin has only been governor of a small state for 20 months. But she has accomplished more in that time than Barack Obama has in 17 years of highly dignified dithering since leaving law school.

3) From TWS, “How Palin Got Picked” by Steve Hayes

Seriously – this is a remarkably reported piece. You are there as the Palin selection goes down. I’m not giving an excerpt because you really have to read the whole thing.

4) From the New York Times, “Two-Front Republicans” by Matt Continetti

The Palin selection says something profound about the reform of the Republican party. Take it from Continetti, the guy who literally wrote the book on the subject:

In recent years, the Alaska Republican Party has become a metaphor for the national Republican Party. There are probably more caribou than pigs in Alaska, but its Congressional delegation is nonetheless addicted to pork. Flush with oil money, Alaska’s Republicans have built a welfare state that Washington’s “big government conservatives” must surely envy. Corruption is rampant. The party is out of touch. Senator Ted Stevens, who championed the infamous $400 million bridge, faces prison. On Tuesday, Alaska Republicans nominated him for another term.

This is where Ms. Palin comes in. She campaigned for governor on an anti-corruption platform and has spent the past two years in combat with oil executives, lobbyists and politicians comfortable with the status quo. She helped prevent Senator Stevens’s bridge to nowhere. In Alaska, as in the country at large, Republicans have done everything they can to get thrown out of office. Ms. Palin was elected to save the party — and the state — from itself.

5) From the Wall Street Journal, “Palin Fought for Reform in Alaska” by Fred Barnes (yes, him again)
Lefties hoping that Palin turn out to be just another pretty face are headed for heartbreak:

“She has a record of integrity matched by few elected officials. Mrs. Palin resigned in protest in 2004 as head of the Alaska Oil and Gas Commission over alleged ethical violations by the state Republican chairman, a commission member. Two years later, she upset Republican Gov. Frank Murkowski in the primary and defeated a Democrat in the general election.”

From Rasmussen Reports, “Palin Makes Good First Impression: Is Viewed More Favorably than Biden” by Scott Ramussen

From Rasmussen Reports, “Daily Presidential Tracking Poll” by Scott Rasmussen

Now I know why the left was so angry when John McCain selected Sarah Palin as his running mate (apart from the fact that they’re always angry except for when Barack Obama is soothing them with sweet clichés): They knew Sarah Palin would play with the American public in a way that even eminent statesman Joe Biden (chortle) would not.

How’d yesterday’s rollout go?

Sarah Palin has made a good first impression. Before being named as John McCain’s running mate, 67% of voters didn’t know enough about the Alaska governor to have an opinion. After her debut in Dayton and a rush of media coverage, a new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey finds that 53% now have a favorable opinion of Palin while just 26% offer a less flattering assessment… By way of comparison, on the day he was selected as Barack Obama’s running mate, Delaware Senator Joseph Biden was viewed favorably by 43% of voters.

The Palin selection has also halted Team Barry’s post Denver bounce. Yesterday, Obama led by four. Same thing today.

I guess the Nervous Nellies in the conservative press can now stop muttering about 1988 and blindly speculating about how Palin will play with the great unwashed. We now have some empirical data. The polls are nice, but still nicer is the cool $4.49 million that the McCain campaign raised yesterday. Anyone with memories of 1988 will know Dan Quayle’s elevation didn’t trigger quite the same reaction.

From City Journal, “Fire in the Night” by John Murtaugh

This excellent essay and the film snippet above provides insight into Obama buddy William Ayers, while casting doubt on the candidate’s typically sly evasion of his moral responsibility for hanging around with such a cretin.

During the April 16 debate between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, moderator George Stephanopoulos brought up “a gentleman named William Ayers,” who “was part of the Weather Underground in the 1970s. They bombed the Pentagon, the Capitol, and other buildings. He’s never apologized for that.” Stephanopoulos then asked Obama to explain his relationship with Ayers. Obama’s answer: “The notion that somehow as a consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was eight years old, somehow reflects on me and my values, doesn’t make much sense, George.” Obama was indeed only eight in early 1970. I was only nine then, the year Ayers’s Weathermen tried to murder me.

In February 1970, my father, a New York State Supreme Court justice, was presiding over the trial of the so-called “Panther 21,” members of the Black Panther Party indicted in a plot to bomb New York landmarks and department stores. Early on the morning of February 21, as my family slept, three gasoline-filled firebombs exploded at our home on the northern tip of Manhattan, two at the front door and the third tucked neatly under the gas tank of the family car. (Today, of course, we’d call that a car bomb.) A neighbor heard the first two blasts and, with the remains of a snowman I had built a few days earlier, managed to douse the flames beneath the car. That was an act whose courage I fully appreciated only as an adult, an act that doubtless saved multiple lives that night…

Though never a supporter of Obama, I admired him for a time for his ability to engage our imaginations, and especially for his ability to inspire the young once again to embrace the political system. Yet his myopia in the last few months has cast a new light on his “politics of change.” Nobody should hold the junior senator from Illinois responsible for his friends’ and supporters’ violent terrorist acts. But it is fair to hold him responsible for a startling lack of judgment in his choice of mentors, associates, and friends, and for showing a callous disregard for the lives they damaged and the hatred they have demonstrated for this country. It is fair, too, to ask what those choices say about Obama’s own beliefs, his philosophy, and the direction he would take our nation.

Personally, I don’t think Obama’s association with William Ayers says anything about where he wants to take the nation. There’s no reason to infer that Obama sympathizes with the Weathermen’s agenda, and to suggest otherwise is more than a touch overwrought. Then again, given the attempt on his family’s lives, Murtaugh is entitled to being more than a touch overwrought. The Obama/Ayers relationship does, however, say a great deal about how Barack Obama is a conventional thinker and actor who thoroughly and meekly reflects the values of his environment.

In the Wall Street Journal today, Dan Gerstein has a phenomenally obtuse op-ed positing that Obama is “an independent-minded, orthodoxy-challenging, gutsy leader.” The orthodoxy in Obama’s Hyde Park neighborhood was to embrace the unrepentant terrorist William Ayers. Now let’s say there was an aspiring politician in the neighborhood who was a truly "independent-minded" and gutsy leader with proper moral bearings. That guy would have eschewed the opportunity to befriend William Ayers. Famously, the putatively gutsy Obama did no such thing. Barack Obama embraced Ayers with particular gusto.

Closely associating with William Ayers was a moral decision and a wretched one at that. All Obama has left to do in regards to this issue is deny the obvious - that it was indeed a moral decision. For the morality of cozying up to such a figure will strike most people as indefensible.

HT: Jonah Goldberg, Allah

From Rasmussen Reports, “Daily Presidential Tracking Poll” by Scott Rasmussen

While dominating the last several news cycles by selecting Joe Biden as his running mate and holding the first night of his convention, Barack Obama still managed to lose four points in the Rasmussen tracking polls. Today, John McCain actually holds a one point lead. These results jibe with my theory that Barack Obama has become overexposed. Having been overexposed, a spell of All-Obama-All-the-Time like we’re in the midst of right now only exacerbates His problems. Obama has become a political version of a past its prime teen band.

Lest conservatives get over confident, Thursday will play to Obama’s strengths – the man can deliver a speech. It will be a surprise if Obama doesn’t get at least some benefit from the Invesco spectacular. But if at the end of the week, the Obama campaign remains stuck on hope, change and a visceral dislike for George W. Bush, John McCain will have a great chance to set the tone for the rest of the campaign when he takes over the spotlight on Friday.

From Time.com, “McCain Prepared Remarks at American National Legion Convention” by John McCain

While the speech John McCain gave this afternoon will lack the psychodrama of the Clinton antics this evening, I guarantee you McCain’s content will be more memorable:

There are those who say that our day as the free world’s leader has passed, that our moment is waning. They point to the anti-Americanism that is sometimes heard in Europe and elsewhere, and take this as a sign that America no longer has the strength or the moral credibility to lead. The criticisms tend to pass or quiet down when global threats and dangers appear. In times of trouble, free nations of the world still look to America for leadership, because they know the strength of America remains the greatest force for good on this earth.

My opponent had the chance to express such confidence in America, when he delivered a much anticipated address in Berlin. He was the picture of confidence, in some ways. But confidence in oneself and confidence in one’s country are not the same. And in that speech, Senator Obama left an important point unclear. He suggested that the end of the Cold War proved that there was, “no challenge too great for a world that stands as one.” Now I missed a few years of the Cold War, as the guest of one of our adversaries, but as I recall the world was deeply divided during the Cold War – between the side of freedom and the side of tyranny. The Cold War ended not because the world stood “as one,” but because the great democracies came together, bound together by sustained and decisive American leadership.

All of this is more than an academic debate. For the sake of our own security, and the defense of our values in the affairs of the world, American leadership is critical. While we have our share of critics around the world, when people in the oppressed nations of the world need support, and solidarity, and hope, they look to America. When they talk about our country, it is not with distrust or disdain, but with respect and affection. They do not resent or resist America’s democratic influence in the world – they thank God for it.

I said it at the time, and since I’m not fearful of repeating myself, I’ll say it again. Obama showed both an ignorance of history and a disregard for America’s unique role in guaranteeing freedom during his Berlin peroration. McCain can dine out on that extended pratfall, which is in fact indicative of a worldview that differs markedly from his own, from now until November.

One last thing on a writerly note. In the past, McCain’s speeches have been larded with lengthy, multiple-clause sentences. Such sentences may sometimes read well, but they’re nearly impossible to say aloud even for the most gifted speakers - which John McCain is not. Today’s written text was full of punchy, declarative sentences that lent themselves well to the speech-making format. Either McCain’s speechwriters have upped their game, or some new hands are pitching in. Regardless, today’s speech is a strong effort.

From The Hill, “Bill Clinton in Denver Again Undercuts Obama” by Sam Youngman

Let me be clear – since he burst onto the political scene some 17 years ago, I have been no fan of Bill Clinton. It is thus confusing and disorienting to be feeling a tingling up my leg nearly every time the former president approaches a microphone these days:

DENVER — Bill Clinton appeared to undermine Sen. Barack Obama again Tuesday.

The former president, speaking in Denver, posed a hypothetical question in which he seemed to suggest that that the Democratic Party was making a mistake in choosing Obama as its presidential nominee.

He said: "Suppose you're a voter, and you've got candidate X and candidate Y. Candidate X agrees with you on everything, but you don't think that candidate can deliver on anything at all. Candidate Y you agree with on about half the issues, but he can deliver. Which candidate are you going to vote for?"

Then, perhaps mindful of how his off-the-cuff remarks might be taken, Clinton added after a pause: "This has nothing to do with what's going on now."

Of course not! And only a cynic would say otherwise. I happen to be a cynic, but that’s a topic for another day. For the cynics among us, especially liberal Democrat cynics who might be a tad irked by the ongoing Clinton antics, former Clinton lackey Paul Begala offered some timely reassurance:

Paul Begala, however, told The Hill that the former president is solidly behind Obama's candidacy.

"He's totally for Barack," Begala said Tuesday. "He's totally for Barack."

Phew! Can you imagine how Clinton would behave if he were only “partially” behind Barack?

From National Review Online, “A Couple More Cents on Biden” by Jay Nordlinger

If I were running the conservative punditocracy, the first thing I would do is chain Jay Nordlinger to his laptop like one of those monkeys in “Last Exit to Springfield” in order to force him to turn out more copy. Check out this post from The Corner yesterday. Pure gold:

I know I’ve expressed my amazement about Biden — but I just want to put in another word. For weeks and months, reporters wrote about Obama’s vice-presidential list. It had many people on it. And among those people were Joe Biden and Chris Dodd. And I always thought, “That’s not real — that’s just lip-service to former candidates. Former candidates and party elders. That’s just a courtesy.”

And blow me down: Obama goes ahead and picks Biden.

I swear, when Biden flashes those choppers and gets that look on his face — “Well, lemme tell you, pal!” — I want to toss.

And do you remember his nauseating “shove it down his throat” performance?

Some readers have asked me, “Okay, who do you think the best pick for Obama would have been?” I think he had many good options. I might have gone with Gov. Ed Rendell, who, unfortunately, is a fabulous politician (he beat the great Lynn Swann, among others) and is very likable and reasonable-seeming. He is not a Left ideologue. He is not a college Marxist. He’s a good Democratic Joe, and talented.

One more thing about him: He doesn’t seem to be a hater. This is what I said about Joe Lieberman back in 2000. You just knew that Gore hated you (if you were a conservative or Republican or had the tiniest doubt about extreme environmentalism). And you knew that Kerry hated you. I don’t find that about Rendell.

Same with Tony Blair, as I’ve long said. One of his strengths as a politician is — he doesn’t hate you, even if you’re on the other side. Hate does not seem to reside in him. But Barack, Michelle, Hillary, Biden, Dodd — I’ve dealt with that type all my life. These people are a dime a dozen in Ann Arbor. You virtually trip over them when you get up to go to the bathroom.

And they’d rather boil Bob Bork in oil than talk to the man.

As brilliant as this little essay is, I’d make a distinction between Biden and some of the real haters like Al Gore. To my eyes, Biden doesn’t seem to really hate, but rather considers it his responsibility to bring an undue amount of unthinking pugnacity to his political chores. The net effect is of course the same. Whether Biden treated Robert Bork as he did out of hatred or a sense of partisan duty hardly matters at the end of the day.

A couple of days ago I mentioned that like a lot of people who read Richard Ben Cramer’s seminal “What It Takes,” I had a soft spot for Biden. The book communicated that there was something likable, perhaps even lovable, beneath all the bull and blarney that are so intrinsic to the Joe Biden experience. I’ve long had that sense of Biden – that beneath the surface of smirking logorrhea, there lurks a decent guy. But that doesn’t change the fact that he often practices an indecent form of politics. And it also doesn’t change the fact that he’s among the least thoughtful and least insightful members of the United States Senate.

And that’s saying something.

From the New York Times, “A Joe of His Own” by Bill Kristol

In his weekly Times column, the Boss tries to analytically work out what a McCain/Lieberman ticket would mean to the presidential race and the country:

Now as a matter of governance, there’s no reason to think this would much matter. McCain has made clear his will be a pro-life administration. And as a one-off, quasi-national-unity ticket, with Lieberman renouncing any further ambition to run for the presidency, a McCain-Lieberman administration wouldn’t threaten the continuance of the G.O.P. as a pro-life party. In other areas, no one seriously thinks the policies of a McCain-Lieberman administration would be appreciably different from those, say, of a McCain-Pawlenty administration.

Would McCain-Lieberman have a better prospect of winning than the more conventional alternatives? If they could get over the early hurdles of a messy convention and an awful lot of conservative angst and anger, I’ve come to think so.

Obama and Biden will try to frame the presidential race as a normal Democratic-Republican choice. If they can do that, they should win. That would be far more difficult against a McCain-Lieberman ticket. The charge that McCain would merely mean a third Bush term would also tend to fall flat. And an unorthodox “country first” Lieberman selection would reinforce what has been attractive about McCain, and what has allowed him to run ahead of — though not yet enough ahead of — the generic Republican ballot.

A Lieberman pick should help with ticket splitters. But can such a ticket hold the support of pro-lifers, conservatives and Republicans? If you’re conscientiously pro-life, you will have reservations about a pro-abortion-rights V.P. If you’re a proud conservative, Lieberman hasn’t been one. If you’re a loyal Republican, you’d much prefer someone from within the ranks.

But if you’re pro-life, conservative and/or Republican, you certainly don’t want Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid running the country. If a McCain-Lieberman ticket is the best way to thwart that prospect, you could probably learn to live with it — even perhaps to like it.

As most people here know, I’m a big admirer of Mitt Romney’s. But my ranking concern regarding Romney potentially joining the ticket has always been whether or not his presence would increase the likelihood of a Republican victory in November. Shouldn’t a conversation about the Lieberman option center on the same concern? With a Democrat controlled congress and a scandalously unqualified Democratic nominee, this election has high stakes.

Without wading into the thickets of a tiresome Romney vs. Pawlenty vs. Lieberman vs. Whitman debate, I’m a little perplexed over why the Lieberman option has provoked such a dismaying ratio between analysis and hysteria. Kristol’s column today is a remedy to that. It’s not a case for Lieberman, but rather an analysis of what Lieberman joining the ticket could mean. It’s an intellectual rather than emotional response to an important issue. As the kids frequently say in the blogosphere, more please.

From Obamaweek, “A Liberal’s Lament” by Sean Wilentz

First, a little quiz – who said it?

“This year will not be a year of politics as usual. It can be a year of inspiration and hope, and it will be a year of concern, of quiet and sober reassessment of our nation's character and purpose. It has already been a year when voters have confounded the experts. And I guarantee you that it will be the year when we give the government of this country back to the people of this country. There is a new mood in America. We have been shaken by a tragic war abroad and by scandals and broken promises at home. Our people are searching for new voices and new ideas and new leaders.”

Jimmy Carter! But you probably knew that. After offering the obvious sad comparison, Wilentz goes on to point out:

In other ways, Obama's liberal vision appears clouded, uncertain and even contradictory. During his four years in Washington, he has compiled one of the most predictably liberal voting records in the Senate—yet he presents himself as an advocate of bipartisanship and ideological flexibility. He has offered himself as the tribune of sweeping change—yet he also proclaims national unity, as if transformation can come without struggle. He has emerged as the champion of a new, post-racial politics, even though he has only grudgingly separated himself from his pastor of 20 years, who every week preached a gospel of "black liberation theology" that has everything to do with racial politics.

I particularly liked this passage:

Liberal intellectuals have largely abdicated their responsibility to provide unblinking and rigorous analysis instead of paeans to Obama's image. Hardly any prominent liberal thinkers stepped forward to question Obama's rationalizations about his relationship with his pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr. Instead, they hailed his ever-changing self-justifications and sometimes tawdry logic—equating his own white grandmother's discomfort in the presence of a menacing stranger with Wright's hateful sermons—as worthy of the monumental addresses of Lincoln. Liberal intellectuals actually could have aided their candidate, while also doing their professional duty, by pressing him on his patently evasive accounts about various matters, such as his connections with the convicted wheeler-dealer Tony Rezko, or his more-than-informal ties to the unrepentant terrorist William Ayers, including their years of association overseeing an expensive, high-profile, but fruitless public-school reform effort in Chicago. Instead, the intellectuals have failed Obama as well as their readers by branding such questioning as irrelevant, malicious or heretical.

Personal aside to Andrew Sullivan – I think he’s talking to you.

From the Wall Street Journal, “Saddleback: The Inner Game of Politics” by Daniel Henninger

The normally excellent Henninger stumbles here, clumsily working Peggy Noonan’s side of the street and lamenting that everything was better in a mythical yesteryear:

Can one imagine Dwight Eisenhower, FDR or JFK being asked to define marriage? Abe Lincoln or George Washington could have handled Jesus, but stem cells? Would we have had better presidents back then if we made them talk about their greatest moral failure...

There was a time before the multitude of world views fell from the sky -- let's say every presidential election from 1789 to 1964 -- when one could assume that all the candidates shared a basic set of moral precepts, now called "values." They were Judeo-Christian precepts. Old Testament-New Testament. It was pretty simple. Some past presidents may have been closet agnostics, but when they were growing up, someone "wise" told them what the common rules were. Most people in public life felt no need to challenge this world view.

With all due respect to Dan Henninger whose work I greatly admire, the preceding is facile and jejune. Not all presidential aspirants between 1789 and 1964 shared a public “basic set of moral precepts” unless one considers the enslavement/repression of millions of people to be somehow divorced from one’s moral precepts. And that’s just citing one issue where “moral precepts” diverged.

What’s more, it’s not a bad thing that we get to know our presidential candidates so well. The American people are smart enough to distinguish between what doesn’t matter (e.g., the price of a candidate’s loafers) and what does (e.g., a candidate’s service to his country). Although the process minimizes the contestants by making their lives such open books, it’s ever been thus. It requires a highly selective reading of our democracy’s history to conclude otherwise.

From Reason.com, “The Loser Now is Later to Win” by David Weigel

In this odd yet thoughtful (although sometimes incomprehensible) essay, Weigel diagnoses and seemingly laments Barack Obama’s latest predicament:

The dynamic of the race now is summed up by the usual batch of oddly sexual verbs: McCain is "pounding" or "hammering" or "drilling down" on Obama, while Obama is flustered and defensive. But I try to pay more attention to the ads and messaging in swing states than the groaning of cable news, and there, Obama has been running negative ads on McCain. Here's one. Here's another. Hey, here's another. If you live in, say, Ohio, you're seeing this stuff as often as you see McCain's latest claim that Obama's a celebrity who wants to send tax collectors to put a ball gag in your mouth and lock you in the basement.

But that's just it! Not only are McCain's attacks all about character and weakness; Obama's responses basically validate them. That guy says I've got ladyparts and I hate America and want to raise taxes: In fact, I want to cut some taxes and raise others! Obama, accused of being a wimp, waves his calculator.

What could Obama do, though? There's a character case to make against McCain, whose shifting issue positions and bloated sense of self-importance are almost Obama-like. But every attack on McCain's character comes up against the iron wall of his POW days. This is the irony of that weird meme of a few weeks back that Obama "couldn't take a joke" (after that New Yorker cartoon portraying him as a terrorist): It's McCain who can't be mocked without holy hell unleashing. When the host of one of the Sunday shows accusing a guest of "questioning McCain's integrity" for pointing out that he's changed positions, you've got a problem.

As I intimated up top, I’m not sure whether Weigel is lamenting the “iron wall” of McCain’s POW days or just being descriptive. Regardless, he’s on to something, albeit something so obvious that other people got it years ago.

In politics, character matters. People like to feel they’re voting for a good person. Even Democrats know character matters. That’s why they spent the entire 2004 DNC talking about John Kerry’s short time in Vietnam. They figured this brief but glorious chapter in Kerry’s life would serve as prima facie evidence that Kerry was a good, noble courageous man. Given the short duration of Kerry’s time in Vietnam, the controversy that surrounded his service and the hatred many of his brothers-in-arms felt for him, this was an obvious miscalculation. But still, the point holds – everyone in politics knows character matters, and evidence of your candidate’s good character is a swell thing to have.

Perhaps Weigel would consider it indicative of the sadly boobish nature of the American bourgeoisie, but most Americans feel that spending five and a half years of hell at the Hanoi Hilton while turning down early release provides indisputable evidence of a man’s character. So it’s true – there is an “iron wall” of McCain’s POW days, but the vast majority of Americans feel that iron wall belongs there.

It’s a shame that Weigel didn’t follow his argument to its logical conclusion. While it’s true that McCain is unassailable on character, he like all politicians is very much assailable on the basis of his politics. I should know – I spent the better part of 2007 assailing McCain’s political positions that I found particularly disagreeable.

But here’s the kicker – Barack Obama, because of the kind of campaign he has run, can’t attack McCain on the issues either. By design, the Obama campaign has had a meringue like substance since its inception. It’s been all about hope, change, a new style of politics and bringing people together. Part of bringing people together was avoiding substantive positions that would offend any of the people you were trying to bring together. But as Hugh Hewitt pointed out in a cogent essay last night, there are many issues that defy a bipartisan approach. Indeed, on virtually all the important issues, a veritable gulf separates the two parties.

By tenaciously avoiding substance, the Obama campaign implicitly made everything about character. The central theme of the Obama juggernaut always has been that Barack Obama possesses unique qualities that demand he be awarded the presidency. That’s why we’ve had to endure all this gobbledygook about “judgment” regarding a 47 year-old who hasn’t held a position of authority that required the application of judicious judgment since he ran the Harvard Law Review. The Obama campaign had to say something that supported the notion of his purported special nature.

Having made the campaign all about character, it must indeed seem like a grim irony to Obama and his minions that his opponent is a fellow who can’t be attacked on this terrain. It wasn’t supposed to be like this. The Republican “culture of corruption” was supposed to belch forth a far juicier target.

So let the lefty blogs blog on about crosses in the sand, $550 loafers and owning too many houses. All of these lame attacks are shorthanded ways for saying John McCain isn’t a good man. But good luck convincing the electorate that his tasseled loafers and multiple homes say more about John McCain than his time in the Hanoi Hilton.

From Talking Points Memo, “Fibbin’” by Josh Marshall

Here’s the post in its entirety:

From a Republican pal ...

“You didn't get this from me, but use it as you will. Is it just me -- as a Republican knowing how we've played this game before -- or should there be genuine puzzlement why Obama isn't unleashing Democratic veterans (Jim Webb, Jack Reed, John Kerry, BOB Kerrey perhaps, etc. Some Democratic generals, whatever) to go after McCain on this ‘cross in the dirt’ stuff? I mean, if there was one issue tailor-made for ‘Swift-Boat’ payback, I can't think of anything else."

It ain't bean bag.

As Byron York points out, this story is unlikely to go away. Obama supporters actually think they have a winner in disputing a story John McCain has told about his years in the Hanoi Hilton and that his bunkmates have corroborated. It’s a brilliant plan – how could the American public not warm to a campaign that calls some of our most highly decorated Veterans liars while bringing increased attention to John McCain’s wartime heroics? Besides, it’s not like Obama didn’t show amazing courage himself as a younger man while intrepidly prowling the notoriously rough lecture halls at the University of Chicago Law School. Just for the record, as a fellow Republican (though not a pal of Josh Marshall), I heartily endorse the notion of Obama embracing this strategy.

What’s especially interesting here is how John McCain has responded to these attacks, or rather hasn’t responded. Yesterday, in replying to the much milder barbs that he has received, Barack Obama alternated between unsuccessfully talking tough and successfully whining. At one point, Obama told a friendly audience they shouldn’t worry because they had a candidate who didn’t “take any guff.” I swear, I thought it was John Wayne talking for just a moment. Yet at another appearance, Obama pleaded for John McCain to “acknowledge” that he wants to serve America’s national interest. (One might wonder why Obama so needs the approbation of his rival, but that’s a topic for another day.)

Regarding the cross in the sand allegations, McCain hasn’t felt the need to respond to this rubbish, and why should he? Obama responds to every slight, real or perceived, because he feels the need to show that he’s tough enough to be president and not just some Ivy League egghead with few tangible accomplishments. McCain’s experiences speak for themselves as far as the toughness department is concerned. I’m quite certain we’ll never hear John McCain say anything so magnificently lame as “I don’t take any guff.” As for the subject of potential presidents whining, perhaps McCain’s life lessons have taught him better than Obama’s that whatever your situation and whatever unfairness life has hurled at you, pouting seldom makes it better.

On a related note, virtually every new poll that comes out seems to bring more bad news for Obama. How could that be?

From the Los Angeles Times, “Barack Obama's Image Suffers Amid John McCain Attacks, Poll Finds” by Michael Finnegan

More good polling news for the Maverick. The latest L.A. Times/Bloomberg effort shows McCain pulling within two of Obama, trailing by the razor thin margin of 45-43. In June, the Times/Bloomberg showed Obama with a 12 point lead. The Times is clear on what has caused Obama’s stunning fall from grace:

Barack Obama's public image has eroded this summer amid a daily onslaught of attacks from Republican rival John McCain, leaving the race for the White House statistically tied, according to a Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll released today.

Far more voters say McCain has the right experience to be president, the poll found. More than a third have questions about Obama's patriotism.

I’m happy that the Times credits the McCain campaign for such scary effectiveness – after all, I have friends working there. But isn’t there another side to the equation? Yes, the McCain campaign in the Schmidt era has done a nice job, but doesn’t Team Barry and Obama Himself deserve some credit for pummeling his own numbers?

Initially, Obama-philes like Andrew Sullivan referred to Obama’s exciting foreign adventure as an “objectively miraculous fortnight.” Now, even Sullivan sees that the trip revealed the worst aspects of Obama. Although Andrew doesn’t typically bother to list Obama’s greatest shortcomings, I will – a preening narcissism, a fondness for platitudes, a tendency to whine and a potentially fatal lack of substance.

It’s the latter failing that may truly doom Obama. People who have followed the campaign closely for a while have long since discovered that Obama is the ultimate one-trick pony. Provided with a teleprompter, he delivers a speech very nicely. But even that talent has grown stale as he has run out of material. He hits the same “uplift” themes repeatedly, and shows a seeming allergy to getting specific.

Obama also has the problem that that the press still paints an unrealistic portrait of him. Check out the venerable font of conventional wisdom, David Gergen, writing this afternoon:

Heading into the candidates’ appearances on Saturday night at Saddleback Church, the conventional wisdom in politics was Barack Obama should have a clear upper hand in any joint appearance with John McCain — one the young, eloquent, cool, charismatic dude who can charm birds from the trees, the other the meandering, sometimes bumbling, old fellow who can barely distinguish Sunnis from Shiias.

Well, kiss that myth goodbye.

McCain came roaring out of the gate from the first question and was a commanding figure throughout the night as he spoke directly and often movingly about his past and the country’s future. By contrast, Obama was often searching for words and while far more thoughtful, was also less emotionally connective with his audience.

Let’s put aside the fact that Gergen was perhaps a little behind the curve with his assessment of Obama’s eloquence. Some of us happened to notice the profusion of “ahs” and “ums” that litter every extemporaneous Obama utterance before Saturday night’s debate. Let’s instead focus on Gergen’s assessment that Obama is the “far more thoughtful” of the two candidates.

I would love to hear Gergen dilate on how he reached that conclusion. Is it Obama’s robust independent streak that Gergen is tacitly nodding at? Wait a second – it can’t be. On virtually every subject ranging from Clarence Thomas to nuclear weapons, Obama is a font of the most hackneyed, liberal, conventional wisdom. Perhaps Gergen has inferred from all the “ums” that Obama loses himself in deep thought whenever he speaks. Or maybe he just manufactured Obama’s “far more thoughtful” nature out of whole cloth.

Regardless, the rest of the country is beginning to discover some things about Obama that serious Obama observers have known for a while. Obama doesn’t wear well. He didn’t wear well in the Democratic primaries, and it appears he’s wearing no better in the general election season.

From 538.com, “538’s Battlegrounds as of Mid-August” by Sean

I’ve mentioned 538.com in the past, but here’s a timely reminder. It is without question the best site for poll analysis on the internet. If you like following the presidential horserace (and who doesn’t?), it should be a daily stop.

This article on the battleground states came out a few days ago. Mea culpa for taking so long to link to it:

The last month has seen a nearly across-the-board uptick for John McCain. That's his good news. The good news for Barack Obama is that no states have flipped in our projections since mid-July. Since that month showed more of the McCain states inside of five points closer to the dead-even line, it's now Obama whose states are slightly closer to that line. Two Obama-projected states sit on the precipice of flipping: Ohio and Colorado.

The mid-August projection -- using a winner-take-all model rather than the probabilistic version that we usually use here -- remains at Obama 293, McCain 245.

You’ll want to read the whole thing.

Personally, I partially credit the McCain campaign’s newfound pugnacity as embodied by the unfairly maligned Celebrity ad for its August “McGain.” The remainder of the credit rests with the moribund Obama campaign. A vague message of Hopenchange was bound to get stale, especially when it got mixed up with unprecedented amounts of overexposure.

The question then becomes whether Obama can do anything else besides the Hopenchange shtick. The Washington Post reported that he assured an assemblage of Obamaphiles yesterday that he was about to unveil the new, pugnacious Obama. He signaled the oncoming transformation with the bravely butch pronouncement, “You have a candidate who doesn't take any guff.” So here was the non-guff taking Obama addressing the VFW convention today:

“I have never suggested that Senator McCain picks his positions on national security based on politics or personal ambition. I have not suggested it because I believe that he genuinely wants to serve America's national interest. Now, it's time for him to acknowledge that I want to do the same.”

Is it just me, or does the new, pugnacious Obama sound a lot like the old, whiny one?

From the British paper the Evening Standard, “Barack Obama’s Broken Promise to African Village” by David Cohen

In the Obama family’s hometown in Kenya, the secondary school is named after the presumptive Democratic nominee. Obama visited there in 2006:

At that historic homecoming in August 2006 Obama was greeted as a hero with thousands lining the dirt streets of Kogelo. He visited the Senator Obama Kogelo Secondary School built on land donated by his paternal grandfather. After addressing the pupils, a third of whom are orphans, and dancing with them as they sang songs in his honour, he was shown a school with four dilapidated classrooms that lacked even basic resources such as water, sanitation and electricity.

He told the assembled press, local politicians (who included current Kenyan Prime Minister Raila Odinga), and students: "Hopefully I can provide some assistance in the future to this school and all that it can be." He then turned to the school's principal, Yuanita Obiero, and assured her and her teachers: "I know you are working very hard and struggling to bring up this school, but I have said I will assist the school and I will do so."

Obiero says that although Obama did not explicitly use the word "financial" to qualify the nature of the assistance he was offering, "there was no doubt among us [teachers] that is what he meant. We interpreted his words as meaning he would help fund the school, either personally or by raising sponsors or both, in order to give our school desperately-needed modern facilities and a facelift". She added that 10 of the school's 144 pupils are Obama's relatives. Obiero was not the only one to think that the US Senator from Illinois, who had recently acquired a $1.65 million house in Chicago, would cough up. Obama's own grandmother Sarah confidently told reporters before his visit: "When he comes down here, he will change the face of the school and, believe me, our poverty in Kogelo will be a thing of the past."

But the Evening Standard has heard that the promises he made to help the school as well as a local orphanage appear to have been empty… Granting us access to the school and its records, Principal Obiero, 48, tells us: "Senator Obama has not honoured the promises he gave me when we met in 2006 and in his earlier letter to the school. He has not given us even one shilling. But we still have hope."

Aaah, the audacity of hope. Methinks Senator Obama is a bit busy healing the planet to worry about ancient promises. Besides, perhaps Principal Obiero is being a touch hard on the Senator. While it is true that Obama purchased a $1.65 million house, he needed the generous financial assistance of Tony Rezko to do so.

By the way, a non-profit organization has sprung up headed by Air Force veteran Juliette Ochieng to do what Barack Obama promised to do but has since apparently lost interest in – providing the funds necessary to improve the Senator Obama Kogelo School. Their website is here.

Let this post serve as an alert to wealthy McCain supporters/bundlers looking for a good cause with a political tint. Somebody has to save the Obama School, and it won’t be Obama.

From the Wall Street Journal, “For Obama, Taxes Are About Fairness” by William McGurn

Great column here by McGurn, exploring the “soak the rich” tax mentality that characterizes Barack Obama’s campaign:

Mr. Obama, by contrast, started out much more directly, suggesting that if you make $150,000 or less you may be poor or middle class. A family with an income above $250,000, he went on to say, is "doing well." And if you find yourself in that category, he's going to target you for a tax hike -- all in the name of creating "a sense of balance, and fairness in our tax code."

In fact, the idea of fairness is at the heart of his whole economic argument. And he goes back to it in almost every public appearance.

He talks about it as a general theme: "It is time for folks like me who make more than $250,000 to pay our fair share."

He invokes it as a solution for Social Security: "[W]e will save Social Security for future generations by asking the wealthiest Americans to pay their fair share."

He points to how it guides his energy policy: "The first part of my plan is to tax the windfall profits of oil companies and use some of that money to help you pay the rising price of gas."

And he stuck to it on capital gains, even after ABC's Charlie Gibson noted that the record shows increased taxes on capital gains -- which would affect 100 million Americans -- would likely lead to a decrease in government revenues: "Well, Charlie, what I've said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness."

Translated into ordinary English, what that means is that it doesn't really matter whether a tax increase actually brings in more revenue. It's not about robbing from the rich to give to the poor. Robbing from the rich will do, especially if it's done in the name of fairness

Put aside the economic illiteracy for a moment. What else would you expect from a fellow who has only had only a passing relationship with the private sector during his entire adult life? What’s still more disturbing here are the revelations regarding Barack Obama’s world view.

Obama actually expects the world to be fair. Most of us by the time we’ve reached our 40’s have discovered that the world is a relentlessly unfair place. Barack Obama, on the other hand, would have had no reason to make such a discovery. Life has treated Barack Obama magnificently. In spite of his embellishments regarding the grinding Hawaiian poverty that he overcame, he grew up comfortably middle class in a loving home while attending Hawaii’s most prestigious prep school. Good fortune has similarly marked his grown-up years – we don’t often hear of Obama confronting and overcoming adversity. We can assume the absence of such self-tributes isn’t because the middle-aged author of two autobiographies is hesitant to discuss himself.

It would be nice if life were as fair for everyone as it’s been for Barack Obama. But it doesn’t work out that way. And only the most naïve politician believes that successfully legislating universal fairness is a possibility or the kind of thing that government should even be attempting. Some people will have misfortunes, while others will be as lucky as Barack Obama has been. The only way for the government to address that fundamental “unfairness” is to take down the Barack Obamas.

These are the politics of resentment and envy – they benefit no one. Except occasionally a politician who can ride them into office.

From HotAir.com, “POW: I Remember McCain Telling the Cross Story in 1971” by the Allahpundit

My friends, the obtuseness of the angry left sometimes shocks me into a benumbed silence. While I’ve been staring at the intertubes in slack-jawed silence, Allah has summed things up well:

Anything that keeps McCain’s heroism front and center, without a shred of evidence from any eyewitness that he’s lying, is tantamount to an in-kind campaign contribution. More, please.

I’ll make you follow the link for Swindle’s assessment of the naysayers. He’s right too about the guards and their associates occasionally showing compassion; Bob Owens googled around to see if he could corroborate McCain’s story and stumbled upon a similar incident involving former POW (and GOP senator) Jeremiah Denton.

You’ll note that the people debunking the smears have actually done reporting. The people doing the smears are theorizing. I would scream “Swiftboating!!!” in protest if the term hadn’t been so indelibly tainted by liberal crybabies.

Here’s a thought – this kerfuffle shares similarities with the Texas Air National Guard issue that briefly dominated the 2004 election. But this time, the stupidity is on steroids. By 2004, Bush’s military service was a known quantity. Bush failed to show sufficient heroism for the left’s (since expired) standards of such things, and his behavior during the Vietnam War was a net minus. But by focusing its energy on Bush’s ancient military service, the left looked petty and idiotic (not to mention fraudulent). Still, they at least had the good sense to focus on an issue that wasn’t Bush’s strength.

The wrinkle here is that McCain’s military service is not only a whopping net plus, but his biggest net plus. And yet the angry left is determined to debate the specifics of what happened during that service. It’s like they want to have a national conversation (to borrow a phrase) on precisely just how heroic and noble John McCain was during the Vietnam War.

Well played, kids.

From the Wall Street Journal, “Now Phelps Chases Gold on Land” by Christopher Rhoads

According to this story, Michael Phelps’ haul of eight gold medals may be worth nine figures. Given the physical torment and mental ennui involved with swimming great lengths, the kid has earned every penny he makes:

A new race is now on for Mr. Phelps: the rush to transform the swimmer's Olympic feat into a marketing juggernaut, akin to Michael Jordan or Tiger Woods. But the window for marketing Olympians -- even those with the rising stature of Mr. Phelps -- can close fast. Many of the new legions of so-called Phelps Phans likely will not see his muscled torso in a pool again until 2012, an eternity for advertisers.

As Mr. Carlisle, the agent, shuttled between meetings Saturday on the eve of Mr. Phelps's historic eighth Olympic gold medal Sunday, proposals for business opportunities far and wide streamed into his BlackBerry. Some were appealing, others less so.

A man in Omaha, Neb., offered to sculpt a statue of the chiseled swimmer. As strange as that sounded, a similar offer came from China. Several book and movie deals were suddenly on the table. A dog-food idea was pitched, given Mr. Phelps's well-known love for his British bulldog, Herman…

"Michael Phelps would be worth $40 or $50 million to Nike," Mr. Bloom said. "He could literally allow them to launch a massive swimwear company, and I think you are going to see an incredible bidding war for him."

A Nike Inc. spokesman said, "We don't discuss contracts and that extends to future or potential sports marketing relationships."

Just prior to the Olympics, I had a piece in the magazine that documented some of the moral abominations associated with the grandiosely titled Olympic Movement. Because of space constraints, I didn’t have room to get into how stupid such non-sports like synchronized diving and curling are. (Regarding curling, I think the Summer Games should have shuffleboard as its equivalent. If I were running the US Olympic Committee, I would insist that the American Shuffleboard team be composed exclusively of retirees based in Delray Beach, Florida.) Anyway, in spite of my hostility towards the games, Phelps’ greatness was fun to watch. And yes, I watched.

While we’re on the subject of the Olympics, is there any cosmic difference between winning an Olympic silver medal and an Olympic bronze medal? Let’s say you went to work for a company and the guy two cubicles over had won an Olympic bronze medal, That’s a great achievement; would you be any less impressed than if he had won the silver? I doubt it.

One last Olympic related deep thought – has there ever been a more perversely entertaining expert commentator than Bela Karolyi? His presence almost makes the gymnastics events tolerable.

I said almost.

From the New York Times, “Showdown at Saddleback” by William Kristol

From Real Clear Politics, “McCain Shines at Saddleback Forum” by Michael Gerson

From Commentary, “McCain Tonight” by John Podhoretz

I didn’t see the Obama-McCain semi-showdown live on Saturday night. Instead, I was out catching Woody Allen’s excellent new movie. (There’s a phrase I never expected to utter or type – “Woody Allen’s excellent new movie.”) When I returned home, my inbox was stuffed and the right wing blogosphere aglow with praise for what even longtime McCain critics considered a big night for the Maverick. Please note, I didn’t watch the replay of the forum with a clean slate. Weigh that data point as you will as I offer my general concurrence. McCain did extremely well. Obama performed mostly adequately, but he made a major gaffe that will leave a mark.

The gaffe I’m referring to is of course Obama’s “above my pay grade” remark. Here’s the transcript:

Rick Warren: “Now, let's deal with abortion. 40 million abortions since Roe v. Wade. You know, as a pastor, I have to deal with this all of the time. All of the pain and all of the conflicts. I know this is a very complex issue. 40 million abortions. At what point does a baby get human rights in your view?

Obama: Well, I think that whether you are looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade. But let me just speak more generally about the issue of abortion because this is something obviously the country wrestles with.

One thing even the least astute Obama observers have discovered by now is that the Senator doesn’t do humble very well. In a way, this is to be predicted. You would expect the men (and occasional woman) who seek to rule 300 million people to have lofty opinions of themselves. But this dynamic is particularly acute when it comes to Obama. Even his most ardent acolytes accuse him of hubris from time to time. Obama can’t manage so much as a momentary pose of humility – thus the awkward and flippant turn of phrase, “Above my pay grade.” In trying to feign humility, he instead came across as imperious. Rick Warren wanted to talk about when Obama thought life began. Obama crudely dismissed the question as irrelevant, instead saying, “Let me just speak more generally about the issue of abortion.”

This little exchange will leave a mark because it says much about Obama and shines a lantern on many of his problems as a candidate. Tennessee’s Democratic governor Phil Bredesen made headlines this weekend by observing of Obama, “Instead of giving big speeches at big stadiums, he needs to give straight-up 10-word answers to people at Wal-Mart.” Bredesen’s surprising candor didn’t just highlight the hollowness of Obama’s lofty rhetoric, but also intimated a harsher truth – Obama simply will not answer a straight-forward question if it happens to be a difficult or inconvenient one.

Obama is an inveterate straddler. Fearful of offending voters, he tries to get on both sides of hot-button issues. His every instinct is to avoid staking out a muscular and clearly expressed position. A brief example: When Russia began its invasion of Georgia, Obama initially called for restraint from both sides and lamented the violence. These comments were so pathetic and so brazenly avoided the real issue, even Obama supporter Zbignew Brzezinski said, “The first comments (by Obama) were perhaps too general and didn't perhaps address sharply enough the moral and strategic dimensions of the problem.” Over the course of the campaign, we’ve discovered why Obama hews almost exclusively to his preferred Homeric themes of hope, change and getting rid of the old style of politics – he is unwilling to say anything more substantive. Everyone loves hope and change; actual policies and positions are a different matter.

Obama also has the misfortune in the general election of running against John McCain, the creator of the Straight Talk Express himself. One thing you have to say about McCain – he doesn’t fear telling people things they don’t want to hear or staking out unpopular positions. Indeed, a lot of conservatives might argue that McCain has elevated those things to an art form over the past decade.

Compared to McCain’s straight talk, we have Obama’s serial evasions. Rick Warren asked Obama a simple and relevant question – when does he think life begins. Obama is hardly the first pro-choice politician who has had to square his professed fondness for the fetus with his willingness to allow tens of millions of them to be aborted. As a sentient human being who has been running for president for a couple of years, Obama has surely considered such matters. What’s more, Obama will be formulating policy based on his answer to Warren’s precisely worded question – “At what point does a baby get human rights?” It was an important question that warranted an honest answer.

Imagine as a thought experiment that Obama answered Warren’s straight-forward question honestly. He could have taken the extreme pro-choice position that the fetus doesn’t get human rights until some time around its Bar Mitzvah. Or he could have taken the more mainstream liberal position and said he believes that life begins at conception (strongly as a matter of the utmost faith), but he doesn’t want his personal feelings to intrude on the issue. But if he said either of those things, some people wouldn't have liked his comments and probably would have liked him less for making them. So instead he opted for clumsy evasion.

With his flippant pay grade remark, Obama said in effect, “I’m not going to give you my thoughts on the matter because it would be politically inconvenient to do so. Whatever I say, it will upset one side of the debate, and who needs that hassle? Instead, I’m going to try to charm you with a phony display of humility and hope you don’t notice.”

The thing about evasions is they only go unnoticed if they’re done with great skill. By straddling and evading with great frequency and occasional clumsiness, Obama ironically reveals more of his true self than straight talk ever would.

From National Review, “The Lieberman Option” by Rich Lowry

From The Politico, “McCain Alarms Base with Abortion Comment” by Jonathan Martin

From Commentary, “The Argument for Lieberman” by John Podhoretz

First from the Politico:

Top social conservative leaders in key battleground states are urging John McCain not to pick a running mate who supports abortion rights, warning of dire consequences from a Republican base already unenthused about their nominee.

McCain’s comments Wednesday to the Weekly Standard’s Stephen Hayes that former Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Ridge’s pro-abortion rights views wouldn’t necessarily rule him out quickly found their way into the in-boxes of Christian conservatives. For those who have been anxiously awaiting McCain’s pick as a signal of his ideological intentions, there was deep concern that their worst fears about the Arizona senator may be realized.

“It absolutely floored me,” said Phil Burress, head of the Ohio-based Citizens for Community Values. “It would doom him in Ohio.”

Now Lowry:

To placate Republicans and maximize the political impact of his selection, Lieberman would have to join the ticket as part of a McCain pledge to serve just one term. Both McCain and Lieberman would promise not to run for president in 2012, removing any possibility of Lieberman becoming a successor or putting his imprint on the Republican Party. Their administration would be above electoral politics, a high-minded exercise in competent governance and bipartisan compromise.

To assuage Republican fears of a Harrison/Tyler scenario, Lieberman would have to pledge, if he were to ascend to the presidency, to appoint constitutionalist judges and honor McCain’s domestic priorities.

The possibility of a one-term pledge is actively bruited around McCain headquarters. The thinking is that there is no more dramatic way to augment his standing as a different kind of a politician and capture the public’s frustration with politics as usual. (Realistically, at age 76, McCain might not want to run for re-election anyway.)

FIRST, LET ME GIVE you the simplistic (not mention optimistic) checkers-playing view of a McCain/Lieberman ticket as it concerns social conservatives:

The risks of McCain selecting a pro-choice running mate boil down to one thing – exactly how unacceptable is Barack Obama to social conservatives? As conservatives are well aware, Ronald Reagan isn’t on the ballot this year. In John McCain, the Republican standard bearer is someone who disquiets a lot of different Republicans for a lot of different reasons.

McCain’s biggest leg-up with the conservative base isn’t the enthusiasm that he engenders but rather how squeamish the right feels about Obama. In a recent email exchange with an undecided voter, my correspondent described himself as “violently unimpressed” with Obama. That elegant turn of phrase wonderfully captured a crucial dynamic as November approaches. Many conservatives won’t cast their votes for McCain with great enthusiasm, but they may be highly enthusiastic about voting against Obama. To such voters, chancing the presidency on such an inexperienced and unimpressive figure at this historical juncture is unthinkable.

The fact is, there are only two choices this year unless we count Barr and Nader and why would we do that? The Rasmussen tracking polls have shown Republicans coming home to McCain in great numbers – the Maverick actually does better among Republicans than Obama does with Democrats. It’s indeed unlikely that social conservatives will decide to cast their ballots for Barack Obama. Frankly, it’s unimaginable. So the question then becomes, how far can McCain push his luck with a particular segment of Republican base voters and still have them show up in November?

I VERY MUCH HOPE that the McCain campaign doesn’t buy the “checkers playing” analysis as it completely discounts just how risky a Lieberman selection would be. First things first – the marriage between McCain and many conservatives was a shotgun wedding and remains a tenuous thing. The current strength of the relationship is uncertain. Choosing Lieberman would be by far the riskiest running mate selection in memory. Barack Obama’s presence on the ballot doesn’t mean McCain will automatically excel with the conservative base. The base can ultimately throw up its hands and say "Feh!" to a nominee. It happened to a Republican incumbent president in 1992.

If the McCain campaign opts to head in the Lieberman direction, it would have to roll out the maneuver with considerable deftness and dexterity. Since we’re being brutally frank here, we should acknowledge that the McCain campaign hasn’t always been characterized by such things. In choosing Lieberman, it would be desirable, indeed probably necessary, for the campaign to have brought on board social conservatives such as Tom Coburn and Rush Limbaugh before making the selection so those figures could reassure conservatives that McCain and his running mate can be trusted on abortion. After all, if McCain can’t convince social conservatives that they’re better off with him than Obama, then why would they show up in November? McCain and his campaign will have to work at making their case in this regards.

One last thing about McCain potentially selecting Joe Lieberman as his running mate: It would be a sure sign that McCain is running as McCain. As Jennifer Rubin notes over at Commentary, “The choice might create more problems than it’s worth, isn’t politically safe or very smart in some regards, and would shake up the GOP. Sounds like just the thing McCain would do.”

Indeed. If McCain selects Lieberman, the move propels him to victory and the McCain administration appoints Supreme Court justices like Roberts and Alito, I’ll be delighted. And if the campaign stumbles while failing to assure social conservatives that the ticket can be trusted and ultimately implodes, I’ll always have the option of saying, “Don’t blame me – I voted for Romney.”

From the Wall Street Journal, “Bush Toughens Up” by the Editors

Like many conservatives, the Journal's editors have been hard on the administration’s dilatory response to the situation in Georgia. Also like many conservatives, they are now pleased that the Bushies have rediscovered their spine. The following little aside in the editorial especially caught my eye:

We should add that White House officials let us know they were less than delighted -- the actual words were a tad more colorful -- about our editorial yesterday suggesting that the Administration had been slow to respond to Russia's aggression. We'll let our readers decide if we gave U.S. officials too little credit for their phone calls and other behind-the-scenes work.

When I was guest-hosting the Hugh Hewitt Show on Tuesday night, several callers expressed the same thought in response to my critiques of the administration – how could I criticize the administration without knowing what was going on in the back-channels? By way of response, I offered that general Russian behavior didn’t suggest that any back-channel communications had been particularly effective. But I also pointed to recent history.

Over the past several months, the administration has responded to our enemies by combining dithering with a search for appeasement. Both North Korea and Iran have been fortunate enough to receive the not-so-tough-love that has come to embody the administration’s foreign policy in its final days. Somewhere in hell, Saddam Hussein is probably lamenting that he had to deal with the George W. Bush of 2003 rather than the kinder and gentler version currently on display.

When it comes to foreign affairs, there’s hardly anything more provocative than irresolute conduct. The Russian leadership took a look at recent history and concluded that they could get away with this stunt. Was their analysis mistaken?

As the Journal points out, it is indeed a relief that the administration has toughened up. Yesterday, both the president and the secretary of state spoke firmly and unequivocally, a happy change of course. What’s more, they backed up their words with action. For eventually getting it right, the administration deserves credit. And perhaps the administration also deserves credit for providing the next administration with a teachable moment regarding the consequences of conducting a weak-kneed and vacillating foreign policy.

From the New York Times, “Creep Show” by Buzz Bissinger

Buzz hates the Olympics even more than I do!

As you may know, Bissinger is the author of the seminal fly-on-the-wall sports book, Friday Night Lights. Friday Night Lights was a searing look at the world of high stakes high school football as it’s played in Texas. Personally, I always found it a great but flawed work. While Bissinger captured the many problems of big time high school football, he took little notice of the heroism and nobility that was also a part of the endeavor. While the heroism was admittedly a lesser part of the scene, it nonetheless was part of the scene but not a significant part of the book. (While we’re sort of on the subject, if you want to read the best fly-on-the-wall sports book ever written, I commend to you the little-noticed Bringing the Heat by Blackhawk Down author Mark Bowden. Read it – you’ll thank me.)

In his searing column on the Olympics and especially the many obscenities associated with pixie gymnastics, Bissinger’s aim is truer:

Since I have already gone on record with a Times Op-Ed article in April saying the games should be banned entirely because of their incontrovertible history of corruption and politicizing, I know I shouldn’t watch. But given my abiding interest in the bizarre spectacle that I call SportsWorld, I won’t be able to entirely ignore the endless soap operas…

I will watch the enormously popular women’s gymnastics competition. The performances are incredible and fearless, but it isn’t the athleticism that draws me in. In fact I can’t think of any competition in the Olympics, or all of SportsWorld, more creepy and disturbing: these largely shapeless girls in their leotards and flaxen-waxen hair and bouncy-wouncy ponytails. “They look like girls from the neck up,” I was told by Joan Ryan, whose 1995 book, “Little Girls in Pretty Boxes,” blew a sky-high lid off the sadomasochistic training regimens that young female gymnasts were being subjected to. She continued: “From the neck down they look like prepubescent boys.”

During the Olympics, when a female gymnast finishes an event and hugs her coach, often a man three times her age, I cringe at what I believe is the unsavory stench of the sport in general — children under the wing of men who based on lengthy documentation have proven to be abusive, relentless, intolerant, humiliating and, in some instances, accused of sexual misconduct. “These girls will do anything for these guys,” Ms. Ryan told me. “They have such control over them.”

Read the whole thing, and add it to the ever burgeoning file of things about the Olympics that are truly vomitous.

From the New York Times, “The Wrong Force for the Right War” by Bartle Breese Bull

The generally hawkish and specifically pro-surge Bull questions the bipartisan wisdom that we should flood a bunch of troops into Afghanistan in order to better pursue “the right war.”

But what are the real prospects for turning fractious, impoverished Afghanistan into an orderly and prosperous nation and a potential ally of the United States? What true American interests are being insufficiently advanced or defended in its remote deserts and mountains? And even if these interests are really so broad, are they deliverable at an acceptable price? The answers to these questions put the wisdom of an Afghan surge into great question…

The invasion of Afghanistan was a great tactical success and the correct strategic move. Yet since then it seems as if the United States has been trying to turn the conflict into the Vietnam War of the early 21st century. Escalating in Afghanistan to “must-win” status means, according to General McNeil’s estimate, deploying three times as many troops as were sent to Iraq at the height of the surge. If Americans really believe — as Senator Obama in particular argues — that Afghanistan is the right war and a place appropriate for Iraq-style nation-building, then they must understand both the cost involved and the remote likelihood of success.

Joe Klein might want to hop off here, because what follows will feature a neocon actually questioning a war or at least the expansion of one. I will not be held responsible for any further intellectual confusion this might cause Time magazine’s leading columnist

The consensus on sending more troops to Afghanistan has acquired the same simplicity that the plea for more troops in Iraq had four years ago. Back then, the cries for more troops, especially from Bush administration critics, seldom included precisely what the complaining pundits intended to do with those troops. The “more troops” mantra ultimately became so divorced from strategic realities that critics of the surge like Andrew Sullivan dismissed the surge’s possibilities for success because, Andrew argued, it would have taken at least a half million additional troops to make a difference. The strategy, tactics and goals associated with the surge didn’t merit any consideration. (These same critics have since decided that the Anbar Awakening whose beginning preceded the surge actually made victory inevitable.)

Regarding Barack Obama’s insistence that he’ll send more troops to Afghanistan, even his friends like Juan Cole don’t believe him. They believe Obama’s engaging in a little political posturing in order to show this particular community organizer has the cajones to be Commander-in-Chief. For what it’s worth, I agree with Cole’s reading of Obama’s Afghanistan bluster, but then again I’m a well known cynic when it comes to Obama’s rhetoric.

Nevertheless, since both presidential candidates agree that we ought to be surging troops into Afghanistan, it would be nice if they let us in on precisely what the surging troops are supposed to accomplish and why their contemplated accomplishments are a vital national security concern. As Bull points out, Time magazine called Afghanistan “the right war” a few weeks ago. It certainly was “the right war” after 9/11, when the Taliban had to pay the price for facilitating the 9/11 attacks. Why Afghanistan remains “the right war” and precisely what sacrifices we’ll have to make to win that war deserves a more serious discussion than we’ve had to date.

From Salon.com, “Johnny, I Hardly Knew Ye” by Walter Shapiro

Shapiro laments how he bought John Edwards’s long stream of shinola only to be betrayed when Edwards’ true nature finally revealed itself in that Beverly Hills men’s room:

Beginning with a trip to North Carolina in the spring of 2001 to scout this first-term Senate phenom (Ed. Note: giggle), I chronicled his dogged pursuit of the presidency both as a newspaper columnist and for Salon, as well as making him (and Elizabeth) central figures in my book on the 2004 Democratic primary campaign. My wife (a magazine writer who developed her own friendship with Elizabeth) and I had several off-the-record dinners with the Edwardses, including an emotionally raw evening in Washington two weeks after the 9/11 attacks…

I do not want to dwell long on the specifics of this modern-day no-love story. But even though some facts remain in dispute, at every moment when judgment was called for, Edwards made the wrong choice: 1) the entanglement itself; 2) putting Hunter on his political payroll; 3) believing that he could run for president without being exposed; 4) continuing his campaign after Elizabeth was diagnosed with terminal cancer; 5) lying to the press when the National Enquirer ran its initial story last fall; 6) being recently lured, by his own account, to a meeting with Hunter in her hotel room; and 7) attempting to salvage things by appearing on "Nightline" rather than issuing a truthful and rueful press release.

Shapiro could have better titled his piece, “Why Do Bad Things Happen to Good Pundits?” That title would have more accurately reflected the narcissistic New Journalism style of the piece, while also asking a seemingly rhetorical question that may have stumped the author but the reader could have easily answered.

If Shapiro bought into the notion that Edwards was honest, he suspended his critical faculties in order to do so. For some of us, it was obvious from the start of John Edwards’ political career that if his lips were moving, there was a pretty good chance he was being insincere. For those with less insight into the souls of pathologically phony politicians, there were more objective markers. Edwards’ radical transformation from southern centrist to radical populist, a transformation that happened to be extraordinarily politically convenient, should have sounded alarm bells.

And then there’s the way Edwards publicly repudiated his most famous rhetoric with his own conduct. Edwards’ big issue, indeed practically his only issue, was the disparity between America’s rich and poor. Remember all the anguished crapola about the “two Americas?” Now, someone who was truly concerned about the gulf separating America’s rich and America’s poor wouldn’t try to win a Gold medal in conspicuous consumption. And yet John Edwards built himself a 28,000 square foot mansion while touring the country lamenting the chasm between America’s affluent and it shivering street urchins. Mind you, this isn’t an issue of mere hypocrisy. We’re all hypocrites to some extent or another. This is an issue of particularly brazen, public lying – for all of Edwards’ talk about the two Americas, his personal conduct belied any true concerns he might have regarding the subject.

And then there were other disquieting reports of the true Edwards in the public record. In his book that came out last year, Bob Shrum relayed the following anecdote:

Kerry talked with several potential picks, including Gephardt and Edwards. He was comfortable after his conversations with Gephardt, but even queasier about Edwards after they met. Edwards had told Kerry he was going to share a story with him that he'd never told anyone else—that after his son Wade had been killed, he climbed onto the slab at the funeral home, laid there and hugged his body, and promised that he'd do all he could to make life better for people, to live up to Wade's ideals of service. Kerry was stunned, not moved, because, as he told me later, Edwards had recounted the same exact story to him, almost in the exact same words, a year or two before—and with the same preface, that he'd never shared the memory with anyone else. Kerry said he found it chilling, and he decided he couldn't pick Edwards unless he met with him again.

Tellingly, neither of the principals involved bothered to come forward to dispute Shrum’s recollection.

So is it shocking that such a fellow would cheat on his mortally ill wife while recklessly jeopardizing his political agenda (not that he ever gave a fig about that agenda)? Of course not. The more pressing question is how he was able to get away with such a stunt. Okay, he personally charmed Walter Shapiro so Shapiro gets a pass based on his apparent congenital gullibility. But what of the rest of the putatively objective media that didn’t get to bask in Edwards’ golden glow over “raw” dinners? Why were only Mickey Kaus and the National Enquirer curious about this fellow who so energetically sought to be the world’s most powerful man?

From the Daily Dish, “Cheney or Putin” by Andrew Sullivan

Andrew Sullivan provides a wonderful example of the moral confusion brought on by an acute case of Bush Derangement Syndrome:

A key point: Russia is not exporting a totalitarian ideology; it is flexing its military power in its backyard, as it has always done and always will. Since Cheney has exactly the same view about the use of American military power as Putin does about Russian power, I'm not sure what grounds he has to complain. Maybe we should start complaining when as many Georgians have perished as Iraqis - and when Putin throws thousands of innocent Georgians into torture chambers.

One would think that distinguishing between Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and democratic Georgia wouldn’t be too much of a task for someone as bright as Andrew, but there you have it.

The response of the Bush haters to the Georgia crisis has been disappointing if not surprising. Many moons ego, I blogged about a Bush-hating dinner guest who said in regards to the Iraq War, “I want this country to learn a lesson.” I asked him if that meant the obvious albeit sickening conclusion – he wanted American soldiers to pay for the perceived sins of the American government with their lives. He responded with the same phrase – “I want this country to learn a lesson.” At the time, such callousness was stunning.

Is it just me, or is there a rather obvious bit of Schadenfreude in Andrew Sullivan’s analysis? Overcome with joy over the prospect of yet another cudgel that he can bash the Bush administration with, the morality of what’s happening in Georgia has completely drifted from Andrew’s radar screen. Instead, he draws a highly dubious moral equivalency argument while Russia is deliberately killing innocent people as part of its effort to strangle a democracy.

Let’s grant just for the sake of argument that the Bush administration lacks the moral standing to complain about Putin’s Georgia adventure. What of Andrew Sullivan? Surely as one of the administration’s most fulsome critics, he retains such standing. Yet in his 712 blog posts since the Russian invasion on Friday, Andrew has yet to summon his famous moral outrage. When he has deigned to address the subject, he has offered morally muddled weak tea along the lines of, “Georgia, alas, is within Russia's traditional field of influence, and was provoking the kind of massive over-reaction they're now getting.”

Earlier this morning I linked and quoted a Victor Davis Hanson piece. One of VDH’s observations deserves another visit: “From what the Russians learned of the Western reaction to Iraq, they expect their best apologists will be American politicians, pundits, professors, and essayists — and once more they will not be disappointed.”

From the Washington Post, “A Path to Peace in the Caucasus” by Mikhail Gorbachev

Even Gorbachev, a.k.a. Russia’s Jimmy Carter, is flush with militaristic pride based on Putin’s Georgia adventure.

What happened on the night of Aug. 7 is beyond comprehension. The Georgian military attacked the South Ossetian capital of Tskhinvali with multiple rocket launchers designed to devastate large areas. Russia had to respond. To accuse it of aggression against "small, defenseless Georgia" is not just hypocritical but shows a lack of humanity.

Mounting a military assault against innocents was a reckless decision whose tragic consequences, for thousands of people of different nationalities, are now clear. The Georgian leadership could do this only with the perceived support and encouragement of a much more powerful force. Georgian armed forces were trained by hundreds of U.S. instructors, and its sophisticated military equipment was bought in a number of countries. This, coupled with the promise of NATO membership, emboldened Georgian leaders into thinking that they could get away with a "blitzkrieg" in South Ossetia…

By declaring the Caucasus, a region that is thousands of miles from the American continent, a sphere of its "national interest," the United States made a serious blunder. Of course, peace in the Caucasus is in everyone's interest. But it is simply common sense to recognize that Russia is rooted there by common geography and centuries of history. Russia is not seeking territorial expansion, but it has legitimate interests in this region.

“Legitimate interests?” There’s a wonderfully squishy term for an expansionist wannabe hegemon to toss about. Speaking of Gorbachev’s terms of art, what of his reference to a Georgian “blitzkrieg?” My goodness, illusions die hard. One would have figured the olive branch extending Gorbachev to be the last guy to play the Hitler card. The fact that the Georgians are the ones doing the goose-stepping in Gorby’s fanciful scenario wonderfully illustrates how we’ll have to agree to disagree with the Bear on this one.

Speaking of illusions dying hard, was it only a few short weeks ago when Barack Obama spoke in Germany and soothed the planet with a lullaby about the world coming together as one? Most of us dismissed the speech as a particularly banal collection of tediously utopian clichés. Some of us (okay – me) also pointed out Obama’s factitious rendering of history, especially his childlike retooling of the Berlin Airlift as a stirring example of the good that can be accomplished when the world unites. The lesson of the Berlin Airlift was of course no such thing. The lesson was that American resolve and military wherewithal could counter the Soviet lust for conquest.

Throughout this campaign, Obama has shown a desperate desire to believe that as president he’ll be able to solve virtually any crisis by whispering sweet nothings into our malefactors’ ears. His euphemism for this approach has been “tough, principled diplomacy.” Tough, principled diplomacy is indeed a swell thing, but the first part of the equation – the “tough” part” – is impossible unless it’s supported by the credible prospect of force. In the real world as opposed to Obama's fantasy world, blood and iron sadly matter a lot more than soft power and rhetoric.

Besides, one has to wonder whether the concept of “tough, principled diplomacy” is about to join Jeremiah Wright under the Obama campaign bus. Obama’a most recent statement on the crisis included the plea “for Georgia and Russia to show restraint.” Such “evenhandedness” in the face of unilateral atrocities sounds neither tough nor principled.

From National Review, “Moscow’s Sinister Brilliance” by Victor Davis Hanson

In this brief essay, Professor Hanson gives you just about everything you need to know about the Russia-Georgia conflict. You’ll want to read the whole thing, but the following passage is my favorite:

The Russians have sized up the moral bankruptcy of the Western Left. They know that half-a-million Europeans would turn out to damn their patron the United States for removing a dictator and fostering democracy, but not more than a half-dozen would do the same to criticize their long-time enemy from bombing a constitutional state.

The Russians rightly expect Westerners to turn on themselves, rather than Moscow — and they won’t be disappointed. Imagine the morally equivalent fodder for liberal lament: We were unilateral in Iraq, so we can’t say Russia can’t do the same to Georgia. (As if removing a genocidal dictator is the same as attacking a democracy). We accepted Kosovo’s independence, so why not Ossetia’s? (As if the recent history of Serbia is analogous to Georgia’s.) We are still captive to neo-con fantasies about democracy, and so encouraged Georgia’s efforts that provoked the otherwise reasonable Russians (As if the problem in Ossetia is our principled support for democracy rather than appeasement of Russian dictatorship).

From what the Russians learned of the Western reaction to Iraq, they expect their best apologists will be American politicians, pundits, professors, and essayists — and once more they will not be disappointed. We are a culture, after all, that after damning Iraqi democracy as too violent, broke, and disorganized, is now damning Iraqi democracy as too conniving, rich, and self-interested — the only common denominator being whatever we do, and whomever we help, cannot be good.

From the Wall Street Journal, “Volunteering for Torment” by John Paul Newport

It’s been a while since I’ve indulged in some golf blogging. Please forgive me for surrendering to temptation. Besides, it’s not like anything interesting is happening in the world like a war breaking out or a major politician being enmeshed in scandal.

In his weekly golf column, the excellent Newport takes a look at why golfers love exceedingly difficult courses:

The major tournaments this year seem to be having an identity crisis. The U.S. Open at Torrey Pines in June, with lots of roar-inducing weekend birdies and eagles, felt more like a Masters. The Masters in April lacked its usual magic and came across more like a typical PGA Championship, while this week's PGA, at Oakland Hills outside Detroit, is shaping up more like a U.S. Open. The rough is unrelentingly thick, the greens are perfidious and the winning score may well be over par.

The members at Oakland Hills love it. When Ben Hogan, after winning the U.S. Open there in 1951, called the course a monster, they proudly embraced the label. After all, famed architect Robert Trent Jones Sr. had been engaged before that Open specifically to render the course as hard as possible…

Why make it so difficult? For some clubs, like Oakland Hills and Oakmont, near Pittsburgh, which hosted last year's U.S. Open, you might as well ask why mow the grass. Tweaking their courses to be as treacherous as possible is their reason for being. For them, difficulty is the point of the game.

Newport’s correct only up to a certain point. It is true that many clubs do take a perverse pride in making their courses unplayable. This strange phenomenon affects not only world class courses like Oakland Hills and Oakmont, but clubs that have as much a chance of hosting a professional golf tournament as I have of enjoying a special evening with Angelina Jolie (not that I would be interested in such a thing, being a married man).

The increasing difficulty of golf courses is actually a scourge that has gravely damaged the sport. Golf architects have proven increasingly skilled at convincing their clients that their courses should be a “test of golf.” Guided by this strange philosophy, golf courses are constructed or renovated so they will provide a more ample test to Tiger Woods if he should happen to show up for a stray round rather than to fit the skills of the people who actually play them.

Why does this matter? By making golf courses overly difficult for the typical golfers who play them, golf architects have made the game less fun. In spite of the typical golf architect's blarney, a person plays golf for enjoyment, not to see how his game compares to Phil Mickelson’s. You can see the effect of the architects’ efforts with the following incredible fact – since Tiger Woods’ ascendancy in 1998, the amount of golf being played has actually diminished. This decline has also happened while retiring baby boomers should be taking up golf. Instead, the increasing difficulty of an already very difficult game has chased the blue-hairs to the canasta table.

The fact is, the game of golf was plenty hard before the golf architecture community decided it had to get harder. There are some contrarian golf architects like Tom Doak, Gil Hanse and Mike DeVries for whom fun is not a dirty word. But most practicing golf architects hail from an opposite school. On the typical renovation or so-called restoration of an existing course, the architect will make all of the 18 holes more difficult. In doing so, they’re answering a complaint that no one had. I’ve never been around a golf club where the membership expressed a consensus that the game and their course were just too darn easy.

There is of course room in the golf world for championship tests like Oakland Hills and Oakmont. It’s worth noting, though, that those clubs have memberships that can really play. In other words, their memberships can take the “championship test” and not fail it miserably. But such golf communities are extreme anomalies.

One would think golf architects that design courses that inflict misery on the people who pay for their work would face scant demand for their services. Unfortunately, the golf world has bought the “test of golf” standard in its entirety, much to the game's great and continuing detriment.

From the New York Times, “Sometimes, There’s News in the Gutter” by Clark Hoyt

In an unintentionally laugh-out-loud essay, the Times’ ombudsman provides some insight into how the Grey Lady and her fellow media travelers managed to overlook the John Edwards story:

Still, Edwards-Hunter was “classically not a Times-like story,” said Craig Whitney, the standards editor.

Times editors said that when the first Enquirer story appeared and they could not verify it after fairly cursory inquiries, they left it alone. “I’m not going to recycle a supermarket tabloid’s anonymously sourced story,” said Bill Keller, the executive editor. By the time the Enquirer reported on its hotel stakeout, Edwards was no longer a presidential candidate and, according to Times reporting, not even under serious consideration as a running mate to Barack Obama. (Emphasis added)

Please note the bolded terms – “cursory inquiries.” Did I promise you laugh-out-loud material or what?

As a thought experiment, try to imagine that the philandering pol in question wasn’t a tireless warrior against poverty imprisoned in 28,000 square foot mansion. Instead, let’s pretend it was a Republican. Let’s even give our mythical Republican a name – Mitt Romney. Like Edwards, Romney finished third in his party's presidential primaries and made his family a central theme of his campaign, although Romney was considerable more demure regarding his uxorious nature than Edwards was. As if those aren’t enough similarities, Romney also has an ill wife.

If Mitt Romney were the subject of a well-sourced National Enquirer exposé, can anyone imagine the Times holding its nose at the accusations and pronouncing them “not a Times-like story?” And can one imagine the Times devoting mere “cursory resources” (whatever that term of art means) to confirming the story and then taking a pass? And lastly, can you picture the mainstream media fomenting a "Protect Ann" movement?

As if addressing my critiques, Hoyt authoritatively dismisses our darkest suspicions: “I do not think liberal bias had anything to do with it.” Now don’t you feel a touch guilty for thinking the worst?

From the New York Times, “Know-Nothing Politics” by Paul Krugman

In his trademark understated and genteel manner, Paul Krugman tries with today’s column to buck up the fortitude of the Don’t Drill Democrats. I truly wish him the best of luck in the endeavor. The column highlights what a tough spot Barack Obama occupies on this issue. The country wants to explore every possible avenue for energy resources. Obama’s base, as typified by Krugman, urges a declinist austerity platform, at least until solar power comes on line in 2064. The column is must reading to see the state of the art in Democratic circles regarding the energy debate.

While generally I laud Krugman’s effort to shine a lantern on the Democrats’ asinine stand regarding drilling in particular and energy in general and I appreciate his determination to help steer the Democrats into still more asinine territory, I must take issue with the following passage:

Remember how the Iraq war was sold. The stuff about aluminum tubes and mushroom clouds was just window dressing. The main political argument was, “They attacked us, and we’re going to strike back” — and anyone who tried to point out that Saddam and Osama weren’t the same person was an effete snob who hated America, and probably looked French.

Just for the record, John Kerry originally supported the war in Iraq.

From Rasmussen Reports, “News You Watch Says a Lot About How You’ll Vote” by Scott Rasmussen

Fascinating stuff here. 87% of Fox News viewers plan on voting for John McCain. By way of comparison, 63% of MSNBC viewers plan on voting for Barack Obama.

Yesterday, I posited that Keith Olbermann was lighting the way for a new era in cable news by catering to his audience’s bias. While I hate putting Fox News in the same breath as Olbermann, Fox was clearly the industry trailblazer in this regard. By stripping the news of the sometimes subtle and sometimes heavy-handed left wing bias that all the other networks showed with some frequency, Fox created a hospitable home for conservative viewers. Of course, Fox didn’t have to do back-flips to get to the right of the other guys. All of Fox’s shows get views from both sides of the political spectrum, something that Olbermann never does.

By only moderating the conventional news presentation models slightly, Fox became tremendously attractive to right wing viewers. It's little wonder that it took so long for someone to try the same thing on the left. Of course, getting to the left of the other networks required more extreme behavior, but that's a challenge Olbermann has more than met. In doing so, his show has become a major success story, especially among those desirable young viewers.

Fox’s and Olbermann’s success will provide encouragement for other news organizations. The New York Times today published a remarkably obtuse editorial that merits some attention. Writing about the Hamdan trial in an essay risibly titled "Guilty as Ordered,” the editors observed:

Now that was a real nail-biter. The court designed by the White House and its Congressional enablers to guarantee convictions of high-profile detainees in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba — using evidence obtained by torture and secret evidence as desired — has held its first trial. It produced ... a guilty verdict.

The military commission of six senior officers (whose names have not been made public) found Salim Ahmed Hamdan, who worked as one of Osama bin Laden’s drivers until 2001, guilty of one count of providing material support for terrorism.

The rules of justice on Guantánamo are so stacked against defendants that the only surprise was that Mr. Hamdan was actually acquitted on the more serious count of conspiring (it was unclear with whom) to kill Americans during the invasion of Afghanistan after Sept. 11, 2001.

The charge on which Mr. Hamdan was convicted seemed logical since he did work as Mr. bin Laden’s driver.

Naturally, the Times rushed this editorial into print before Hamdan was sentenced to a mere 5 ½ years in jail. The editorial also acknowledges that he was found not guilty of the more serious charge, and was indeed guilty of the charge that he was convicted of. And yet the editors ludicrously wrote, “Guilty as ordered.”

This is fever swamp stuff. What’s more, it’s intellectually lazy/supremely idiotic fever swamp stuff. Take it from someone who reads the Daily Kos – something so intellectually incoherent and factually sloppy would never make it on to the Kos front page. And yet there it was, the lead editorial for America’s paper of record this morning.

I have difficulty in believing that the Times editors have all been simultaneously beaten with a stupid stick. Instead, it’s more likely that the Times, whether consciously or unconsciously, is trying to follow the new news paradigm of looking for an audience among partisans.

From the Washington Post, “A Way Back to the High Road” by David Broder

It’s become a quadrennial tradition more reliable than the Olympics and almost as boring. Every presidential election, the media shed crocodile tears over how negative the campaign process has become. Today, David Broder waddles in to participate, helpfully illuminating the path back to the high road:

The first question I asked John McCain and then Barack Obama was: How do you feel about the tone and direction of the campaign so far?

No surprise. Both men pronounced themselves thoroughly frustrated by the personal bitterness and negativism they have seen in the two months since they learned they would be running against each other.

"I'm very sorry about it," McCain said in a Saturday interview at his Arlington headquarters. "I think we could have avoided at least some of this if we had agreed to do the town hall meetings" together, as he had suggested, during the summer months.

Obama, in a phone interview yesterday from Elkhart, Ind., argued that "the classic tit-for-tat campaigning" of recent weeks "is part of the politics of the past that we have to move beyond." Ironically, having turned down McCain's proposal for weekly joint town halls, Obama argued that the formal debates, starting in late September, may refocus the campaign on real issues.

Right - like the qualifications of the candidates aren't a "real issue."

What’s most bothersome about such articles aside from their sheer tedium is how spectacularly mistaken they are. American politics ain’t beanbag, and they never have been. Andrew Jackson’s wife was hounded to her death by his political opponents pushing stories about her being a bigamist. (Lucky for them Old Hickory wasn’t the vengeful type.) The 19th century also produced the memorable high-road slogan, “Ma, Ma, Where’s My Pa? Gone to the White House Ha-ha-ha.” As Broder was probably around for that campaign, it’s surprising he’s forgotten it.

Since every American presidential campaign has been a negative low-road affair, one might ask if there’s a systemic reason why this is so. And guess what? There is! Politics is one of life’s very rare zero sum games; each vote your opponent gets is one that you won’t. You’re in direct competition with your opponent, and the competition is fierce.

So why the low road? Your opponent’s central premise of his campaign, regardless of who he is or what party he represents, is that he’s fit to govern. Scratch that – his central premise is that there’s no person in the country more fit to govern. We’re not electing a platform of ideas, but a human being. So either you grant your opponent’s central premise regarding his spectacular nature, or you dispute it. If you dispute it, things will necessarily get a bit ugly.

You can try to mitigate the harshness, but such efforts are transparently disingenuous. Take the Obama campaign and its attacks on John McCain. The Obama machine’s message is essentially, “We have a great amount of respect for John McCain. But he is a senile warmonger who has sold his soul to George W. Bush.” The prefatory comment about how much they respect McCain is a weak effort to claim the high road that does absolutely nothing to soften the criticism that follows.

Not that the criticism needs softening. It’s perfectly valid for each campaign to make a case why the other guy shouldn’t be president. Indeed, they would be remiss if they failed to do so. If the McCain campaign granted Obama’s contention that He’s qualified to govern because He gives nifty speeches, has great judgment and got good grades in law school, McCain supporters should launch a class action lawsuit claiming damages for campaigning malfeasance.

When Obama refers to negative campaigning as “part of the politics of the past that we have to move beyond,” he’s obviously just scratching his itch to spew his patented Hope/Change baloney. Even given His fondness for Utopian rubbish, Obama surely knows that as long as American politics boils down to one person running against another, attacking one’s opponent will never belong to the past.

From the Huffington Post, “John Kerry, Surrogate-in-Chief” by Sam Stein

A few months ago, I urged the Obama campaign to consider John Kerry as its running mate. Forget the fact that Kerry would fulfill His needs; Kerry would also fill my need for non-stop comedy:

There is one man that Barack Obama can turn to who will fill all the ticket's needs. That man is John Kerry. We've already discussed how Obama needs a serious running mate, and Kerry at least looks serious. Besides, Kerry is haughty and dour, two traits which are sort of bastard cousins to seriousness. Additionally, if my memory serves correctly, Kerry spent time in the armed forces and even had a tour of duty in Vietnam. And although he's gotten nothing done in the Senate, at least he's been there forever.

Unlike the almost presumptive nominee, Kerry is a fine debater. How good was Kerry in the 2004 debates? The New York Times described his fluid performance in his first joust with George W. Bush by exclaiming, "He moved gracefully. Mr. Bush slouched and stayed coiled tight, but Mr. Kerry seemed at times to be waltzing with his partner, the lectern. Mr. Kerry moved his hands almost continuously, at one point folding them over his heart like a French mime as he explained that he felt 'nothing but respect' for Tony Blair and British soldiers serving in Iraq." A French mime? Waltzing with his lectern? Need I say more?

I also predicted that Kerry would be furiously furthering his ambitions, trying to finagle his way on to the ticket. Sure enough, Kerry has emerged as Obama’s most eager henchman. How successful has Kerry been as Obama’s designated hitman? The Huffington Post’s Sam Stein seem to be pondering whether or not to join me on the Obama/Kerry bandwagon:

"I think (Kerry) did a better job on Meet the Press then almost everybody I have recently seen," said Shrum. "[John] doesn't mind in the least engaging as he did with Lieberman. He is not sitting there worrying about what people are going to think of him. And he really understands the issues in a way few people in politics do. There is no question that... if he had not run in '04 he would almost be a lock for the vice presidential nomination. (Ed. Note: No question – a lock?!) That's the irony. Had he not run at all he would be the clearest possible choice for VP this year. But it would be unprecedented to pick the person who was nominee of the party four years earlier for vice president, though it would be fun if it happened. Some of those swift boaters would crawl out from their muck, only this time they will get beaten back."

There is, other Democrats acknowledge, a lot that Kerry could bring to the table: foreign policy gravitas, name recognition, prior vetting and, most significantly, knowledge of the campaign process. But there are obvious downsides as well, starting with the fundamental turn-the-page message of the Obama campaign. At point, it seems the near-president is content to help Obama achieve what he could not as a surrogate, not an insider.

Personally, I thought Kerry did horribly on Meet the Press this past Sunday. But what do I know? It’s not like I’ve blown seven presidential elections. In truth, it was a quintessential Kerry performance – deeply off-putting and unpleasant. But he was angry and bitter, two characteristics prized by the angry left.

But hey – who cares what I think? Obama/Kerry – could it happen? Do dreams really come true?

From the New York Times, "Learning to Speak Climate" by Tom "The World is Melting" Friedman

Tom Friedman has written his fourth straight column on environmental matters. Yippee! Obviously, Friedman is trying to get on to the Al Gore gravy train, the one that allowed the prophet of environmental down to purchase a swanky new yacht.

Friedman’s article starts on an encouraging note:

I simply do not have the words to describe the awesome majesty of Greenland’s Kangia Glacier, shedding massive icebergs the size of skyscrapers and slowly pushing them down the Ilulissat Fjord until they crash into the ocean off the west coast of Greenland.

For a second there, I said “Whew!” - he doesn’t have the words to wax rhapsodic about Greenland so maybe he’ll say something interesting. Little did I know that what would follow would be even more painful than watching Friedman grasp for words he could not find.

Our kids are going to be so angry with us one day.

We’ve charged their future on our Visa cards. We’ve added so many greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, for our generation’s growth, that our kids are likely going to spend a good part of their adulthood, maybe all of it, just dealing with the climate implications of our profligacy. And now our leaders are telling them the way out is “offshore drilling” for more climate-changing fossil fuels.
Madness. Sheer madness.

Most people assume that the effects of climate change are going to be felt through another big disaster, like Katrina.

Obviously Friedman has decided that global warming is a pernicious thing caused 100% by man. It would be nice if he could share the evidence that led him to that conclusion rather than just shriek hysterics on the matter. Perhaps once again he “simply lacks the words.” He has also reached the strange conclusion that the blame for Hurricane Katrina properly belongs at the metaphorical feet of fossil fuel consumption.

As Friedman might say, I simply do not have the words to describe the simple-minded obtuseness of this column.

From National Review Online, “MSOBAMA” by Pete Wehner

Like many of us, Wehner has taken a fascination in the falling out between Dana Milbank and Keith Olbermann. In case you haven’t heard, Olbermann happily greeted the news that his longtime partner in purported news analysis would no longer be appearing on his show. What accounted for Olbermann’s joy over his sometime sidekick’s departure? Milbank had written a piece in the Washington Post that failed to be sufficiently reverential of Barack Obama. Lest you run off and think we can now claim Milbank as part of our vast right wing conspiracy, he’s the objective journalist who appeared on Olbermann’s show in orange hunting regalia in the wake of Dick Cheney’s hunting accident.

Beyond documenting the Olbermann/Milbank divorce, a spectacle that invokes the same morbid fascination that a fight to the death between two rabid Chihuahuas would, Wehner offers some pointed observations regarding Olbermann’s “news” program:

Olbermann has on his program either spokesmen from the Obama campaign or, much more frequently, journalists who share (though usually in a less offensive and more camouflaged way) Olbermann’s political biases. They almost never challenge the assumptions of Olbermann; their role is to give his prejudices the patina of “journalistic objectivity.” I’m speaking of people like Air America’s Rachel Maddow, Newsweek’s Richard Wolffe and Howard Fineman, the Washington Post’s Eugene Robinson and, until earlier this week, Dana Milbank.

According to Olbermann’s post on The Daily Kos (how perfectly appropriate), it seems Milbank notified Olbermann that after four years of appearing with him, Milbank accepted another television offer. Olbermann was apparently irate about a column by Milbank last week that created difficulty for Barack Obama, and therefore banned Milbank from his program. Olbermann alleges that Milbank took a comment by Obama out of context (readers can decide for themselves whether that is in fact a fair charge) and would not explain himself. And so Dana Milbank, who after four years of playing up to Olbermann deigned to write a single critical column on The Great Obama, was quickly censured. Such are the exacting journalistic standards of Olbermann, and, apparently, the network for which he works.

One wonders if the journalists who appear on Olbermann’s program understand that they are simply props for a man who has become the go-to guy for the MoveOn.org, Daily Kos, and The Huffington Post crowd. And do they appreciate just how much their credibility is damaged by frequently appearing with, and showing their obvious sympathy and agreement with, a man who has become a ranting, cartoonish character?

Pete better be careful there. Ranting cartoon characters could sue him for defamation.

That aside, the Olbermann phenomenon is worth exploring at some length, however painful the exercise might be. I often watch Olbermann’s show, just as I read the Daily Kos. It’s important, instructive and occasionally enlightening to know what the other guys are thinking, although truthfully the Olbermann show is hardly ever enlightening.

What's often struck me about “Countdown” is the same thing that struck Wehner – Olbermann hardly ever airs dissenting views. Each installment is an hour-long wallow in the echo chamber. What strikes me even more is the show’s stridency and how self-defeating it is. Olbermann is a funny guy, and his humor does somewhat leaven the festivities. But each night is still an angry tour through the depredations committed by conservatives.

The one-sidedness of the show along with the anger virtually ensure that only those of like mind are tuning in. The show and Olbermann therefore only preach to the choir, and their influence is nil. Bill O’Reilly can push a story. Keith Olbermann can’t because he’s basically rehashing a particularly furious Daily Kos diary to a band of already committed true believers.

That doesn’t mean he lacks an audience. Olbermann’s ratings have been a source of strength for MSNBC. So there is money in them thar ranting hills. Indeed, Olbermamn may give us a view of the TV news of the future. Olbermann proves you can make money by targeting a sliver of the news gathering population, and the best way to do that is by targeting eager partisans who are almost by definition high end news gatherers. Think about it this way – if Hannity & Colmes ditched the Colmes half of the duo, would the ratings be more likely to go up or down?

The Olbermann phenomenon hints at the dead end TV news will probably turn down – pure partisanship, with no allowance whatsoever made for dissenting views. Now there’s a happy thought, no?

From the Boston Globe, “Obama Shows Hints of His Year in Global Finance” by Sassha Issenberg

I know what you’re thinking: Obama spent a year in global finance? Where did He find the time, what with already being a community organizer, a part-time lawyer, a law school lecturer and a state legislator? Well, this was before all of that. What the Globe rib-splittingly refers to as Obama’s “year in global finance” took place immediately following His college graduation in 1983.

You’re also probably wondering why Obama has soft-peddled this “year in global finance,” especially given the lightness of His résumé. Well, contra the Globe, a lot of people wouldn’t consider Obama’s job at the time to actually be in global finance per se. He was a writer/editor for the Business International Corp. where His principal responsibility was editing manuscripts.

Obama did discuss this period in His life, or at least a fanciful version of it, in His autobiography. Quoth the Globe:

In "Dreams From My Father," his 1995 memoir, Obama describes being hired by an unnamed "consulting house to multinational corporations."

"Like a spy behind enemy lines, I arrived every day at my mid-Manhattan office and sat at my computer terminal, checking the Reuters machine that blinked bright emerald messages from across the globe," Obama wrote. "Sometimes, coming out of an interview with Japanese financiers or German bond traders, I would catch my reflection in the elevator doors - see myself in a suit and tie, a briefcase in my hand - and for a split second I would imagine myself as a captain of industry."

Those who worked at Business International say Obama's brief account contains inaccuracies or misrepresentations about the company. (Obama has acknowledged fictionalizing narrative elements in the book.) They say that while offering consulting functions to clients, Business International was far more a publishing house than a consulting firm.

Founded in 1954 to publish a magazine targeted at an increasingly globalized managerial class, Business International covered a broad array of subjects, including reports on economic policy making and recommendations for executive insurance policies.

The office had a collegiate feel: Employees rarely wore suits, and writers at Obama's level did not - as he suggests in one anecdote - have their own secretaries, according to fellow workers at the time. Obama had to share a Wang computer terminal with another employee

Making much of a candidate’s first job experience doesn’t make much sense, but the following description of our potential dilettante-in-chief sounds rather familiar:

Obama (was) described by peers as a distant presence in the office: diligent about his work but rarely engaged by it, uninterested in after-work drinks with colleagues. "He was all business; he didn't chat and gossip," said Chang.

"He always seemed aloof, a little bit of a stray cat," added Celi.

From the Wall Street Journal, “My Bet with Francis Fukayama” by Bret Stephens

Stephens begins the process of figuring out how history will view the Iraq War. He also details how he took $100 from fickle philosopher Francis Fukayama:

I'll grant that Mr. Fukuyama had decided the war was a mistake -- if only in a whisper -- before it was begun. Where does that leave us now? Perhaps it's worth considering what we have gained now that Iraq looks like a winner.

Here's a partial list: Saddam is dead. Had he remained in power, we would likely still believe he had WMD. He would have been sitting on an oil bonanza priced at $140 a barrel. He would almost certainly have broken free from an already crumbling sanctions regime. The U.S. would be faced with not one, but two, major adversaries in the Persian Gulf. Iraqis would be living under a regime that, in an average year, was at least as murderous as the sectarian violence that followed its collapse. And the U.S. would have seemed powerless to shape events.
Instead, we now have a government that does not threaten its neighbors, does not sponsor terrorism, and is unlikely to again seek WMD. We have a democratic government, a first for the Arab world, and one that is increasingly capable of defending its people and asserting its interests.

History approving of the Iraq War? i can already sense the angry left getting the vapors. Read the whole thing.

From The Hill, “MoveOn Plans to Push Back Hard Against House GOP” by Klaus Marre
Here’s perhaps the best news of the morning! MoveOn is going to mark out the “don’t drill” territory of the energy debate as its own. Perhaps the organization can play the same constructive role it did when David Petraeus testified before congress:

MoveOn is planning to get involved.

“Republicans have been escalating their attacks on [Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.)] and the Democrats over oil drilling, and we need to push back hard,” the group said in an e-mail to supporters, asking them to come to a 4 p.m. rally at the Capitol.

“Speaker Pelosi blocked their plan because it won't help lower gas prices—but it will line the pockets of Big Oil executives, the same people donating millions of dollars to Republicans,” the e-mail said. “But Republicans are working hard to make it seem like they're fighting for cash-strapped commuters—and not the oil companies who wrote their plan.”

The group plans to point to the ties between the GOP and Big Oil.

“We’ve invited the media, and having a good crowd is critical to show them that voters don’t want oil industry gimmicks—they want real solutions like alternative energy to solve our energy crisis,” the e-mail said.

MoveOn acknowledged that “Republicans have been dominating the debate around gas prices for weeks with their sham drilling plan,” adding that the House protest is “getting a lot of press coverage.”

Is it just my impression, or has the left been curiously anxious to bestow a wealth of gifts on the McCain campaign recently?

From the New York Times, “Not Quite Ready to Go Home” by Stephen Biddle, Michael O’Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack

The three authors have just returned from Iraq and are soberly analyzing the progress made and the road ahead:

Violence in Iraq declined because the key combatants were either defeated in the field or agreed to cease-fires. These cease-fires were not accidents or temporary breathing spells. They were a systematic response to a new strategic landscape created by 2006’s sectarian bloodletting, the American surge last summer, the defeat of Al Qaeda’s forces in Anbar Province and the decision by battered Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias that fighting no longer served their interests. The underlying strategic rationale behind these stand-downs gives reason to believe that they are sustainable rather than ephemeral.

But this does not make the peace inherently stable. Wary former combatants are constantly on the lookout for signs — real or imagined — that rivals mean to take advantage of them. The cease-fires, moreover, are extremely decentralized: more than 200 tribal and regional groups have reached individual agreements with the United States to stand down from fighting; in time, some will inevitably test the waters to see what they can get away with, or will misinterpret innocent behavior from neighbors as threatening and retaliate...

It would be tragic…to allow American haste and Iraqi political opportunism to undermine a real chance for long-term stability in Iraq. Perhaps an early withdrawal would succeed, and today’s system of cease-fires would survive a rapid United States drawdown. But much important work remains to be done in Iraq. And to believe that it can be done without the longer presence of a significant number of American combat troops requires a degree of optimism that could well end up making “Mission Accomplished” look as premature today as it was in 2003.

There has been great progress in Iraq, but the situation remains fluid. One of the most dispiriting things over the past 16 months has been the Democratic party’s utter inability to process changes on the Iraqi ground. Politically and intellectually wed to a “quagmire” scenario, the Democrats have been unable to move on (to coin a phrase). Barack Obama hasn’t been the biggest offender in this regard, but merely one of many Democrats who has seemed perversely determined to become living proof of Emerson’s maxim regarding the hobgoblin of little minds.

One could say “Know Hope!” and cling to the prayer that the troika of Obama, Reid and Pelosi will govern more responsibly and intelligently than they’ve indicated would be the case. Or one could recognize the reality that taking such a chance would be reckless.

One other note about the O’Hanlon/Pollack/Biddle column – normally, whenever these guys surface on a well read op-ed page, the left reflectively pitches a hissy fit. Today, so far anyway, there’s been silence. Their piece hasn’t even earned a mention on the Daily Kos front page.

Has the left lost all interest in Iraq? I spent the weekend on holiday in Kennebunkport. As fate would have it, the president was also in town for a family wedding. (Oddly, there were several “Welcome Mr. President!” signs and not a single “Welcome Mr. Barnett!” sign.) As is the ritual when the president visits Kennebunkport, protestors chanted their way to the massive estate at Walker’s Point to colorfully express their displeasure with all things Bush. When Bush last visited Kennebunkport roughly a year ago, over 2500 loons assembled in front of the Bush compound to chant “Jail to the Chief!” This past weekend, fewer than 50 protestors showed up to demand we get out of Iraq and “keep our hands off Iran.”

If even the lunatic fringe has moved on, perhaps Barack Obama can do the same. Know hope indeed.

From the New York Times, “How to Pick a V.P.” by William Kristol

The boss looks inside Team McCain’s veep selection process, and has them foreseeing four possible scenarios:

1. “We’re going to defeat Obama straight up.” That means Pawlenty or Portman, the two least controversial and most traditionally vice presidential candidates.

2. "We need to accentuate Obama’s key vulnerability — inexperience." That means Ridge or Romney, the two warhorses.

3. “Don’t fight the public desire for change; co-opt it”. That means Jindal or Palin (not to mention the end of alliteration), the two fresh but relatively unknown faces.

4. “The public is really sick of politics as usual in Washington.” (This scenario has McCain announcing not only that he’ll serve one term but that his running mate will do the same. Said running mate will therefore have no presidential ambitions but be able to help McCain govern. Names mentioned here include FedEx’s Fred Smith and EBay’s Meg Whitman.)

The boss says that the campaign staff gravitates to the safer picks, while McCain is intrigued by the wildcards. While I’m still scarred by 1988, I guess a wildcard could work. The problem is that rolling out a wildcard will require a good deal of organizational dexterity as well as a brutally honest assessment of what the wildcard nominee brings to the table. For instance, I’ve never seen Meg Whitman on TV. Will she inspire confidence as she fields Tom Brokaw’s inquiries? If the McCain campaign is considering going in that direction, it better get such questions right.

One other point about the fresh face: Fresh faces don’t stay fresh for long under the kind of spotlight candidates for national office have to endure.

From the New York Times, “McCain, the Analog Candidate” by Marc Leibovich

My former basketball teammate Leibovich* has written an enormously entertaining article on the technologically challenged Republican nominee:

“I don’t expect to set up my own blog,” he told the New York Times reporters Adam Nagourney and Michael Cooper. The Times has learned that Mr. McCain does not text, Treo or Twitter, either.

How would he possibly spend his time in the White House?

We joke, but the serious question — and one that has occupied many of the blogs and discussion groups that Mr. McCain does not partake of — is whether the computing habits of the presumptive Republican nominee should have any bearing at all on his fitness to be commander in chief…

While 73 percent of American adults use the Internet (only 35 percent 65 or older), according to a survey by the Pew Internet and American Life Project, it’s likely that many of them would rather have a president who can get Osama bin Laden than get online. And there is a common belief that says being president should be more a “vision” job than a “management” job, and that the clutter of a digital life can only distract from the Big Picture and Deep Thoughts a leader should be concerned with. In other words, would we really want a president “friending” from the Oval Office, scouring Wikipedia for information on Iran’s nuclear program or fielding e-mail from someone claiming to be “Nigerian general” seeking an American bank account for embezzled millions?

As a practical matter, probably not. Presidents can avoid using computers if they want to. That’s one of the privileges of the office. They are surrounded by a staff entrusted with keeping them plugged in, day and night.

Some McCain detractors think his relative unfamiliarity with the Google is a pretty big deal:

The “user experience,” Mr. Saffo said, brings with it an implicit understanding of how the country lives, and where it might be heading. As Mr. McCain would lack this, he would also be deficient in this broader appreciation for how technology affects lives…

“You don’t actually have to use a computer to understand how it shapes the country,” said Mark Soohoo, a McCain aide for online matters, at a conference on politics and technology. “You actually do,” interrupted Tracy Russo, a former blogger for John Edwards.

Far be it from me to disagree with a former Edwards campaign blogger, but actually, you don’t. You could understand the effect that the automobile has on our society even if you’re a blogger who bicycles to work. It just takes a little imagination along with the willingness to inform yourself.

Leibovich’s article makes reference to the infamous moment in the 1992 campaign when George H.W. Bush was beguiled by a supermarket price scanner. In Bush 41’s defense, he had been president or vice president for 12 years prior to that fateful day. When would he have had the opportunity to jaunt out to the market to pick up a loaf of bread?

The parallel to McCain is that presidents don’t interact with technology the way the rest of society does. A president likely won’t use computers the way most of us do anymore than he would use voicemail the rest of us do.

*I was 7, Leibovich was 9. We lost a heartbreaker in the finals. To the best of my recollection, Leibovich’s hairline had only barely begun to recede.

From BarackObama.com, “New Energy for America” by Barack Obama

Linked is the text to a “major address” that Obama gave today on energy policy. Just once, I would like a presidential candidate to give a minor address.

The context of the major address in question is full of big errors. First, note the characteristic Obama hyperbole that is becoming the annoying background noise to this campaign cycle:

We meet at a moment when this country is facing a set of challenges greater than any we've seen in generations…That is why this election could be the most important of our lifetime.

Here’s news for Obama - they say those things about every election. Even Bill Clinton spoke that way in 1996 when the biggest issue was how we were going get Midnight Basketball programs to sprout across the land.

On substantive matters, Obama spoke with His customary modesty:

Breaking our oil addiction is one of the greatest challenges our generation will ever face. It will take nothing less than a complete transformation of our economy. This transformation will be costly, and given the fiscal disaster we will inherit from the last Administration, it will likely require us to defer some other priorities.

It is also a transformation that will require more than just a few government programs. Energy independence will require an all-hands-on-deck effort from America - effort from our scientists and entrepreneurs; from businesses and from every American citizen. Factories will have to re-tool and re-design. Businesses will need to find ways to emit less carbon dioxide. All of us will need to buy more of the fuel-efficient cars built by this state, and find new ways to improve efficiency and save energy in our own homes and businesses.

Terrific. The guy who lacks a single day’s experience in the private sector is going to transform our entire economy. I feel so much better. I’m sure he has carefully calculated the costs of transforming the economy, and is comfortable with what the costs of such a transformation will do to those living on the economic margins.

One of many things Obama fails to understand is that economies don’t get transformed by diktat. George H.W. Bush didn’t declare in 1989 that we needed to transform the way we managed information. And if he had, Andy Grove, Bill Gates and Michael Dell would have told him to bug off.

The visionaries don’t go into government. The freedom of a market economy allows for the visionaries to innovate and transform. Government can at best give a helping hand on matters that require collective action. But if there’s money to be made in wind (which there is), the market will find it. Same thing with solar. Obama’s plans for ordering innovation, taxing windfall profits and subsidizing the purchases of hybrids are ridiculous and expensive sideshows.

And then there’s Obama’s pathetic and confusing straddle on offshore drilling. He derides the benefits that offshore drilling will provide as merely psychological. I know this might be an advanced concept for someone who’s never had more than a passing relationship with the free market economy, but the scarcity of oil contributes to its price. If that scarcity or future scarcity promises to be less dire, prices will go down. Think of it this way – if someone discovered several hundred metric tons of gold tomorrow, gold would instantly become worth much less even though it would take a while to shape the newfound gold into watches, jewels and other assorted baubles.

It’s interesting that Obama has responded to the political circumstances of the day by giving this major address. He rightly lamented that it took 30 years of government inaction to get to this crisis point, and mentioned that John McCain had been part of the government for 26 of those years, Touché. Still, He avoids mentioning the areas where government has done the most harm, namely its jihad against nuclear power and its various prohibitions on fully exploiting our indigenous resources. Why does He avoid mentioning such things? Because those are policies He'll perpetuate. What's more, Obama has been a senator for almost four years and running for president for almost two years. I don’t recall energy being a preoccupation of either Senator Obama or Candidate Obama until this past week.

That’s why His basic philosophy matters so much – issues will come up between now and 2012 that few people anticipate. Senator Judgment apparently thinks He can order the economy magically transformed, showing a faith in Hope/Change that borders on the religious.

UPDATE: Blogger Robert Stacy McCain (no relation) points out that Obama used the word "planet" eight times in today's speech. Such are the demands of being a citizen of the world.

From CBSNews.com, “O-Force One” by Allison O’Keefe

This story will really help Obama with all of those arrogant/presumptuous storylines that have burgeoned in recent days. Apparently, He has spent his bountiful campaign funds (donated in dribs and drabs by poor people!) on a campaign plane worthy of an airborne Sun King:

Barack Obama’s new campaign plane is nothing short of grand. Well, for the candidate that is.

Obama’s section of the plane rivals that of any first class. Recently the front cabin of the Boeing 757 was retrofitted to install four individual chairs that resemble La-Z-Boys. They are free-standing and made of plush leather with pockets on the sides. There is also a booth which seats four for a meeting or a meal.

His chair has his name and campaign logo embroidered on the back top -- “Obama ‘08” on one line and “President” underneath. To one side is a small table stacked with newspapers ready for the candidate’s arrival. The table of the booth is always covered in snacks and cheese and is where Obama spends most of his time during flights meeting with staff and sitting for the occasional interview.

“Typically the candidate's cabin is like business class -- roomier and less chaotic than the staff and press areas, but still short of the accoutrements of a pro team's charter,” says Politico’s Mike Allen, a frequent campaign flier.

After looking at a few photos of Obama’s cabin, Allen quipped, “Air Force One may seem a tad claustrophobic.”

I can already hear Obama defenders argue that we shouldn’t be wasting time on such distractions, and that instead we should be training our intellectual energy on substantive issues like trying to figure out what Obama’s position on off-shore drilling happens to be today. But Obama’s plane is part of a pattern that reflects on his character, and since when has a candidate’s character been a distraction? That whole line of argument is a little rich coming from the same people who tried to run against George W. Bush’s decades-old drunk driving conviction and his even older record in the Texas Air National Guard.

When I asked since when has character been off limits, I was asking rhetorically, but there happens to be an answer. Democrats don’t want to talk about character in a year in which John McCain is the Republican nominee. It’s not so much that McCain’s character is unassailable – Democrats are welcome to assail it all they want. But McCain happens to have a powerful answer to any character questions, an answer so powerful that his opponents would rather not discuss his character at all.

But just because Democrats don’t want to discuss McCain’s character doesn’t mean that the character of the inexperienced newcomer they’re handing their nomination to is off limits. Nor should it be.

From Rasmussen Reports, “Daily Presidential Tracking Poll” by Scott Rasmussen

Barack Obama’s "miraculous fortnight" continues! He now trails John McCain by one point. Yes, you read that right – the Maverick has surged into the lead. The most interesting findings:

A week ago today, Obama had a three-percentage point lead and the candidates were even among unaffiliated voters. Today, McCain leads 52% to 37% among unaffiliateds.

McCain is currently viewed favorably by 55% of the nation’s voters, Obama by 51%. That is the lowest rating for Obama since he wrapped up the nomination. Obama is viewed favorably by 83% of Democrats, 22% of Republicans, and 47% of unaffiliated voters.

Let the cries of “Swiftboating” begin!

It’s worth pondering how we have come to this point. The generic ballot still shows the Democrats boasting an impressive ten point lead, and Obama is supposed to be a magnificently attractive candidate. Meanwhile, the McCain campaign has yet to inspire although it did do some very fine things last week. So if Obama is such a great candidate and this is such a great year for Democrats, why is He now losing?

It all traces back to Obama’s global trek, the “miraculous fortnight” itself. Bill Kristol noted yesterday on Fox News Sunday that the origin of Obama’s woes could be found in his Berlin “weltburger” speech. As Allah wrote, when Obama spoke in Berlin, He “had a global audience; he could have said anything, used it to advance any cause or deliver any important message dear to his heart. And what he chose to do with his once-in-a-lifetime opportunity was … rewrite ‘We Are the World’ in prosaic prose decorated with ‘wall’ metaphors so pedestrian they would have embarrassed a fourth-grader.”

It’s a delicious irony. Words matter after all. Conservatives have been insisting for months that Obama not only has a slight résumé but an undefined political philosophy as well. It’s the latter aspect of the Obama phenomenon that is actually more disturbing. If Obama knew what he was talking about and had a solid sense of how he wanted to govern, an Obama administration wouldn’t seem like such a leap of faith. By delivering a speech in Germany that was so devoid of substance, Obama shined a beacon on his principal weakness not just as a politician but more importantly as a potential leader. Really now – is there anything Republicans could have done to better call attention to the meringue-like nature of the Obama campaign than have him deliver such an embarrassingly inconsequential speech while the nation and the world watched? Of course, the Berlin speech was worse than just substance-less and cliché ridden. Obama’s claim to global citizenship struck many Americans as just plain daffy if not offensive.

Some Obama defenders insist that the speech was a dexterous display of the possibilities of soft power. But the use of power, be it soft or hard, involves moving other parties. Obama didn’t even try to move other parties, in this case 200,000 German parties. He was instead content basking in their adulation.

So where do we go from here? Right now, the campaign’s focus is on Obama’s weak suits. On his remarkable (for all the wrong reasons) appearance on Fox News Sunday yesterday, Tom Daschle at one point said that what Obama meant by his “currency” comment was that He has a “different résumé” than past presidents. That’s for sure. Most presidential candidates have had greater and more recent accomplishments than a terrific GPA in law school. And then there’s the increasing scrutiny going to Obama’s sense of self-satisfaction.

This will remain a dreadful year for Republicans, and the McCain campaign will have the unhappy task of running into a stiff headwind all season. But this campaign at its heart remains Obama vs. Not Obama. And Not Obama is developing momentum.

1) From the Washington Post, “The Curious Mind of John McCain” by Robert G. Kaiser

A couple of days ago, we glanced at a Jonathan Chait column that whined about the way Democratic general election candidates are always labeled flip-floppers. Well, today it’s the Republicans’ chance to whine. Every presidential election since 1976, the press has determined that the Republican candidate is less intelligent than his big-brained Democratic opponent. The Republicans who got away with such a simple comparison were the lucky ones. Others like both Bushes and Ronald Reagan were lampooned as dunderheads.

The narrative never really fit. The first blog post I ever wrote that anyone other than Mickey Kaus noticed posited that John Kerry wasn’t so bright. I based this conclusion on his failure to get into Harvard Law School in spite of his undergrad degree from Yale and his impressive pedigree as a war hero cum war protestor. I argued that only his grades at Yale could account for his strange failure to attend Harvard Law, and concluded that his grades had to be so dreadful they could accurately be labeled “sub-Bushian.” You should have seen the hate mail I received.

The media preferred the narrative regarding Kerry’s intellect that Howell Raines peddled. Raines, then the recently deposed editor of the New York Times, said in a 2004 op-ed piece, “Does anyone in America doubt that Kerry has a higher IQ than Bush? I'm sure the candidates' SATs and college transcripts would put Kerry far ahead.” When Kerry released his transcripts in 2005 long after his national ambitions had been extirpated, his grades turned out to indeed be sub-Bushian. Naturally, every single lefty who wrote me a piece of hate mail regarding my blog post wrote a subsequent letter to apologize and Howell Raines publicly acknowledged his error and conceded that respectable journalists shouldn’t substitute biased speculation for actual knowledge. At least that’s how I like to picture our noble friends on the left.

Anyway, today the Washington Post puts John McCain’s brain under its microscope. Marc Ambinder a short while ago referred to Barack Obama’s “talented, incredible gift of a mind.” Obama’s no dummy, but any evidence of Obama being an original or particularly insightful thinker is hard to find. Regardless, Ambinder certainly won’t be drawing the same conclusion after reading this glib Post exposé on McCain’s intellect. The “curious mind” sobriquet in the story’s title doesn’t sound nearly as impressive as a “talented, incredible gift of a mind.”

And thus, the Post continues an ignoble tradition – the facile and knee-jerk conclusion that the Democratic candidate is always the smarter one.

2) From the Wall Street Journal, “Too Fit to be President” by Amy Chozick

The Journal speculates that Obama’s physical fitness may make him unfit for office, or at least unfit to win the election:

In a nation in which 66% of the voting-age population is overweight and 32% is obese, could Sen. Obama's skinniness be a liability? Despite his visits to waffle houses, ice-cream parlors and greasy-spoon diners around the country, his slim physique just might have some Americans wondering whether he is truly like them.

The candidate has been criticized by opponents for appearing elitist or out of touch with average Americans. A Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll conducted in July shows Sen. Obama still lags behind Republican John McCain among white men and suburban women who say they can't relate to his background or perceived values.

"He's too new ... and he needs to put some meat on his bones," says Diana Koenig, 42, a housewife in Corpus Christi, Texas, who says she voted for Sen. Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary.

"I won't vote for any beanpole guy," another Clinton supporter wrote last week on a Yahoo politics message board.

There was a time when Barack Obama seemed a cinch to win the beer primary. That was before He showed the amazing ability to actually make even Hillary Clinton seem lovable. Personally, as a fellow 40-something fitness nut, I admire Obama’s discipline and commitment in this area. It’s a sign of how poorly He’s wearing that even His strengths are becoming liabilities.

Which reminds me – today’s Gallup tracking poll shows things all tied up. Five days ago, Obama had a nine point lead.

3) From BarackObama.com, “My Desperate Plan to Pander to Voters and Ruin the Economy” by Barack Obama

Obama has released a stimulus plan! In it, He will tax the “windfall profits” of oil companies and demand they “share” their booty with the American public. The sharing will result in stimulus checks of $500 for every worker or $1000 for every family. See, there is such a thing as a free ride – just target the oil companies!

In regards to the plan, the word “simplistic” springs to mind. One wonders whether Obama knows that Exxon Mobil is not in fact owned by the greedy pair of Mr. Exxon and Mr. Mobil but rather by millions of stockholders, including virtually every citizen with an interest in a mutual fund or a pension fund. It would be fun to see how CALPERS (for instance) would react if President Obama became serious about diminishing the value of their portfolio.

The other word that springs to mind regarding the plan is “demagoguery.” There was a time in this election when John McCain conceded he didn’t know much about economics. With the release of this plan, Barack Obama has essentially screamed, “Me too! Doubly so!!”

4) From The Blog, “McCain Campaign: Bill Clinton a ‘Force for Good’ on Race” by Stephen F. Hayes

Hayes rightly calls this a stunner. As for me, I wish I could say I was stunned but I’m not. The McCain campaign and a potential McCain campaign administration will consistently show a genius for finding common ground with political opponents in a manner that will make conservatives furious. McCain has rather perfected this habit over the years, and we knew of it long before we made him our nominee.

A while back, I suggested the best way for conservatives to think of John McCain would be as a sort of better version of Joe Lieberman – right on foreign policy, wrong on many other things. Unlike Lieberman, McCain holds the conservative position on many issues, but we should look at those instances as happy bonuses.

Tell the truth - if the general election were between Joe Lieberman and Barack Obama, it would make for an easy decision in the voting booth, right?

5) From the Boston Globe, “Going, Going, Gone” by Dan Shaughnessy

On the Boston local news last night, the broadcast featured a father and his young son who were so appalled by the Red Sox unloading Manny Ramirez that they made their way to the nearest sporting goods store and stocked up on Yankee paraphernalia. Mercifully, such knuckleheads are in a startlingly small minority. Manny Ramirez is the greatest right-handed hitter in the history of the Red sox franchise, and hardly anyone in Boston is going to miss him. Yes, it’s true – his act had grown that tired. Manny was perhaps the most pathetically self-involved professional athlete in Boston sports history.

Tonight, the Red Sox can resume their march on their third championship in five seasons, finally unencumbered by their mercurial slugger whose strange moods held the franchise hostage. Look for Manny’s former teammates in Boston to soon begin singing regarding what a headache Manny was. Curt Schilling’s always entertaining blog will be a good site to check in on, especially if the Big Lug ever gets around to updating it.

1) From SlateV.com, “Leave Obama Alone” by Christopher Beam (Please see update below)

This is a first in Required Reading history – Required Viewing! Before diligently completing your assignment, be forewarned: Those pretend whiny Obama supporters can be a salty bunch. There is obscenity in the clip below. If that kind of thing won’t fly in your workplace, you’ll have to wait until you get home to watch it.

As funny and over-the-top as the video is, it crystallizes several important things about the Obama candidacy. It’s not just that people have finally found a way to laugh at Barack Obama. As regular readers of this site know, we cracked that code months ago. But what this clip does is bring together all the parody-worthy elements of the Obama phenomenon. The ridiculous devotion of His followers, His scandalous lack of accomplishments, His and His campaign’s hypersensitivity – they’re all there.

Most noteworthy is the comedy value that the swooning Obama supporter brings to the table. The Obama campaign rests on a foundation of irrational devotion. As I pointed out yesterday, several people who should know better, including conservatives like Andrew Sullivan and Doug Kmiec, have made Barack Obama the vessel for their hopes and dreams. This was never a rational decision, and as the meringue-like solidity of the Obama campaign becomes ever more obvious, that foundation has the potential to crumble.

One last word about negative campaigning, specifically Barack Obama’s reaction to negative campaigning. During the general election season, Obama surrogates have suggested that John McCain is senile and minimized his military service in a serial fashion. Somehow John McCain carried on without whining over these attacks. And yet now the Obama campaign is driven over a mental ledge when a satirical ad compares its hero to Paris Hilton? As Captain Ed Morrissey said on another occasion regarding Obama’s paper thin skin, get a helmet, Buttercup.

UPDATE: I have been informed that the star of this video is doing a voiceover of a talented young gentleman named Chris Crocker who previously starred in the viral video, "Leave Britney Alone." I apologize for my pop culture ignorance.

2) From the Wall Street Journal, “Is John McCain Stupid?” by Daniel Henninger

As the title of this column suggests, Henninger is a little peeved at John McCain:

Is John McCain losing it?

On Sunday, he said on national television that to solve Social Security "everything's on the table," which of course means raising payroll taxes. On July 7 in Denver he said: "Senator Obama will raise your taxes. I won't."

This isn't a flip-flop. It's a sex-change operation.

He got back to the subject Tuesday in Reno, Nev. Reporters asked about the Sunday tax comments. Mr. McCain replied, "The worst thing you could do is raise people's payroll taxes, my God!" Then he was asked about working with Democrats to fix Social Security, and he repeated, "everything has to be on the table." But how can . . .? Oh never mind.

Yesterday he was in Aurora, Colo., to wit: "On Social Security, he [Sen. Obama] wants to raise Social Security taxes. I am opposed to raising taxes on Social Security. I want to fix the system without raising taxes."

What I'm asking is, does John McCain have the mental focus, the intellectual discipline, to avoid being out-slicked by Barack Obama, if he isn't abandoned by his own voters?

It's not just taxes. Recently the subject came up of Al Gore's assertion that the U.S. could get its energy solely from renewables in 10 years. Sen. McCain said: "If the vice president says it's doable, I believe it's doable." What!!?? In a later interview, Mr. McCain said he hadn't read "all the specifics.”

My many critics, please take note: What’s about to come will mark the second time in one day that I’ve defended John McCain. Here’s what people have to understand about John McCain: There are some issues he cares passionately about. Among those issues are the most vital ones, namely those involving national security matters. On such matters, you can count on John McCain to fight like a pit-bull but with much more ferocity.

On virtually everything else, John McCain’s style of leadership is to try to get things done. And that means compromise. Some of those compromises like his notorious one on immigration reform will drive conservatives nuts. But McCain is what he is, and he’s also the only candidate in this race who realizes a national security plan requires more than spewing a lot of One World gibberish on a global tour.

So when McCain expresses what seems to be agnosticism on everything ranging from the environment to payroll taxes, take him at his word. A McCain administration will likely bring a lot of agita to American conservatives. (Good news thought for the makers of Prilosec, the sole known cure for agita.) But conflating the trademark McCain willingness to reach out to the other side with stupidity is unfair.

With his plea for “intellectual discipline,” though, Henninger occupies more solid ground. Candidate McCain long ago developed the habit of freelancing. This was fine when he was riding the Straight Talk Express in 2000 with but a handful of worshipful media types in tow, all eager to play his Boswell. The senator is playing a bigger room now, and he has to sharpen up. If that means he has to cut back on his beloved spontaneity, so be it.

3) From the Wall Street Journal, “Obama’s Iraq Fumble” by Karl Rove

Someone has to say it, so it might as well be me. When Karl Rove first started writing for Newsweek and appearing on Fox News, he was an exciting presence. He was full of fresh insights, and given his pedigree you had to listen to what Rove said.

Now, several months later, Rove is mailing it in. In today’s WSJ column, Rove focuses on Obama skipping Landstuhl and His apparent inability to admit a mistake. Yes, Rove is correct that these are major stories, but the stories and his insights regarding them are both nearly a week old. The column has all the freshness of a chewed piece of Wonder Bread.

It wouldn’t be fair if I left you with the impression that Rove is somehow deficient as an op-ed columnist. I’m always amazed at how many op-ed columns address topics that high end news gatherers had worn out days earlier. So by a more lenient measure, Rove’s effort is par for the course. But Rove is arguably the most accomplished political strategist of the past quarter century. He has more to offer than insights that even Joe Klein might have previously stumbled over.

4) From the L.A. Times, “Obama’s Best Strategy? Attack” by Jonathan Chait

This is the second time I’m recommending a Chait column in as many days. It’s also the second consecutive day I’m recommending a Chait column for the specific purpose of showing how blinkered Obama supporters can be:

Negative ads work better than positive ads. In focus groups, voters insist they hate negative ads, because that sounds virtuous. Yet studies show the negative advertisements are the ones they remember.

To go on the attack, Obama doesn't need to engage in character assassination and baseless charges, as his opponent has done. All he needs to do is stop letting McCain paint a wildly distorted self-portrait. The Arizona senator wants voters to see him as a maverick who never changes positions for political reasons. One ad touts the way he bucked Bush on the environment. It doesn't mention that McCain has abandoned the climate-change bill he co-sponsored, demanded wider drilling and a gas-tax holiday that would undermine the goal of burning less fossil fuel, and started raking in huge sums from oil companies.

I hate to burst Chait’s bubble regarding the lily-clean purity of the Obama campaign, but the Obama campaign has indeed attacked. As I mentioned earlier, His surrogates have steadily suggested that John McCain is senile. They have also minimized McCain’s military service. There’s also the flip-flopping charge that Obama and His surrogates have habitually lobbed at McCain. And then just yesterday, Obama Himself dipped his big toe into the vile pool of negative campaigning, implying that the McCain campaign and its supporters were a bunch of closet racists who soon enough would let their true colors show.

So Chait should be happy – these are attacks. What should make Chait unhappy is that they are spectacularly ineffective attacks. The personal attacks have been laughable. The flip-flopping ones had a juvenile I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I quality to them. And the most recent charge of raaacism is about a thousand times more likely to backfire on Obama than to help Him.

There’s a point to negative advertising that eludes Chait, at least as far as John McCain is concerned. The reason negative campaigning worked so well against the likes of John Kerry and Michael Dukakis is because they were unknown quantities. Effective negative campaigning came to define them for the American public.

There’s a problem applying this strategy to John McCain. As the Obama campaign has pointed out on numerous occasions, McCain is not a young man. Indeed, he has been an American political fixture since the earth cooled. In other words, John McCain has defined himself. But if the Obama campaign wants to waste some of its limitless resources on attacking McCain and in the process sullying its candidate’s pristine image, I wish them happy hunting.

5) From ESPN.com, “Ramirez Traded to Dodgers in Three-way Deal” by some guy

Let me be the first to say on behalf of Red Sox Nation – our long national nightmare is over. Manny Ramirez can go be Manny for some other unsuspecting team who thinks they’re merely getting one of the greatest sluggers ever. Yes, the Dodgers are getting that, but they are also getting one of the most frustrating talents ever to play the game. And they’re going to drop him into the middle of a pennant race.

Good luck to the Dodgers. For me, for the first time in almost eight years, it is now once again safe to watch the Red Sox without risking a coronary.

BONUS! A quote of the day from Lindsey Graham: ”Somebody asked me about (Obama in) Germany. I said, ‘There goes Germany. We're going to have to get to 270 without Germany.’”

1) From Gallup.com, “Presidential Race Tightens to 4 Points” by some guy who works for Gallup

The Ego has landed! A mere three days ago, Barack Obama sat comfortably perched atop a nine point lead in the Gallup tracking poll. Now it’s down to four. Rasmussen shows an even tighter race. In Rasmussen’s tracking numbers, Obama’s six point lead of four days ago has shrunk to two. And let’s not forget the notorious Gallup non-tracking poll which showed McCain with a four point lead. True, that one was an obvious outlier and as responsible analysts we should ignore the outliers. But the big picture is obvious – Barack Obama’s lead is a slim one.

So what gives? If you think I’m about to slip in a peroration on the effectiveness of the McCain campaign, think again. Regarding the McCain operation, the most charity I’m capable of is that as much as the outfit has struggled, it’s still right in the thick of things. Imagine if they get their act together.

Obama’s relative misfortunes are his own doing. Yesterday I was having a conversation with a friend, a fellow conservative who as it turns out has traveled the same political journey the last several months that I have. At the start of the year, both of us found Barack Obama a very attractive candidate. Neither us would have considered voting for him because of his reflexive and dangerous dovishness (among other problems), but his personal decency and his call for national unity were appealing.

Six months later, the thrill is gone. The simple fact is Barack Obama doesn’t wear well. The more most people see of him, the less they like. This phenomenon has much to do with his lack of substance. Calling for nice things like unity, whether in Boston or Berlin, is a swell thing. (Did you like the way I worked in some Obama-style alliteration there?) But the endless repetition of the call unaccompanied by a substantive plan of action eventually grates. After a while, the whole Hope/Change thing begins to sound like empty rhetoric.

And then you have Obama’s ego. If ever there was a presidential candidate who had cause to be modest, it’s Barack Obama. By presidential aspirant levels, he has accomplished virtually nothing of significance in his life. And then there’s the disquieting fact that we’re not exactly talking about Bob Casey Jr. here – where Senator Casey Jr. has no discernible talents, Obama is a highly intelligent and gifted guy. And what has he done with his life?

The longer and closer you pay attention to Barack Obama, the more concerning these things become. And I’m not just talking about the reaction of conservatives. I implore you to read the lefty blogs. Their lack of enthusiasm for Obama is almost as marked as their opposite numbers’ lack of excitement for McCain.

Here’s some free strategic advice for the Obama campaign – acknowledge that your guy doesn’t wear well and won’t wear well. His substance-free style of politicking eventually frustrates a fair share of the electorate, and his self-regard reaches a tipping point when a level of over-exposure is reached. The obvious solution is to amp down the rock star aspects of the Obama campaign.

Problem is, being a rock star seems to be Obama’s favorite part of the process.

2) From the New York Times, “Teaching Law, Testing Ideas, Obama Stood Apart” by Jodi Kantor

Apparently having nothing newsworthy to print today, the Grey Lady ran this extended appreciation of Barack Obama’s days as a lecturer (not a Professor) at the University of Chicago Law School. Guess what? His students loved him. I’m not surprised. As I’ve written many times, the people who went to law school with him sing the same tune regardless of their current political orientation – they all adore him. By all accounts on a personal level, Barack Obama is a swell guy.

If he were running to be my next door neighbor rather than president, he’d have my vote (especially since John McCain seems like he could be highly irritable if I hit a whiffle ball into his yard). But the presidency involves more than personal affability and charm. So why am I linking this meaningless story? I don’t expect you to follow the link – indeed, I’ll be angry if you do. I may even track down your ISP and send you an angry email. But I still wanted to call Professor Richard Epstein’s characteristically cogent assessment of his semi-colleague to your attention:

“I don’t think anything that went on in these chambers affected him,” said Richard Epstein, a libertarian colleague who says he longed for Mr. Obama to venture beyond his ideological and topical comfort zones. “His entire life, as best I can tell, is one in which he’s always been a thoughtful listener and questioner, but he’s never stepped up to the plate and taken full swings.”

That’s our Barry, no?

3) From The New Republic, “Cartoon Character” by Jonathan Chait

Chait asks the nearly existential question:

Why is the Democratic candidate always a flip-flopper? John Kerry, as everybody remembers, came to be defined almost exclusively as a flip-flopper. (A 2004 Wall Street Journal news article described him as "a politician with a troublesome reputation for trying to have it both ways.")

Al Gore was relentlessly attacked by Republicans for his alleged waffling. ("Mr. Gore has a bit of a reputation for flip-flopping and corner-cutting," reported The New York Times in 2000.) Bill Clinton was attacked by George H.W. Bush for "turn[ing] the White House into a Waffle House" and the subject of a famous Time cover story titled, "Why Voters Don't Trust Bill Clinton."

Chait’s answer to why every Democrat is a flip-flopper?

In the late 1980s, the popular revolt against government that had bubbled up in the mid-'60s began to peter out, sapping the power of straightforward anti-government appeals. And, starting in 1992, Democrats ruthlessly purged nearly all their political liabilities by embracing anti-crime measures, welfare reform, and middle-class tax cuts, and, more recently, by abandoning gun control. What's left is a political terrain generally favorable to Democrats, which has, in turn, forced Republicans to emphasize the personal virtue of their nominees.

Or maybe the answer is simpler than Chait posits. First of all, Bill Clinton wasn’t typecast as a flip-flopper. A fraud? Check. A pathological liar? Yessir. But not a flip-flopper. Clinton had a well articulated and consistent political philosophy both times he ran for president. For instance, in both campaigns he promised to deliver tax relief to the long-suffering middle class that “worked hard and played by the rules.” Of course, he completely ignored those campaign promises when the elections were over. Attacking him as a flip-flopper wouldn’t have made any sense, especially since the fabulist attack had such a solid basis in reality. It’s nice that Chait was able to produce that undated Bush 41 quote, but Republicans generally did not go after Clinton as a flip-flopper.

Not so much for Al Gore either, even though Gore underwent a startling transformation when he headed the ticket in 2000. The erstwhile southern moderate metamorphosed into a shrieking, angry populist when he sewed up his party’s nomination. As Jay Cost might say, this was a meta-flip-flop. And yet the charge of flip-floppery was not commonly heard in 2000. Instead, Gore’s general strangeness and unappealing nature, two things vastly amplified by his bizarre performance in the first general election debate, proved more fertile ground.

As for Kerry and Obama, it’s true they have been the targets of the flip-flop charge. As I’ve said many times, this is unfair – both men are in fact straddlers. But semantics aside, such charges are made because they have a solid basis in reality, a possibility that Chait doesn’t seriously countenance before going on to suggest that John McCain is the real flip-flopper.

A brief prediction: If Mitt Romney should join McCain on the Republican ticket, Chait will find the whole flip-flopping issue suddenly far more germane.

4) From the Wall Street Journal, “From Gitmo to Miranda, With Love” by Debra Burlingame

Burlingame’s brother died in the 9/11 attack, and she has watched in horror as the American left has rallied to the cause of the Gitmo detainees:

The poem, "To My Captive Lawyer, Miranda," was written by Abdullah Saleh Al-Ajmi while he was a detainee at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. No doubt, it would have given the former detainee, who was released in 2005, immense satisfaction to know that his last earthly deed was referenced in Justice Antonin Scalia's dissenting opinion in Boumediene v. Bush. That's the recent Supreme Court decision that gave Guantanamo detainees the constitutional right to challenge, in habeas corpus proceedings, whether they were properly classified by the military as enemy combatants.

Al-Ajmi, a 29-year-old Kuwaiti, blew himself up in one of several coordinated suicide attacks on Iraqi security forces in Mosul this year. Originally reported to have participated in an April attack that killed six Iraqi policemen, a recent martyrdom video published on a password-protected al Qaeda Web site indicates that Al-Ajmi carried out the March 23 attack on an Iraqi army compound in Mosul. In that attack, an armored truck loaded with an estimated 5,000 to 10,000 pounds of explosives rammed through a fortified gate, overturned vehicles in its path and exploded in the center of the compound. The huge blast ripped the façade off three apartment buildings being used as barracks, killing 13 soldiers from the 2nd Iraqi Army division and seriously wounding 42 others.

Using the name "Abu Juheiman al-Kuwaiti," Al-Ajmi is seen on the video brandishing an automatic rifle, singing militant songs and exhorting his fellow Muslims to pledge their allegiance to the "Commander of the Faithful" in Iraq. Later, Al-Ajmi's face is superimposed over the army compound, followed by footage of the massive explosion and still shots of several dead bodies lying next to the 25-foot crater left by the blast.

In 2006, Al-Ajmi's "Miranda" poem was included in a recitation of detainee poetry at a "Guantanamo teach-in" sponsored by Seton Hall Law School. The all-day event was Webcast live to 400 colleges and law schools across the country and abroad.

Here in a nutshell is what makes the left’s attack on Gitmo so galling. Attacking the detention center as somehow un-American or unconstitutional or unwise is fine and in bounds. I disagree with such attacks, but consider them in good faith. But why have so many members of the left felt the need to declare solidarity with the Al-Ajmi’s of the world, wannabe killers who despise our way of life and no doubt chortle at the useful idiots who celebrate their poetry and facilitate their murderous plans?

Read Ms. Burlingame’s entire article. Please.

5) From HotAir.com, “New McCain Ad: Celeb” by the Allahpundit.

Here’s the ad:

It’s clever. Predictably, the Obama campaign has responded with its characteristic lightness of heart and good natured bonhomie:

On a day when major news organizations across the country are taking Senator McCain to task for a steady stream of false, negative attacks, his campaign has launched yet another. Or, as some might say, 'Oops! He did it again.' Our dependence on foreign oil is one of the greatest challenges we face.

In this election the American people have a real choice -- between Obama's plan to provide tax rebates to American families while creating a renewable energy economy in America that frees us from our dependence on foreign oil, and Senator McCain's plan to continue the same failed energy policies by handing out nearly $4 billion in tax breaks to oil companies while investing almost nothing in the new energy sources that represent our future.

Stop it! I’m laughing so hard, my sides hurt!

In his post on the subject, Allah wonders why, unlike the McCain campaign, all of Obama’s ads have been so dull and forgettable. Perhaps it’s because the Obama campaign has taken on the true personality of its candidate – both have become drearily self-righteous bores.

1) From the Politico, “Ted Stevens indicted on 7 Counts” by Martin Kady II and John Bresnahan

As they say up in Alaska, oy gevalt. At least that’s what they say up there in a Michael Chabon novel. Anyway, the Republican party has a new poster boy for the 2008 election. He’s an 84 year-old whose alleged turn-ons include accepting petty gifts without disclosing them.

You know what really grates about this scandal? The almost absurd pettiness. Ted Stevens allegedly compromised his country, his high office and his party for $250,000 worth of “things of value” including a Viking stove. Viking stoves are nice, but when a big-thinker like LBJ used his office for personal gain, he walked away from the dealings a rich man.

Over at the Daily Kos, they are of course hanging the metaphorical bunting to greet this news. The fact that Stevens is up for reelection does not diminish their joy. Or does it? Kos rightly points out that Stevens was an endangered incumbent to begin with. Assuming Stevens does the right thing and falls on his sword (or puts his head in his Viking range to use a more appropriate metaphor) any time up to 48 days before his election, the Republicans can replace him on the ballot. And of course, he hasn't won the nomination yet.

Long story short? Sarah Palin looks good anywhere she goes, but she would look especially good in the United States Senate.

2) From the Washington Post, “Known Unknowns About Obama” by Richard Cohen

Cohen has belatedly discovered that Barack Obama is a man of few accomplishments. One wonders how Cohen finally arrived at this breathtaking conclusion. Has he been attending remedial pundits’ school? Here’s the introduction:

"Just tell me one thing Barack Obama has done that you admire," I asked a prominent Democrat. He paused and then said that he admired Obama's speech to the Democratic convention in 2004. I agreed. It was a hell of a speech, but it was just a speech.

On the other hand, I continued, I could cite four or five actions -- not speeches -- that John McCain has taken that elicit my admiration, even my awe.

Nice. Now here’s a middle passage:

Obama is often likened to John F. Kennedy. It makes sense. He has the requisite physical qualities -- handsome, lean, etc. -- plus wit, intelligence, awesome speaking abilities and a literary bent. He also might be compared to Franklin D. Roosevelt for many of those same qualities. Both FDR and JFK were disparaged early on by their contemporaries for, I think, doing the difficult and making it look easy. Eleanor Roosevelt, playing off the title of Kennedy's Pulitzer Prize-winning book, airily dismissed him as more profile than courage. Similarly, it was Walter Lippmann's enduring misfortune to size up FDR and belittle him: Roosevelt, he wrote, was "a pleasant man who, without any important qualifications for office, would very much like to be president." Lippmann later recognized that he had underestimated Roosevelt.

You can see the column went downhill rather sharply. Anyway, let’s play Cohen’s game and “compare” Candidate Obama to Candidate FDR in regards to actual accomplishments, the intellectual software that Cohen trotted out at the start of the column. I must have missed the four years when Obama served as governor of the country’s most populous state. Or the time when Obama served as a wartime Assistant Secretary of the Navy. Even more importantly, what has Obama done that shows the character FDR displayed in overcoming his polio-induced paralysis? Yup, Cohen nails it – Obama and FDR are practically two peas in a pod.

I single out the FDR comparison because Cohen is to my knowledge the first columnist sufficiently obtuse to draw such a parallel. Cohen is on much safer albeit more clichéd grounds when he likens Obama to JFK. But if you challenged someone in 1960 to name one thing that JFK had done that was worthy of admiration, you’d get an answer. His war heroics might have come up. Or his distinguished 12 years in congress. Or the Pulitzer Prize winning book that he sort of wrote. (Okay, he only commissioned it, but that’s the next best thing.) And yet Cohen wants us to take the FDR and JFK comparisons seriously enough so he can conclude with this inscrutable passage:

The next president will have to be something of a political Superman, a man of steel who can tell the American people that they will have to pay more for less -- higher taxes, lower benefits of all kinds -- and deal in an ugly way when nuclear weapons seize the imagination of madmen.

The question I posed to that prominent Democrat was just my way of thinking out loud. I know that Barack Obama is a near-perfect political package. I'm still not sure, though, what's in it.

Take it from one who knows – that last paragraph is an example of brilliant polemicizing. Any time you leave the reader scratching his head and grunting “Huh?” you’ve done your job well.

3) From the Captain’s Journal, “The Surge” by Herschel Smith

As you know, the left’s latest talking point is the Surge was indeed wonderful, but all the good stuff that’s happened in Iraq since the Surge basically would have happened anyway. Twisting themselves into this intellectual pretzel is the only way the left can simultaneously minimize the surge in Iraq while insisting on the necessity of a surge in Afghanistan.

Among those peddling this risibly counterfactual rubbish is Barack Obama advisor Professor Colin Kahl who has written, “In short, contrary to the Bush administration’s claims, the Awakening began before the surge and was driven in part by Democratic pressure to withdraw.” Democratic pressure – is there anything it can’t do? Too bad our Democrats in congress won’t put some of their vaunted pressure on gas prices, no?

I strongly encourage you to read Herschel Smith’s wonderful takedown of this latest Democratic fad.

4) From the New York Post, “O’s Tour De Farce” by Amir Taheri

Please also note the wonderful subtitle: “Photo ops and Fecklessness.”

Taheri doesn’t break any new ground with this piece, but he does return the focus to where it should be – Barack Obama’s almost stunning indifference to winning in Iraq:

Iraqis were most surprised by Obama's apparent readiness to throw away all the gains made in Iraq simply to prove that he'd been right in opposing the 2003 overthrow of Saddam Hussein. "He gave us the impression that the last thing he wanted was for Iraq to look anything like a success for the United States," a senior Iraqi official told me. "As far as he is concerned, this is Bush's war and must end in lack of success, if not actual defeat."

Okay, that view suggests not just indifference to winning, but actual hostility to victory. When John McCain said last week that Obama preferred losing a war in order to win a campaign, the phony outrage industry went into overdrive. “Scurrilous!” bellowed Joe Klein and other similarly scandalized media bigfoots.

In retrospect, I would label McCain’s comments not scurrilous but misguided. By attacking Obama’s good faith, McCain ventured into the realm of the unsupportable. Better to have remained (and now to return) to what can be proven – Barack Obama is sufficiently indifferent to victory in Iraq that he’s not willing to bear any burden in order to prevail there.

If Obama wants to argue that Iraq is unimportant and America should turn its back on the victory we are now almost able to claim, let’s have that argument. More likely, Obama will argue that his plan – full and rapid retreat – is actually a plan for victory. Assuming he makes that case, the McCain people can still get him on the hypothetical level. As we’ve seen, savvy media commentators like Richard Cohen often liken Obama to John F. Kennedy. Kennedy was perhaps best known for not only promising to “bear any burden” for freedom, but walking the walk as well. Asking Barack Obama what burdens he would bear in order to win in Iraq will eventually evidence a curt answer that lies beneath all the soaring rhetoric – none.

5) From the Wall Street Journal, “Thx for the IView! I Wud ♥ to Work 4 U!! ;)” by Sarah Needleman

The kids aren’t alright. As the Wall Street Journal reports, they can be a bunch of dolts. Many young-ish job seekers have substituted overly familiar text messaging for the traditional thank you notes people used to send after a job interview. The interviewers have not been amused.

Looking for a job is a lot like running for office – you have to shore up your weaknesses. If you’re a young person, maturity is going to be the big issue that potential employers are going to be wary of. Thus, a young person on the job prowl will want to dress himself or herself in traditional garb for the interview and avoid any overly youthful references like talking about the great Rave he attended last weekend.

In politics, it’s the same way. If you have an office-seeker who has a thin résumé, he can’t ever risk coming across like he doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Hence Barack Obama’s refusal to admit error even when he obviously blew it like he did on the surge.

Come on kids – be more like Obama!

1) From the Horse Race Blog, “On Obama’s Message” by Jay Cost

The always cogent Cost does a magnificent job laying out Barack Obama’s meta-narrative:

Obama's organization is built around a faulty, occasionally absurd meta-narrative.

A meta-narrative is just a campaign's central message, the core claim that connects all of the campaign's assertions. It communicates the candidate's diagnosis of the country and his prescription for the future. Bill Clinton had a great one in 1992: generational change can invigorate a tired government and grow a sagging economy. Clinton's outfit consistently reinforced this narrative. From the campaign theme, to the selection of Al Gore as running mate, to "It's the economy, stupid" - it made sure people knew his core claim.

Obama's narrative should be similar to Clinton's. It's tailor-made for a year like this and a man like Obama. But that is not the Obama campaign's message. Its message seems to be: this great man will unify a divided America around himself…

Early in his candidacy, Obama's narrative was very different. He was a candidate mobilizing the public in a social movement for the sake of the common good. This was a good message - but because of his campaign's grandiose rhetoric and imagery, it has been displaced. Obama no longer seems like the humble mobilizer, working to unite people around the common good. Instead, he often seems like the goal of the mobilization itself.

You’ll have to read the whole thing, but I especially want to salute Cost for making the perspicacious comparison between Clinton and Obama. Like Obama, Clinton in '92 hit the change thing hard. But Barbara Jordan was able to ask repeatedly at the Democratic National Convention that year in regards to all the change talk, “From what to what?” because Clinton, bless his heart, never skimped on the specifics. In 1992, Clinton had so many multi-point plans that many of us played a parlor game at home called “Guess the Acronym” that tried to figure out what acronym he used to remember all of his boring talking points. Later, as president, Clinton became the master of the two hour State of the Union address. The SOTUs had to be so long because Clinton larded them with minutiae ranging from how long he would require a woman to stay in the hospital after giving birth to the particulars of his midnight basketball program.

The Obama campaign rolls differently, obviously figuring specifics are boring and so last millennium. On the rare occasions when Obama tries to put some flesh on his Hope/Change skeleton, the specifics are so vague as to be essentially meaningless. For instance, Obama assures us that in an Obama administration, all seniors will henceforth retire with dignity. I guess from a policy perspective this has something to do with social security, but specifically what it has to do with social security is unknowable. All of Obama’s big promises – from “provid(ing)care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless” to “slowing the rise of the oceans and healing the planet” – are maddeningly devoid of specific policy implications. Indeed, Obama’s entire agenda is more a wish list than a plan for action.

I know I may be coming across as a frustrated conservative in talking this way, angry that Obama has so far managed to pull one over on the electorate. But those aren’t my feelings at all. Barack Obama is the most ideologically agnostic candidate for president we’ve had since George H. W. Bush. Bush 41 thought he should be at the center of things because of his personal skill set. Obama feels the same way. Many people consider Obama a far left liberal. While he may tend to the liberal side of things just as Bush 41 tended to the conservative side of things, he subscribes to no consistent political orthodoxy.

So what kind of policies will we get in an Obama administrations? As we’ve seen with his serial vacillations on Iraq, even he doesn’t know. And he won’t be hemmed in by a series of onerous campaign promises. Campaign promises like pledging to "heal the sick" leave a lot of wiggle room.

2) From the New York Times, “Be Afraid, Please” by William Kristol

The Boss has discovered a issue for McCain to exploit, namely the hideous disaster that unchecked Democratic power would be:

It occurred to me that one man’s “deadlock-proof” Democratic majority is another’s unchecked Democratic majority. Given the unpopularity of the current Democratic Congress, given Americans’ tendency to prefer divided government, given the voters’ repudiations of the Republicans in 2006 and of the Democrats in 1994 — isn’t the prospect of across-the-board, one-party Democratic governance more likely to move votes to McCain than to Obama?

So I cheered up once again. For it will become increasingly obvious, as we approach November, that the Democrats will continue to control Congress for the next couple of years. But if the voters elect Obama as president, they’ll be putting Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid in untrammeled control of our future.

Just because Obama is successfully running a campaign with minimal not to mention ever-evolving specifics, that doesn’t mean his fellow Democrats are doing the same. When I was guest-hosting the Hugh Hewitt radio show last week, we had Republican Senators Richard Burr and Mitch McConnell drop by to talk about drilling and other means we can use to expand our energy production. The congressional Republicans spy an issue here, especially since the Democratic plan is to wait until Al Gore’s moon shot energy “plan” delivers on its promise some time in 2068.

Obama is part of the Democratic party, and has shown no eagerness to differentiate himself from his party’s mainstream on any issue. In other words, no maverick he. Therein lies a significant Republican opportunity.

3) From the Huffington Post, “Say It Ain't So, John. Why Progressives Need To Get Out In Front Of The John Edwards Affair Rumors” by Lee Stranahan

Much to Mickey Kaus’s delight, the dam is beginning to break on the John Edwards love-child rumors. While the mainstream media has considered the story not newsworthy, the far more reputable Huffington Post has weighed in:

The truth is that I believe anyone who looks into the John Edwards / Rielle Hunter affair story will see that Edwards has, at best, acted in a very suspicious manner for over a year now. When the Larry Craig story was breaking, I didn't buy his particular line of bullshit and I don't buy Edwards's either after I've spent the last couple of days Googling with my wife. (That's not as dirty as it sounds.) At first, I was skeptical of the National Enquirer story catching Edwards leaving the Beverly Hills Hotel at 2:45am because there were no pictures and the tabloids aren't reliable. Now it turns out that Edwards was at the hotel, so was Ms. Hunter, and that he when he saw reporters he hid in the bathroom until security guards came and got him.

The story about Edwards could of course be bunk. The National Enquirer who broke the story gets some things right, but it is hardly an authoritative outfit. But the fact the mainstream media has declared the well-sourced rumors and the even better-sourced actual events in the Beverly Hills Hilton off-limits is quite literally laughable. If a differently oriented former candidate, say Mike Huckabee or Mitt Romney or Fred Thomspon, was caught visiting the woman rumored to be the mother of his love-child at a hotel at 3 in the morning and hid out in a restroom until hotel security could spirit him to safety, I doubt the New York Times would have shown such restraint. And I’m sure the lefty blogosphere wouldn’t have shown such restraint. Somehow I doubt the Republican’s “former-candidate” status would have insulted him from the media’s curiosity.

As far as what implications this story may have, there are two tracks. One concerns John Edwards and his political future. Quite frankly, the only thing that interests me less than John Edwards’ present is his future. I respectfully decline to speculate on what moves Edwards will have to make in order to silence these rumors and finagle his way into the Obama cabinet. Obviously any chances he had of being Obama’s running mate are as dead as disco.

The more relevant side of the story concerns the media. The kids at the Daily Kos don’t deny that their purpose in life is to get Democrats elected to office. Thus, propaganda will be more in their bailiwick than journalism (although they seldom embrace the label “propagandists”). The people at our leading dailies like to think of themselves differently. They can think of themselves however they like. The rest of us will form our own conclusions.

4) From the Washington Post, “Unfinished Business at Freddie and Fannie” by Lawrence Summers

The former treasury secretary and erstwhile president of the World’s Greatest University takes dead aim at the rescue plan that has “saved” Fannie and Freddie, at least for the moment:

No one should suppose, however, that the issue is satisfactorily resolved, even for the short term. Emergency legislation was necessary because market participants were unwilling to buy Fannie and Freddie's debt; investors doubted that the government-sponsored enterprises, or GSEs, were healthy enough to repay it and did not draw sufficient reassurance from the implicit guarantee of federal support. If their debt proves easier to place now, it is only because this guarantee has been strengthened, not because anything has changed at the GSEs.

This, to put it mildly, is a highly problematic posture for policy. While I strongly supported the Federal Reserve's policy response to the crisis at Bear Stearns, because it was necessary to avoid systemic risk, it is easy to sympathize with those who fear that bailouts inhibit market discipline. Consider how much more problematic the Bear Stearns response would have been had policymakers signaled their commitment to back the company's liabilities without limit; left management in place with no change in the business model; and allowed dividends to be paid and shareholders to keep going with hope for a better tomorrow. Yet all these elements are present in the cases of Fannie and Freddie.

Some people think Fannie and Freddie are an election issue. Those people couldn’t be more wrong. Fannie and Freddie are a bipartisan disgrace, and even for the handful of Republicans like Richard Shelby and Jim DeMint who find themselves on the side of the angels here, the issue is too complex to make any real political hay. All in all, the Fannie and Freddie debacle is a dispiriting case study in how our present leadership class isn’t up its responsibilities.

5) From the Boston Globe, “Slugger’s Act Has Grown Very Tiresome” by Dan Shaughnessy

For eight years, weary Red Sox fans have put up with Manny Ramirez’s shtick. The guy can hit, but he’s arguably the most frustrating player in the history of the Red Sox franchise. Now that Manny is getting older and his production is slipping, his antics are becoming increasingly untenable. At the end of last week, Ramirez sidelined himself with a fantasy knee injury. The injury just happened to coincide with Manny publicly expressing his frustration over his contract status. Writes Shaughnessy:

The Sox spanked him publicly Friday. For the first time. Outraged he would quit on them at the start of the Yankee series, they let him dangle in the breeze for all the world to see. Convinced he was lying about his right knee, they sent him for an MRI on both knees (in case Manny suddenly tried to claim it was the left knee). Then they made sure we all knew the MRIs were clean - getting word out before the end of the game. Late Friday, the club told him he'd be suspended if he refused to play Saturday - a sanction the Players Association would have grieved and won…

It looks like these are the final days of Manny Ramírez in a Red Sox uniform. He said it himself. Enough is enough. He's tired of us and we're tired of him.

Manny is an enormous irritant – no question. But one of the reasons the Red Sox have been so successful in recent years is they’ve looked to maximize a player’s strengths while overlooking or at least managing his weaknesses. Manny’s style is an affront to every Red Sox fan who thinks a guy who gets paid $20 million a year should care about his job. Not everyone can hustle like Pete Rose did, but for that kind of money the Red Sox should at least get a modicum of professionalism in return.

But don’t look for the Sox to cut off their nose to spite their face. They need Manny’s production if they’re going to win their third title in five years. This will be Manny’s final year in Boston. The Sox won’t spend $20 million next year on an aging slugger/clubhouse headache. But someday from a distance, the Manny Ramirez era will look like a beautiful thing. He may be the biggest pain the neck ever, but he’s also one of the best hitters ever. Sadly, there’s no substitute for talent. Happily, the preceding won’t come as news to the Red sox savvy management team.

Elevating oratory!

1) From the New York Times, “Playing Innocent Abroad” by David Brooks

Brooks takes a savage scalpel to Barack Obama’s soon-to-be- infamous Ich bin ein Weltburger speech. ("Weltburger" means “citizen of the world,” by the way.)

Obama speeches almost always have the same narrative arc. Some problem threatens. The odds are against the forces of righteousness. But then people of good faith unite and walls come tumbling down. Obama used the word “walls” 16 times in the Berlin speech, and in 11 of those cases, he was talking about walls coming down.
The Berlin blockade was thwarted because people came together. Apartheid ended because people came together and walls tumbled. Winning the cold war was the same: “People of the world,” Obama declared, “look at Berlin, where a wall came down, a continent came together and history proved there is no challenge too great for a world that stands as one.”

When I first heard this sort of radically optimistic speech in Iowa, I have to confess my American soul was stirred. It seemed like the overture for a new yet quintessentially American campaign.

But now it is more than half a year on, and the post-partisanship of Iowa has given way to the post-nationalism of Berlin, and it turns out that the vague overture is the entire symphony. The golden rhetoric impresses less, the evasion of hard choices strikes one more.

Here’s the big problem with the “citizen of the world” claim as well as the rest of the speech – it sells America’s sacrifices short, and it completely denies American exceptionalism. It’s a lovely sentiment for Obama to insist in regards to the Berlin Airlift that “Berlin kept the flame of hope burning” and then praise Berlin’s then-mayor for offering some rhetoric that inspired the world. It comes as little surprise that the hero of Obama’s little drama would be the verbally adept Mayor - we all know that Obama prefers focusing on the rhetorical side of things rather than on the actions that made a difference. I can even understand how it’s in the interest of trans-Atlantic relations to pretend that the Germans and Americans were co-equals in that particular episode.

But we weren’t, and it's interesting to note how Obama's frequent forays into rewriting history seldom accrue to America's greater glory. America did the heavy lifting during the Berlin airlift; Germany was the beneficiary of said heavy lifting. And when the talk turns to the Berlin Wall coming down, again it was America that led. While Ronald Reagan was implementing the policies that led to the Berlin Wall’s destruction, he and his policies were about as popular in West Germany as the Ebola virus. Or George W. Bush. Of course, things remain the same today. America bears the brunt of fighting the war on terror, while most of our Continental allies content themselves with carping about the means by which we do so.

Mind you, I’m not complaining about our Continental allies. As Donald Rumsfeld might say, they are what they are. It’s America’s duty to lead in every necessary fight simply because no other nation is willing or able to pick up the burden. It’s been that way for almost a century. When Obama somberly mentioned to his German audience the problems in Darfur and Burma, he surely knew that nothing good would happen in either place unless America opts to bear still more burdens. If he doesn’t know that much, then even I’ve underestimated his historical ignorance.

It’s a decided oddity that a guy who seeks the U.S. presidency is so reluctant to salute America’s greatness. It’s odder still that on foreign shores he granted his so-called global citizenship co-equal or perhaps superior status to his American citizenship. Then again, given the scant regard he’s willing to express for America’s accomplishments, I guess it all makes a sort of sense.

2) From The Daily Dish, “Citizen of the World” by Patrick Appel

While Andrew Sullivan is on vacation, his roster of guest-bloggers are gamely attempting to dig Barack Obama out of his “citizen of the world” mess. Patrick Appel ventures into unintentional hilarity by running a letter that purports to show presidents have long used the phrase:

John F. Kennedy used the same phrase in his famous inaugural address in referring to his global audience. I also did a one minute Google search – and I’m sure I could find more if I did a 15-minute Google search – and discovered that President George H.W. Bush used the exact phrase “citizen of the world” in presenting the national medal of the arts to Vladimir Horowitz, the legendary Russian-born pianist who became a US citizen in 1940.

So let’s see – Kennedy referred to his global audience as “citizens of the world” and Bush 41 called a Russian born pianist a “citizen of the world.” Is it possible to distinguish those two events from a presidential aspirant declaring himself a “citizen of the world” (or a weltburger as one would say in German)? Apparently for Obama supporters, the answer is no they can’t.

Know obtuseness!

3) From the Politico, “Obama Leaves the Gifting to Santa” by Mike Allen

Remember long ago when the Obama candidacy seemed like fun? Remember when Barack Obama brought a certain joy to the campaign trail that even conservatives couldn’t deny? Those days are long past. We’ve long since discovered that Obama is about as much fun as a more dour Michael Dukakis. Today brings the most disturbing indication yet that an Obama presidency will be about as much fun as passing a kidney stone:

Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) tells People magazine in the issue out Friday that he and his wife, Michelle, do not give Christmas or birthday presents to their two young daughters.

Obama tells the magazine’s Sandra Sobieraj Westfall in a seven-page cover story that he and his wife follow the unusual practice because they “want to teach some limits.”

No Christmas presents? What’s next? A Skinnerian box? For the entire nation?

4) From New Criterion, “Not Without a Fight” by Stanley Kurtz

This is a long story, but you owe it to yourself to read the whole thing. It’s especially relevant in light of all the global harmony gobbledygook that’s been floating around the past couple of days. Kurtz documents how England’s libel laws have triggered book burnings right out of the pages of a Bradbury novel. The books being burned? Those that have the audacity to look into Islamic terror funding:

It's been less than a year since the phenomenon of "libel tourism" first broke into public consciousness in the United States. On August 10, 2007, The Chronicle of Higher Education reported that Britain's Cambridge University Press had agreed to pulp all unsold copies of the 2006 book Alms for Jihad: Charity and Terrorism in the Islamic World.

In several passages, embedded in a much broader study, Alms for Jihad suggests that businesses and charities associated with one of the world's richest men, the Saudi banker Khalid bin Mahfouz, helped to finance terrorism during the 1990s. Bin Mahfouz's threat of a libel suit in Britain was sufficient to extract from Cambridge University Press not only an agreement to pulp the book, but also a public apology, payment of substantial damages, legal fees, and a pledge to contact libraries worldwide with a request that they remove Alms for Jihad from their shelves.

In the face of this legal challenge, Alms for Jihad's American authors, the academic historian Robert O. Collins and J. Millard Burr, a retired employee of the U.S. State Department, stood by their work, offered evidence in support of their book's assertions to Cambridge, and refused to join in the press's apology. Indeed the manuscript of Alms for Jihad had been vetted and approved by Cambridge's in-house lawyers prior to publication. Yet the mere threat of a suit in a British court was enough to push this publisher to abandon Alms for Jihad without a fight.

Kurtz goes on to explore in some depth the different cultures of different Western nations and how those cultures affect the global war on terror. It’s must reading for all of us, but especially so for naïve politicians who seem unable to recognize the differences that exist between different countries.

5) From the Wall Street Journal, “Obama Urges Iran to Accept EU Nuclear-Weapons Proposal” by some stringer for the AP

Behold! Tough, principled diplomacy! The fierceness of Obama will surely bring results. The mullahs are on notice. They have officially been urged!

We can all heave a sigh of relief. The Iranian nuke crisis is all but over.

1) From Barack Obama.com, “A Magical Cure for All Insomniacs” by Barack Obama

Greetings, fellow citizens of the world! If you’re like me and suffer from insomnia, you’ll want to keep the link to Obama’s speech in Germany today handy. Free yourself from Ambien! The speech was so dull, even Obama seemed like he was going to nod off half way through it.

My opinion? Believe me, this comes from the heart - I thought the speech was a giant failure. Obama loaded the speech with banal clichés in the hope that it would be a giant nothing-burger, and yet he still failed. To him, referring to oneself as a “citizen of the word” may sound like the kind of meaningless lofty language that he specializes in. But “citizen of the world” is actually a pretty freighted term given the context that this particular citizen of the world wants to be President of the United States.

Perhaps Obama’s ego has grown so large that he figures one country, even the world’s lone superpower, is no longer worthy of his leadership. A quick prediction – “the citizen of the world” mess-up will be one of the issues that frames the rest of the election.

2) From OpinionJournal.com, “Genocide Flip-Flop” by James Taranto

While enduring an interminable wait for a flight at Washington DC’s Dulles Airport, I was struck by the following passage in Ron Chernow’s magnificent biography of Alexander Hamilton:

Let us pause briefly to tally the grim catalog of disasters that had befallen (Hamilton and his brother) between 1765 and 1769: their father had vanished, their mother had died, their cousin and supposed protector had committed bloody suicide, and their aunt, uncle and grandmother had all died. James, sixteen, and Alexander, fourteen, were now left alone, largely friendless and penniless…Such repeated shocks must have stripped Alexander Hamilton of any sense that life was fair, that he existed in a benign universe, or that he could ever count on help from anyone.

Alexander Hamilton was neither the first nor the last great man whose greatness was partly forged by absorbing at a bone deep level the basic principle that life is unfair. The longtime beau ideal of youthful and inspiring leadership, John F. Kennedy himself, famously joked about life’s unfairness during a presidential press conference. Kennedy knew of whence he spoke.

A bone-deep knowledge of life’s unfairness tends to hasten the acknowledgement of life’s unpleasant realities. Being unfair, life often presents us with no-win situations where no course of action is entirely satisfactory. Choosing the lesser of multiple evils is a regular necessity for all but the most fortunate of us. A way out of tough situations is usually impossible. Most often, a way through is the best that we can manage.

All of this requires a sort of hardheadedness. If one clings to fantasies about life’s inherent fairness or in fact has led a life that has allowed the reasonable inference that life is in fact fair, then there’s a good chance that hardheadedness will be lacking.

Which brings us to our presidential candidates. Barack Obama has gone to great efforts to stress his humble origins. As is often the case with Obama, methinks the Messiah doth protest too much. If you read Obama’s autobiography “Dreams From My Father” (and please note it’s “From,” not “Of” – all these lefties who claim to have read the book but can’t even manage to get the title right cast their credibility into doubt), you’ll see that Obama’s claims to hardship seem a little trumped up. Yes, his father was absent and his mother a bit eccentric, but he grew up surrounded by people who loved him. It’s true Obama grew up middle class, but he was comfortably middle class. While he relentlessly harps on the purported financial hardships he bore as a youth, they didn’t prevent him from attending Hawaii’s finest and most exclusive prep school.

Obama’s adult life has also been devoid of misfortune. He has enjoyed financial comfort his entire adult life in spite of not having a real job or making any real money until he was 13 years out of law school. He can thank his wife for his material comfort. Apparently there have been no health challenges.

Professionally, Obama steadily declined to test himself and experience potential adversity. While most of his Harvard Law classmates entered the maw of big law firm life knowing they would either thrive or fail, Obama shrunk back in relative safety, organizing communities, teaching a con-law class, writing a book and generally living the life of a dilettante intellectual.

In the past 48 hours, Obama and his campaign have been stung by the suggestion that he doesn’t oppose genocide. Actually, that’s how Obama surrogate Keith Olbermann framed the issue last night on his MSNBC (whatever that may be) broadcast last night. Of course, no one is saying that Barack Obama opposes genocide as a philosophical matter. I’m sure if the topic came up at a Hyde Park cocktail party, Obama, William Ayers, Bernadette Dohrn and Jeremiah Wright all would agree that genocide is a very, very bad thing. Then they would probably crack open a bottle of Grgich Hills Chardonnay and dine on Ayers’ famous Lemon Tarragon Bell & Evans chicken which they would enjoy almost as much as their sense of moral superiority.

I’m sure the Sunnis in Iraq who would perhaps be confronting a potential genocide right now if Barack Obama’s plan for a 16 month withdrawal had taken effect in 2007 would find the spiritual kinship of the Hyde Park gang a tremendous comfort. But as a leader rather than a Hyde Park intellectual, Obama’s opposition to genocide, in order to have any real meaning, will have to be attached to action.

And this is where the hardheadedness comes in. To prevent a potential genocide in 2007 required American resolve. It also required leaders who were willing to commit American blood and treasure to doing so. Barack Obama, then a prominent senator and candidate for president, was willing to make no such commitments. He explicitly said at that time that genocide would not be reason enough to maintain an American military presence in Iraq. For special fans of Keith Olberman related ironies, MSNBC’s website reported these Obama comments.

Yesterday, Obama engaged in perhaps the cheesiest moment in modern campaigning memory by using Israel’s Holocaust museum, Yad Vashem, as a backdrop for a photo-op that would visually illustrate his seriousness and gravitas. During this visit to Yad Vashem, Obama predictably said “Never again” – not quite an original sentiment, but still a welcome one. And on his website two weeks ago, he semi-reversed his position on genocide, saying that as POTUS he would reserve the right to arrest his sudden withdrawal from Iraq to stop a genocide. Of course, the statement included the linguistic gymnastics we’ve come to expect from Barack Obama – he didn’t say he would do whatever was necessary to halt the genocide. He didn’t even say he would do anything necessary to halt the genocide. He just said he reserved the right to do so. He also added the annoying caveat that he would do so while working with our international partners.

There are two Barack Obamas – the one who offers beautiful words and the one who prescribes scant actions. And the words without action or at least the credible promise of action mean nothing. “Never again” is a nice thing to say, but attaching real meaning to the words requires a certain resolve. Saving the situation in Iraq and preventing a potential genocide required an embrace of a Hobson’s Choice.

We’ve certainly learned one thing about Barack Obama during this campaign – he’s wrestled the art of saying nice words down to a science. But when the same guy who said he wouldn’t intervene to stop a genocide in Iraq a year later pops into Yad Vashem and says “Never again,” you have to take pause. And you have to wonder whether those words are anything more than hollow platitudes meant to more reflect his own sense of moral superiority rather than any actions he might take as president.

3) From the Wall Street Journal, “The Fannie Mae Gang” by Paul Gigot

Gigot and his editorial page have been harping about the dangers of Fannie Mae and her ne’er do well sibling Freddie Mac for the better part of a decade. Events have sadly proven Gigot prescient. In spite of the predictability of Fannie's woes, the thuggish ways of Fannie as well as her congressional and media allies still surprise:

Angelo Mozilo was in one of his Napoleonic moods. It was October 2003, and the CEO of Countrywide Financial was berating me for The Wall Street Journal's editorials raising doubts about the accounting of Fannie Mae. I had just been introduced to him by Franklin Raines, then the CEO of Fannie, whom I had run into by chance at a reception hosted by the Business Council, the CEO group that had invited me to moderate a couple of panels.

Mr. Mozilo loudly declared that I didn't know what I was talking about, that I didn't understand accounting or the mortgage markets, and that I was in the pocket of Fannie's competitors, among other insults. Mr. Raines, always smoother than Mr. Mozilo, politely intervened to avoid an extended argument, and Countrywide's bantam rooster strutted off.

I've thought about that episode more than once recently amid the meltdown and government rescue of Fannie and its sibling, Freddie Mac. Trying to defend the mortgage giants, Paul Krugman of the New York Times recently wrote, "What you need to know here is that the right -- the WSJ editorial page, Heritage, etc. -- hates, hates, hates Fannie and Freddie. Why? Because they don't want quasi-public entities competing with Angelo Mozilo."

That's a howler even by Mr. Krugman's standards.

Today brings the news that you the taxpayer will be footing the bill for Fannie and Freddie’s pratfalls. Know frustration.

4) From HotAir.com, “Christ Appears in Berlin, Uses Lots of ‘Wall’ Metaphors” by the Allahpundit

As a public service, Allah has gathered some of Obama’s banalities into one omnibus blog-posting. Know clichés!

As prepared for delivery in the capital city of an enemy that couldn’t be negotiated with, behold the text of what I’m calling the greatest speech since whatever the last Obama speech was that the media declared was the greatest speech ever. As Hitchens once said about the since partly retracted Great Peroration on Race, for a supposed rhetorical genius, Barry never actually delivers any memorable lines, does he? It’s the circumstances of his speeches that make them “memorable.” The best he can do by way of takeaways is Zen pap like “Yes, we can” or “We are the ones we’ve been waiting for” or today’s latest mindless positive affirmation, “This is our moment, this is our time.” Here’s my own favorite line, seemingly plucked from one of Jerry Springer’s concluding Thought for the Day segments:

“True partnership and true progress requires constant work and sustained sacrifice.”

How true that is. But perhaps not as true as:

“The road ahead will be long.”

5) From Daily Kos, “Ich Bin Ein Liveblog” by BarbinMD

Forget Dr. Barbin’s brief comments. Skip down to the comments and sample the madness! Says Kos Kid “Observer,” “Our future president presenting himself to the world. A man of courage, intelligence and vision. Wow!”

Believe it or not, “Observer” was in the minority. Most of the Kos community recognized the stupidity of this particular gambit. Said Jack Dublin, “This speech will not win him the election. He has to be very careful. If he appears to be attacking the U.S. at all, he is in for trouble at home. I'm not saying it is right, but that is the state of U.S. ‘gotcha’ politics… He is boarding (sic?) on that now.”

“The Bagof Health and Politics” (if that's his real name) amplified Mr. Dublin’s concerns: “This was a bad idea. I'd be all happy about it--if it were happening the second week of November and Barack was the President-elect, but there is something wrong with this in the middle of the election. It's over-anxious and getting out way too far ahead of ourselves."

Yes folks, it’s true. The kids at the Daily Kos are shrewder than the people running the Obama campaign.

1) From Swampland, “McCain Meltdown” by Joe Klein

Huge news! Joe Klein is scandalized. The following John McCain quote has made the longtime and battle hardened campaign coverer hie to his proverbial fainting couch:

“This is a clear choice that the American people have. I had the courage and the judgment to say I would rather lose a political campaign than lose a war. It seems to me that Obama would rather lose a war in order to win a political campaign.”

Writes Klein in response:

This is the ninth presidential campaign I've covered. I can't remember a more scurrilous statement by a major party candidate. It smacks of desperation. It renews questions about whether McCain has the right temperament for the presidency. How sad… The reality is that neither Barack Obama nor Nouri al-Maliki nor most anybody else believes that the Iraq war can be "lost" at this point.

Odd. Until a mere week ago, the Obama website was declaring Iraq an unwinnable fiasco. Now, according to Joe Klein, it can’t be lost. Now that’s progress!

But back to the matter at hand. We all know, as the Allahpundit insightfully put it, “If the rest of the media is chest-deep in the tank for Obama, Klein’s already fully submerged.” So with all due respect to Joe Klein’s phony outrage, the issue of Barack Obama’s commitment to victory is a valid one. Obama only began speaking about winning in Iraq a couple of weeks ago, and even now he’s more hinting about winning in Iraq than actually talking about it. Obama’s hard left base will categorically reject the news that Iraq is anything other than a disaster.

What’s more, Obama’s evolving positions have always focused on one and only one goal – getting out of Iraq. Winning has never been a consideration. In 2007, Obama was willing to withdraw from Iraq even if doing so triggered a genocide. For Obama to say he now wants to withdraw only because it is the best means of achieving victory requires a heaping helping of that famous Obama audacity.

Once again, Obama really isn’t talking about victory, even though it’s now within reach. Obama has never mentioned what burdens he would have America bear in order to win in Iraq. Just yesterday, he told Katie Couric that he would feel free to ignore David Petraeus’ advice regarding what was necessary for victory in Iraq if he felt the money for such a venture could be better spent elsewhere.

Of course, none of these Obama positions necessarily add up to the McCain conclusion that Obama would lose a war to win an election. In order to get to that point, you also need to assume a certain amount of bad faith on Obama’s part. So we must ask, is such an assumption unreasonable? Most sensible people agree that winning in Iraq is critical. Most sensible people agree that Barack Obama is himself a sensible person. Yet yesterday, Obama said that he might decide as Commander-in-Chief to use the funds necessary for winning in Iraq to shore up the American economy (whatever that means). That kind of pathetic pander doesn’t sound like a guy who cares more about the war’s result than his own political fortunes.

Contra Joe Klein, the conclusion that Barack Obama is indifferent to victory in Iraq is not manifestly unreasonably. Indeed, it’s the logical place you finish if you weigh all the Obama statements over the years. Of course, Obama is far from indifferent regarding his own electoral fortunes. So would Obama be willing to break some Iraq war eggs in order to serve up the beautiful omelet that an Obama administration would be?

Know narcissism.

2) From the Wall Street Journal, “McCain’s Message Gets Makeover” by Laura Meckler and Elizabeth Holmes

This is an enormously entertaining and somewhat endearing profile of new McCain campaign jefe Steve Schmidt. Schmidt is renowned for his intensity as well as his relentless focus on day-to-day excellence. The following little nugget caught my eye:

Mr. Schmidt specializes in the combat that dominates today's political culture -- the minute-by-minute, talking point-vs.-talking point battles that fill a 24-hour news cycle. His formula: a tightly controlled message delivered repeatedly and with almost military-like precision.

This week presents just the latest in a string of challenges. With Sen. Obama on a high-profile trip that includes Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel and Europe, Mr. Schmidt had to devise counter-programming that would at least keep Sen. McCain in the mix.

In a word, oy. I understand Schmidt’s desire to fight for each inch of metaphorical battlefield terrain, but sometimes you have to know when to retire from the field. This week was going to be about Obama. The McCain campaign would have been better off dealing with that reality and trying to help shape the Obama coverage from behind the scenes rather than keeping their own guy in the mix. As if to prove my point, Obama's disastrous interview with Katie Couric has amply contributed to the impression many voters are forming that the fellow just isn’t up to the job. That’s a very favorable story for the McCain campaign, even though it doesn’t involve the campaign’s principal.

3) From the New York Times, “Congressman Pushes Staff Hard, or Out the Door” by David Chen

Meet Democratic Congressman Anthony Weiner, maybe the worst boss in America:

WASHINGTON — It started as a routine conference call. But at some point during the call, Representative Anthony D. Weiner became furious, convinced that his scheduler had not given him a crucial piece of information.

His scheduler, John J. Graff, who was in the next room, suddenly heard the congressman yelling at him through the wall.

Then, Mr. Graff recalled, Mr. Weiner started pounding his fists on his desk, kicked a chair and unleashed a string of expletives… Mr. Weiner, who is running for New York City mayor next year, is without question one of the most intense and demanding( bosses on Capitol Hill), according to interviews with more than two dozen former employees, Congressional colleagues and lobbyists.

Mr. Weiner, a technology fiend who requires little sleep and rarely takes a day off, routinely instant messages his employees on weekends, often just one-word missives: “Teeth” (as in, your answer reminds me of pulling teeth) or “weeds” (as in, you are too much in the weeds). Never shy about belting out R-rated language, he enjoys challenging staff members on issues, even at parties.

And here I was, laboring under the delusion that liberals are nice and sensitive people!

4) From the Washington Post, “Behind Maliki’s Games” by Max Boot

The always excellent Boot deconstructs Nouri al-Maliki’s series of statements from the last week. Long story short? If the left wants to be intellectually honest, it might not want to make too much of this momentary propaganda coup:

In May 2006, shortly after becoming prime minister, he claimed, "Our forces are capable of taking over the security in all Iraqi provinces within a year and a half."

In October 2006, when violence was spinning out of control, Maliki declared that it would be "only a matter of months" before his security forces could "take over the security portfolio entirely and keep some multinational forces only in a supporting role."

President Bush wisely ignored Maliki. Instead of withdrawing U.S. troops, he sent more. The prime minister wasn't happy. On Dec. 15, 2006, the Wall Street Journal reported, "Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has flatly told Gen. George Casey, the top American military commander in Iraq, that he doesn't want more U.S. personnel deployed to the country, according to U.S. military officials." When the surge went ahead anyway, Maliki gave it an endorsement described in news accounts as "lukewarm."

In January 2007, with the surge just starting, Maliki predicted "that within three to six months our need for the American troops will dramatically go down." In April 2007, when most of Baghdad was still out of control, the prime minister said that Iraqi forces would assume control of security in every province by the end of the year.

Watching Anderson Cooper a couple of nights ago as he breathlessly reported on Maliki’s comments from Friday (and hilariously referred to them as “breaking news” more than 72 hours after they were uttered), I couldn’t help but be struck how Cooper and his reporters treated Maliki as some sort of omniscient figure who always knows best. That clearly hasn’t been the case.

That said, I feel the need to reiterate what I wrote yesterday. Victory in Iraq is within reach, and John McCain has to show an appropriate eagerness for seizing the victory that he midwifed. To date, McCain hasn’t done so, although on a conference call yesterday his surrogates did belatedly show a more appropriate enthusiasm for ending the war. The American public wants this war won, and then it wants the war ended. The public does not want it fought endlessly. McCain’s resolve is admirable – his resolve made victory possible. But the campaign has to focus on what lies ahead, specifically the road to victory and then the road home. Promising an indefinite slog doesn’t square with the facts on the ground, and the McCain campaign has to be cognizant of that fact.

5) From The Next Right, “Obama Campaign Prints German-language Flyers for Berlin Rally” by Patrick Ruffini

Take a gander at that poster. Really now, how will Obama’s courtship of Germany play in Peoria? Is it redolent of John Kerry’s “global test?”

Personally, I think it’s a swell thing that Obama will soon be basking in the adulation of up to a million Germans. Obama obviously suffers from low self-regard, and such a display of public affection may well be salubrious for his emotional well-being. You know, just because we view political matters differently doesn’t mean I can’t wish him the best on the self-esteem front.

1) From the Los Angeles Times, “For McCain, the Surge is a Losing Strategy” by Jonah Goldberg
A couple of week ago, I mentioned my depression over the way the McCain campaign was functioning. My sad mental state had driven me to beat myself over the head with a baseball bat. After a jot of relatively smooth sailing, the McCain campaign has forced me to turn to my trusty Louisville Slugger once more.

The McCain campaign has been caught completely flat-footed by the Maliki pronouncement that he would like to see American troops leave a secure Iraq as rapidly as possible. Of course, the McCain camp and other surge proponents should want the identical thing. Our major beef with the Obama withdrawal plan is that Iraq’s well-being and a consolidation of our victory don’t seem to be any sort of Obama priorities. They never have been in the past.

More unforgivably, the McCain campaign also has been caught flat-footed by the ongoing success of the surge. Right now, we have a bizarre dynamic in which John McCain seems to be refusing victory. Instead, as that victory’s primary architect, he should be embracing it. But with the progress of the surge having surpassed the prognostications of even its most optimistic proponents, McCain’s adherence to an endless slog seems oddly ill-fitting with the fresh facts on the ground.

Senator McCain and I aren’t exactly email pals, so I’m not quite privy to his innermost thoughts. Still, I think I understand what’s going on in McCain land. McCain was the hero of the surge. Without his efforts in the Senate, it wouldn’t have happened. What’s more, he was an early not to mention lonely Republican critic of the Bush administration’s conduct of the war. McCain can make an honest claim to being the Winston Churchill of the Iraq War. And Winston Churchill lost in 1945 to a historical non-entity named Clement Atlee.

For McCain and his minions, it’s probably unnerving to see Iraq fade as an issue. He was right on the surge. Obama was wrong. Yet the public will look forwards, not backwards. Still, all things considered, it’s not so bad. If someone told me six months ago that Iraq as an issue would be a wash come November, I would have taken it.

Here’s Jonah Goldberg’s cogent take on things:

Within months of the invasion, McCain was calling for more troops and the head of then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. Later, when the Iraqi civil war erupted, Al Qaeda in Iraq metastasized and the Iranians mounted a clandestine surge all their own, McCain doubled-down; he argued that we couldn't afford to lose and proposed a revised counterinsurgency strategy for victory. That was the same very month that Obama introduced the "Iraq War De-Escalation Act of 2007."

That's all great stuff for McCain's biographers. But the tragic Catch-22 for the Arizona senator is that the more the surge succeeds, the more politically advantageous it is for Obama.

Voters don't care about the surge; they care about the war. Americans want it to be over -- and in a way they can be proud of.

Richard Nixon didn't win in 1968 by second-guessing LBJ about the mess in Vietnam; he ran on getting us out with honor. McCain is great talking about honor, but the getting-us-out part is where he gets tongue-tied.

If Iraq recedes as an issue and the positions of the two candidates effectively blur, what does McCain do? The temptation will be to run a campaign based on biography, honor and being right about the surge. This is a temptation McCain will have to resist. You don’t get elected president as some kind of lifetime achievement award. The presidency is not a metaphorical gold watch that the electorate bestows upon its most worthy citizen. This is the part of presidential politicking that John Kerry never got.

McCain will have to talk about the future. He’ll have to talk about his plans for the economy, his plans for $4 gas, and why the kind of resolve he showed in Iraq will be necessary to deal with the developing messes we have in Iran and perhaps Pakistan. Much of this stuff lies outside McCain’s comfort zone. He was so uneasy with economic matters, he outsourced them to political klutz extraordinaire Phil Gramm. And discussing grand strategy has never been a McCain forte.

But as the Goldberg column points out, every election is about the future. This one will be no different.

2) From The Fix, “McCain to Meet With Jindal” by Chris Cillizza

I’m glad I didn’t put my Louisville Slugger away – I need it again.

Speculation has swept the intertubes that McCain will name his running mate this week, the better to steal some headlines from his globetrotting opponent. I have nothing against the possibility of Bobby Jindal being on the ticket. I am, however, appalled that Team McCain thinks it needs to go to such desperate measures to win a news cycle in July. For better or for worse, this is Obama’s week. But it’s a long way to Election Day.

I can’t decide which is a more depressing prospect – whether the McCain camp will really name its running mate this week or whether this is an elaborate head fake to make sure McCain’s name stays in the papers for the next few days. What’s especially baffling is why Team McCain can’t pay attention to its own internal analyses. The McCain campaign is obviously concerned that Iraq and other issues of war and peace are receding/disappearing. If that is indeed the case (which to some extent it almost surely is), why has the McCain campaign convinced itself that an Obama trip abroad in July presents a threat that must be thwarted?

The McCain campaign is blustering about making a major strategic move in response to the other guy’s day-to-day tactics. It’s undisciplined campaigning. It fairly reeks of panic.

3) From the Bourbon Room, “Obama, Reed, Hagel Note Iraq Progress, Credit More Than Surge” by Major Garret

Remember back in 2004 when the left relentlessly hounded George W. Bush, demanding that he recount a time when he made an error? It looks like we on the right may have similar sport with Barack Obama, who seems congenitally unable to admit occasions when his superhuman judgment failed him. Major Garret calls our attention to this exchange Obama had with Nightline’s Terry Moran:

Q: If you had to do it over again, knowing what you know now, would you support the surge?

Obama: No. Because, keep in mind that —

Q: You wouldn’t?

Obama: Keep in mind, these kind of hypotheticals are very difficult. You know hindsight is 20/20. But I think that what I am absolutely convinced of is at that time we had to change the political debate because the view of the Bush administration at that time was one I just disagreed with.

One thing about Obama – he just hates looking back. Unless you’re talking about looking back to the run up to the Iraq war and his righteous opposition to said war. He loves looking back at that.

4) From the Wall Street Journal, “Afghanistan Doesn’t Need a Surge” by Ann Marlowe

What with the presumptive Democratic nominee showing all sorts of manliness regarding Afghanistan, longtime Afghanistan-based war correspondent Marlowe offers some contrarian counsel. And the counsel is contrarian to both nominees:

Barack Obama said: "We need more troops, more helicopters, better intelligence-gathering and more nonmilitary assistance to accomplish the mission there." Mr. Obama should have supported the surge in Iraq, but that doesn't mean that advocating one in Afghanistan makes sense.

Afghanistan's problems are not the same as Iraq's. Its people aren't recovering from a brutal, all-controlling tyranny, but from decades of chaos and centuries of bad government. Afghanistan, unlike Iraq, is largely illiterate and has a relatively undeveloped civil society. Afghan society still centers around the family and, for men, the mosque. Its society and traditions are still largely intact, in contrast to Iraq's fractured, urbanized and half-modernized population.

Regarding Iraq, it’s been gratifying that the Democrats have at last become cognizant of the salubrious effects that more aggressive strategies can have when it comes to warfare. Still, Obama and his surrogates seem relatively unaware of the COIN doctrine that made such a huge difference in Iraq. The extra resources helped dramatically. But the sea-change in tactics, shifting the focus from force protection to battling the enemy and protecting the population, helped even more.

It shouldn’t be surprising that Obama now supports mindlessly throwing more resources at Afghanistan. Since time immemorial, that’s been the liberal solution to just about every problem. But Afghanistan gives Obama an ideal chance to use that big brain of his (or what Marc Ambinder today refers to as "a talented, incredible gift of a mind") – the situation is a lot more nuanced than Team Barry has to date cared to acknowledge.

5) From the Boston Globe, “Is Alcohol Par For the Course?” by Richard Thompson

If you want to know what it’s like to live in a state that Michael Dukakis molded in his image, take a look at this article. In Massachusetts, there is actually a law on the books that bans the sale of alcohol on golf courses. Yes, this law applies to private golf courses as well as public ones.

And no, this law is not common across the land. The only other state with a similar statute is Alaska. Alaska, as you may have guessed, is not exactly a golf paradise.

Mind you, consuming alcohol while on the golf course is unforgivably vulgar. One should focus on one’s game. Besides, golf is hard enough to play when sober. But why would such a matter possibly have been the concern of the Bay State legislators who crafted this idiotic law? If some hacker wants to steel his nerves with a Rum and Coke before playing the challenging 16th hole and his country club allows him to do so, what interest does the state have in preventing him from imbibing?

Then again, with Al Gore plotting to take away our fossil fuels, perhaps modern liberals pose still graver threats.

1) From the New York Times, “No Substitute for Victory” by William Kristol

In discussing the portion of Barack Obama’s road show that will soon stumble across Germany, Kristol avoids any pettiness regarding the campaign’s choice of venue for Obama’s benediction/mass leper healing session. Instead, he optimistically focuses on what Obama could say:

I’m choosing to take the location of Obama’s speech as a hopeful sign.

I’m hoping it means that Obama in Berlin will go beyond the anodyne message his campaign advertised Sunday — a discussion of the “historic U.S.-German partnership” and strengthening trans-Atlantic relations. I’m wondering if Obama chose the Victory Column as his speech venue because he intends to make the case for ... victory.

Perhaps Obama — with the Victory Column at his back — will also challenge those who think it impossible to imagine victory today. Perhaps Obama will also warn of the temptation of assuming we can somehow avoid confronting the terrorists and jihadists, and those who support them.

One thing you have to understand about the Boss – he is by nature an optimist. So when presented with the question of whether Obama will be able to turn his back on the irresponsibility he has shown on the campaign trail regarding the war, the Boss will of course answer with an emphatic “Yes He Can!”

But I’m sure Kristol would agree that to date, “victory” hasn’t exactly been an Obama preoccupation. Take the ludicrous “16 Months to Victory Plan” Obama has been aggressively peddling regarding Iraq. Eagle-eyed observers will note that Obama was also proposing a 16 month withdrawal plan when the war was at its nadir back in early 2007. It would be a helluva coincidence if two such wildly divergent sets of circumstances such as the grim facts we confronted 18 months ago and the much more promising scenario we face today demanded identical American tactics and strategy.

For Obama, “victory” has never been anything more than a shorthand for ending American involvement in Iraq. His indifference to what actually might happen in Iraq has at times been almost astonishing. In July 2007, the then second place Democratic candidate stated preventing genocide wasn’t a good enough reason for America to stay in Iraq. As remains the case today, Obama’s sole strategic concern was comprehensively removing all American troops within 16 months.

It would be nice on a variety of levels if Obama commits to victory when he heals the Germans. It would indeed be a swell thing if the world realized that America won’t potentially be tossing out its leadership resolve next January.

2) From Political Diary, “Just Another Pol” by John Fund

More polls! The latest shows Obama leading McCain by three which is pretty much in line with what everyone else is getting. But as Fund notes, there’s still big news to report. The swooning has ended.

The good news for Mr. Obama is that he narrowly leads among independents and white women, key demographic groups he must add to his overwhelming support among Democrats and African-Americans. But his Achilles heel could prove to be young people, who provided much of the enthusiastic support he used to win the Democratic primaries. The ABC poll found that in March, 66% of voters under the age of 30 said they would vote in November no matter what. Today, that number is down to 46% -- a far more typical measurement of the engagement of young people in politics.

ABC's George Stephanopoulos says enthusiasm for the Democratic candidate among young voters "has been dampened" and "all of the questions in recent weeks on whether or not Barack Obama is shifting positions, becoming 'a typical politician,' is turning some of them off."

What’s most amazing about this scenario is that Obama’s wounds have all been self-inflicted. And as he thrashes about, returning to his silly original positions like the audacious 14 Month Surrender Plan, he only further compromises his campaign.

3) From the Wall Street Journal, “Let’s Have Some Love for Nuclear Power” by William Tucker

Many of you reading this are probably too young to remember the No Nukes movement. Thank your lucky stars. In the dark days of the late 1970s/early 1980s, Hollywood-types and flat-earthers were able to use their combined muscle to damage our energy situation for decades. At least the current energy crisis will cause us to revisit and likely redress such past foolishness:

And just last month John McCain called for the construction of 45 new reactors by 2030. Barack Obama is less enthusiastic about nuclear energy, but he seems to be moving toward tacit approval.

In the U.S. at present, 104 nuclear plants generate about 21% of our electric power. Last November, NRG Energy, of Princeton, N.J., became the first company to file for a license to build a new nuclear plant since the 1970s. Almost a dozen more applications have now also been filed.

While we may be at a turning point, one enormous question still hangs over this revival of nuclear power in the U.S.: Who is going to pay for it? The construction of reactors in the rest of the world is essentially a government enterprise. Private investment and even public approval are not always necessary. In the U.S., however, the capital will have to be raised from Wall Street. But not many investors are willing to put up $5 billion to $10 billion for a project that could become engulfed by 10 to 15 years of regulatory delay -- as occurred during the 1980s. The Seabrook plant in New Hampshire went through 14 years of that before opening in 1990. The Long Island Lighting Company's Shoreham plant began in 1973, but was shut down by protests in 1989 without generating a watt of electricity, and the company went bankrupt as a result.

Right now, everything’s on the table. One would hope a proven technology with minimal downside would have a seat at the head of the table. On a related subject…

4) From the New York Times, “Yes We Can” by Bob Hebert

Sometimes in politics, just as in life, you get lucky. Could Republicans have gotten a bigger break than Al Gore emerging from his massive house (which consumes more energy in a month than most American homes do in a year) last week, strolling out of his SUV and hectoring the country on how it should embrace his vision of tough love while ditching the fossil fuels that Gore consumes so profligately?

In spite of the rank foolishness of the Gore endeavor, Bob Herbert positively swooned:

My view of Mr. Gore’s passionate engagement with some of the biggest issues of our time is that he is offering us the kind of vision and sense of urgency that has been so lacking in the presidential campaigns. But the tendency in a society that is skeptical, if not phobic, about anything progressive has been to dismiss his large ideas and wise counsel, as George H. W. Bush once did by deriding him as “ozone man.”

The naysayers will tell you that once again Al Gore is dreaming, that the costs of his visionary energy challenge are too high, the technological obstacles too tough, the timeline too short and the political lift much too heavy.

But that’s the thing about visionaries. They don’t imagine what’s easy.

One might ask, easy for whom? I would imagine someone with Al Gore's wealth could make the transition from filthy, environment-despoiling oil to solar powered wind turrets with greater ease than a family of four struggling to get by on the median American income,

So as a Gore naysayer of long-standing, let me officially offer my “nay.” What I don’t understand about people like Gore and Herbert is that, being liberals, they’re supposed to be obsessed with the plight of those who live on the economic margins. And yet Gore proposes tossing an umpteen trillion dollar monkey wrench into the American economy, and the issue of who such economic dislocation will most affect doesn’t warrant any consideration.

A few weeks ago, I wrote about the benign indifference/barely hidden enthusiasm that the intellectual chattering class had for $4 gas. And why wouldn’t they? When you have an adequate bank roll and you ride public transportation or your tricycle to your blogging job, $4 gas is an abstraction. Of course, for the tens of millions of non-wealthy people living in rural areas for whom biking 80 miles to work isn’t a feasible option, $4 gas is a somewhat more concrete matter.

So let Al Gore utter his sweet nothings about how “we need to make a big, massive, one-off investment to transform our energy infrastructure from one that relies on a dirty, expensive fuel to fuel that is free.” Americans will know who’s going to pay for that pie-in-the-sky one-off investment. And they’ll also know that even Gore’s wildly optimistic not to mention scientifically unfounded promise of energy price relief in a mere ten years is still completely unacceptable.

5) From the New York Times, “Surge Protector” by Admiral William Fallon

The left’s favorite admiral issued a betrayal of the cruelest sort yesterday. In the pages of the Grey Lady, Fallon urged something that virtually every serious military and international affairs analyst agrees with – the remarkable gains of the surge shouldn’t be sacrificed on the altar of trumped up timetables and domestic political ambitions:

A long-term arrangement with the United States is key to Iraq’s future security.

Reasonable objectors to the security pact, in both countries, must jettison the rhetorical and emotional baggage of the recent past. Forget the errors and bad decisions and deal with the present. Real progress has been made, and this positive momentum must be maintained.

Compromise, of course, will be essential. But confidence will be, too. The Americans need to trust Iraq’s security forces, and the Iraqis need to trust America’s intentions. The United States must give the Iraqi government an opportunity to demonstrate sovereignty over its territory while the government of Iraq must recognize its continued, if diminishing, reliance on the American military.

If Barack Obama were to return to his real original position, i.e. “I don’t care what happens in Iraq – I just want the troops home,” such a stance would at least have the benefit of intellectual honesty. But Obama is by nature a straddler. He wants to hold both sides of the issue, namely a rapid surrender combined with a lionhearted commitment to victory. This untenable silliness has already damaged his reputation. Unless he can use this week’s voyage to clarify his position, the bleeding will continue.

1) From RealClearPolitics.com, “The Audacity of Vanity” by Charles Krauthammer

’hammer time! Dr. Krauthammer’s article has justifiably set off quite a firestorm of delight in conservative circles. My email box has overflowed with links to the column and comments like “Krauthammer’s best ever!” Since this is much higher praise than, say, “Krugman’s best ever,” the column is must reading.

Krauthammer’s theme is not new. A lot of us, ranging from Obama critics to even Andrew Sullivan, have explored Barack Obama’s unattractive self-regard that risks tripping into a full-on case of hubris. But Krauthammer says it better than anyone else has or likely will:

Americans are beginning to notice Obama's elevated opinion of himself.

There's nothing new about narcissism in politics. Every senator looks in the mirror and sees a president. Nonetheless, has there ever been a presidential nominee with a wider gap between his estimation of himself and the sum total of his lifetime achievements?

Obama is a three-year senator without a single important legislative achievement to his name, a former Illinois state senator who voted "present" nearly 130 times. As president of the Harvard Law Review, as law professor and as legislator, has he ever produced a single notable piece of scholarship? Written a single memorable article? His most memorable work is a biography of his favorite subject: himself.

It is a subject upon which he can dilate effortlessly. In his victory speech upon winning the nomination, Obama declared it a great turning point in history -- "generations from now we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment" -- when, among other wonders, "the rise of the oceans began to slow." As economist Irwin Stelzer noted in his London Daily Telegraph column, "Moses made the waters recede, but he had help." Obama apparently works alone.

I know you’re going to read the whole thing, so I don’t even have to encourage you to do so. But before clicking along, allow me to expand on the point that Krauthammer makes above. If someone told you in 2003 that a guy who was a part-time law professor, part-time lawyer and part-time state legislator would be president in five years, you probably would have laughed. If you were further informed that the individual in question’s greatest accomplishment as an adult was his stellar performance in law school, you would have pled for mercy because the ensuing hysterics would have made your sides ache.

Of course we don’t elect résumés for president. That much is understood. But other presidential candidates with modest accomplishments knew enough to at least try to look humble. It’s worth pondering why Obama isn’t capable of doing the same or self-aware enough to know he ought to.

2) From the Boston Globe, “Obama’s Summer of Success” by Scott Lehigh

I kind of wish the title were ironic, but it isn’t. Lehigh actually thinks Obama has had a wildly successful summer. Yes, Lehigh is talking about the same smoldering summer in which Obama managed to convince a majority of Americans that he tells them whatever they want to hear and transformed himself from a Lightworker to just another politician.

Barack Obama has used the lazy days of summer to considerable advantage with a series of speeches aimed at rooting himself in mainstream American values.

"One of the most important qualities that people look for in a president is someone who shares their values, and Obama is showing them that he does," says Democratic strategist John Sasso, who has played an important role in almost every presidential campaign of the last quarter-century.

Adds Democratic pollster Geoffrey Garin, formerly a senior strategist for Hillary Clinton's campaign: "At the presidential level, there is a greater concern with understanding what makes somebody tick and whether they are motivated and driven by the same kind of values voters themselves have."

Give Lehigh special bonus points for the stirring display of hyperbolic Boston parochialism. In the Lehigh telling of things, John Sasso has played an important role in almost every presidential campaign of the last quarter century. At least we’ve finally cleared up the mystery why Sasso was advising both Bush and Gore in 2000.

Personally, I hope Obama and his campaign listen to Lehigh rather than Krauthammer.

3) From HotAir.com, “Why Would Romney Want to be McCain’s VP?” by the Allahpundit.

Allah piggybacks on an essay by Patrick Ruffini that suggests Romney would be crazy to accept the running mate slot since it (not to mention the vice presidency itself) is the traditional burial ground of presidential ambitions. Quoth Ruffini:

Mitt Romney is already in line to be the nominee in 4 years if McCain loses under the GOP Law of Primogeniture. Why would he want to muck it up with a VP run? If McCain loses, it is all downside for Mitt. People would forget all the positive aspects of his Presidential run and remember his role on a losing ticket. (See Edwards, John.)

And even if McCain wins, Romney would face a tough road getting elected in his own right. Republicans are already facing voter exhaustion after 8 years in power. Could they win a third or fourth consecutive election even if they manage to pull it out in ‘08? The possibility grows progressively unlikelier.

I’ve steadily avoided vice-president talks, especially those involving Romney. When it comes to discussing Mitt Romney, I don’t exactly have Nixon-to-China credentials. For what it’s worth, in private conversations over the past several months I’ve expressed deep ambivalence about Romney joining the ticket because I wasn’t sure he would help the ticket. (My wife would usually end those private conversations by saying, “I didn’t ask you about Mitt Romney. I asked you to pass the peas.”)

But $4 gas, a crushing credit crunch and a general (and accurate) sense of economic crisis change everything. It’s been obvious during the past few weeks that neither candidate can address the economy with any authority. That’s understandable enough – during their long careers, each candidate barely paused long enough in the private sector to enjoy a triple grande latte.

It will be the smart candidate who tabs as his running mate an expert who knows something about how an economy works and can communicate effectively with the public on such matters. Romney had his faults as a candidate in the primaries, but he was very strong when he discussed the economy. Additionally, it’s not like either party has a strong roster of economic experts waiting to join the ticket. I can’t think of a single Democrat who would fit such a bill, and on the Republican side the Phil Gramms, Jack Kemps and Warren Rudmans are mercifully non-starters.

As to what joining the ticket would do to Romney’s long term ambitions, who cares? We’ve got four consequential years to get through. As Allah points out, if Romney were asked to serve, he would be unlikely say no so he could begin munching rubber chicken preparing for 2012 when duty calls.

4) From the Wall Street Journal, “The Blame Game” by Kimberley A. Strassel

Last week I mentioned a letter the airlines sent out to their customers blaming their woes on oil speculators. Today, Strassel responds with a letter of her own:

Dear CEOs of U.S. airlines:

I want to say thanks for the July 10 email you sent to all your customers seeking to explain why today's air travel experience is so painful. The letter, signed by 12 of you, explained that "oil speculators" -- presumably by betting on future oil prices -- are killing your industry and thus requested that I, as a consumer, pressure Congress to rein in this "unchecked" market "manipulation."

I admit that just lately I'd begun to feel that flying was something akin to having my intestines fished out with a long hook. Actually, I'd been wondering whom to blame for the fact that it would probably be cheaper, easier and maybe even faster to drive to wherever I want to go than to board one of your planes. Suddenly, all is clear.

I now understand that it is oil speculators who set your hiring policies and who must have outlined the three types of people you may employ: those who grunt at me, those who sigh deeply as if my presence has ruined their day and those who are actively hostile to my smallest request.

When the airlines come looking for their next federal bailout, one wonders whether they’ll be shocked at the public's indifference to their woes.

5) From YouTube.com, Andrea Mitchell chatting with David Petraeus

You’ll want to watch the whole thing, but here’s a brief nugget from the conversation:

ANDREA MITCHELL: Is 16 months a reasonable time to get U.S. troops out and turn it over to Iraqis? Here’s what he said.

GEN. DAVID PETRAEUS: It depends on the conditions, depends on the missions set, depends on the enemy. The enemy does get a vote and is sometimes an independent variable. Lots of different factors I think that would be tied up in that. The dialogue on that and the amount of risk, because it eventually comes down to how much risk various options entail. That’s the kind of discussion I think that is very important as we look to the future.

So what’s the Democrats’ next move? Is it “Betray Us” time again? Or does Barack Obama posit that he knows more about the independent variables in question than David Petraeus does?

The most likely scenario is that Obama continues his clumsy and inelegant straddle in which he tries to please the left’s anti-war base while keeping at least a big toe dipped in reality. I would wager that Obama’s position on Iraq will keep evolving throughout the campaign. I’d also wager that every time he discusses the subject, he won’t be able to resist wedging in a little homage to his own magnificent judgment.

1) From the Wall Street Journal, “Who Obama Should See in Iraq” by Dan Senor

Senor spent 2003 and 2004 as a senior advisor to the coalition in Iraq. From this experience, he has a pretty good idea what a naïve junior senator should look for in Iraq if he is in fact intent on having a serious fact gathering mission:

Of course Mr. Obama will spend time with the U.S. ambassador in Baghdad. But beyond the standard briefing on the current state of affairs, he should probe the ambassador about his own change of heart on U.S. policy in Iraq.

Mr. Crocker is a fluent Arabic speaker, widely regarded as among the State Department's most distinguished Arabists. Before Iraq, he was ambassador to Kuwait, Syria, Lebanon and Pakistan, with postings as well to Iran, Qatar, Egypt and Afghanistan.

Before the war, Messrs. Obama and Crocker both opposed the invasion of Iraq. In a 2002 memo to Secretary of State Colin Powell, Mr. Crocker outlined the risks of going to war, including the danger of inflamed sectarian tensions, violent Sunni opposition to the new political order, and meddling from neighbors Iran and Syria.

But Mr. Crocker is a professional diplomat, not an ideologue. Since his days serving with the Coalition Provisional Authority in 2003 and later taking over as ambassador, he has focused on the challenges facing U.S. policy now – not on whether his 2002 views have been vindicated. He is a strong supporter of the surge strategy, and recognizes that a sustained U.S. commitment to Iraq is essential to building on recent successes.

When Mr. Crocker and I were colleagues in Iraq, I often saw him provide unvarnished and sober recommendations to the most senior officials in the administration, including President Bush. He is not afraid of telling his political masters what they do not want to hear. Mr. Obama should avail himself of Mr. Crocker's experience and judgment, and should give him a fair hearing on why – whatever mistakes both men may think were made in 2002 – the current strategy is the right one in 2008.

But does Obama care about the reality in Iraq? Over the course of the campaign, the longtime community organizer has shown a surprising disregard for facts. Remember, this is the guy who thought the Americans liberated Auschwitz and that Kennedy and Khrushchev sat down for a confab at the height of the Cuban Missile Crisis. Obama has shown a steady preference for hewing to his pre-existing narratives, however erroneous they may be. His supporters will probably consider the following an admirable sign of backbone, but Barack Obama adamantly refuses to let the actual facts confuse him.

And then there’s the secret plan that Obama’s advisors hold for his upcoming Iraq trip. Commentary’s Jennifer Rubin calls our attention to this leak:

One big challenge for Obama will be how to handle his expected discussions with Gen. David Petraeus, commander of U.S. troops in Iraq during the troop surge that has helped lessen violence in the country. (Petraeus is widely considered the architect of the surge policy.) What Obama advisers want to avoid is a situation where Petraeus undermines the presumptive Democratic candidate’s stated policy—such as by saying a phased withdrawal would jeopardize the hard-won gains of U.S. troops, ignore their sacrifices, and put the future of Iraq at risk. “That would reverberate around the country in a negative way,” says the Democratic insider.

I guess Obama is as serious about hearing from the commanders on the ground as he is on marching towards Afghanistan.

2) From the Wall Street Journal Law Blog, “Covington Partner Demonstrates Treatment of Detainees” by Dan Slater

Back in the 1990’s, the white-shoe law firm Covington & Burling was not-so-affectionately known as Covington & Boring for both its tedious practice and its lifeless environment. I haven’t had contact with that world for a while, but if Covington still retains that demeaning sobriquet, it’s not partner David Remes’ fault.

Remes represents a handful of men at the Guantanamo detention center. In order to dramatize his clients’ plight, he dropped trou at a press conference in Yemen after meeting with the men’s families. As if the visual aids weren’t enough, Remes delivered a stirring soliloquy that would have made Clarence Darrow (or at least Corbin Bernsen) proud:

“I’d been to Guantanamo in mid-June and there’s a certain amount of normalcy that has settled over the normal miserable conditions of confinement, which amount to solitary confinement without sleep and without sunlight and without anyone to talk to. So at the news conference, I said that, in addition to this torment, which has become so typical that we don’t even talk about it anymore, now the torment also consists of constant body searches in which the men are required to pull their shirts up to their chest, drop their pants, and then the corn-fed U.S. military sticks their thumbs under the prisoner’s underwear band and circles the prisoner’s torsos.”

I can’t tell which is more offensive – Remes using the bizarre pejorative “corn-fed U.S. military” or showing his tighty-whities for all the world to see. Actually, looking again at the accompanying image, it’s clearly the latter. Still the use of the term “corn-fed U.S. military” is pretty damn offensive also. One wonders whether Remes realizes that the “corn-fed U.S. military” allows him the freedom to wear extremely expensive suits, even if he apparently discards the lower half when the urge strikes.

As for the propriety of this entire adventure, there was a time when law firms like Covington considered their partners pantsing themsleves in public to be less than entirely cricket. There was also a quaint time when they frowned on crassly insulting the American military while on foreign ground.

3) From the Wall Street Journal, “Voters Want Economic Leadership” by Karl Rove

I’m sorry, but this is one Rove column I just don't get. Today, Rove suggests that politicians can make a winning issue out of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac:

Elections are often reshaped by unexpected and fast-moving events, and when this happens a candidate who quickly takes the lead on the new issue can bolster his chances to win. There is such an opportunity now for Barack Obama and John McCain with the crisis facing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

The mortgage giants touch tens of millions of people because their core business is to buy, insure and securitize home loans. But they act like huge hedge funds with their portfolios worth hundreds of billions. As government sponsored enterprises (GSEs), they have an implicit federal guarantee that allows them to borrow money more cheaply than competitors. They have used that advantage to make ever-larger bets in their portfolios, generating big profits when home prices were rising, but big losses when housing weakened.

Let’s flash back to 1992 and the debate where the citizens got to question the candidates. One forlorn woman asked President Bush how the deficit had personally affected him. He rightly looked at her like she had two heads, having no idea how to answer such a strange question.

What Bush didn’t know was that “the deficit” had become a catch-all phrase for “the stumbling economy.” Perhaps Fannie and Freddie could become the same thing, but with $4/gallon gas, the housing bubble and the credit crunch, such abstractions are likely unnecessary. Besides, do we really think the American public is ready for a serious and substantive conversation on mortgage backed securities? (“Mortgage-backed whats? Give me affordable gas!!”) Alas, have we become so boring as a nation? And even if we were ready for such a national dialogue, there’s no indication that either presidential candidate has the private sector chops to participate in such a conversation let alone lead it.

4) From the Washington Times, “Democrat Centrists Duel with Netroots” by Christina Bellantoni

I don’t know who the “centrists” in the title refers to. Harold Ford seems to be the only centrist dueling, and he’s not even an office-holder. Joe Lieberman’s a centrist, but he’s not really a Democrat and he wouldn’t touch the Netroots with a ten foot modem.

Anyway, Ford is off to Netroots Nation, the rechristened version of the Yearly Kos, to debate Markos Moulitsas.

"When we started this 'netroots' thing, we worked to get 'more and better Democrats' elected. At first, we focused on the 'more' part. This year, we're focusing a bit more on the 'better' part. And in 2010, we'll have enough Democrats in the House to exclusively focus on the 'better' part," Mr. Moulitsas wrote in June.

"That means primary challenges," he said. "As we decide who to take on, let it be known ... voting to give telecommunication companies retroactive immunity may not guarantee a primary challenge, but it will definitely loom large."

Since the Netroots’ ascendancy, times have been good for the Democratic party. I would argue crediting the Netroots for the good times is akin to crediting the trees for pushing the wind, but the records between the Democrats “under” Kos and the Democrats “under” the DLC provide a dramatic contrast.. The DLC lost congress; with the Netroots at the party’s forefront, the Democrats regained congress.

But good luck to Harold Ford in making his case to Netroots Nation.

5) From the Wall Street Journal, “Smooth Sailing Gets Ugly with Russian Billionaire’s Yacht” by Robert Frank

For people who make truly obscene amounts of money, there is I believe a moral obligation that they labor mightily to enjoy that money and in so doing fuel the dreams of countless other businessmen and craftsmen who have long waited for a profligate billionaire to enter their lives.

If I had the billions that 36 year-old Russian industrialist Andrey Melnichenko possesses, I would take this responsibility seriously. I would probably start modestly by building the world’s five best golf courses. But once I was warmed up, there’s no telling what I would do.

Melnichenko discharged his sacred responsibility of blowing a huge wad of money on something stupid by building the world’s ugliest yacht. Philipe Starck, who normally crafts kitchen appliances and hotel lobbies, did the design honors. I think after glancing at the picture of the boat you’ll agree Starck should henceforth stick to lemon-squeezers.

Yes, it’s true that Melnichencko’s $300+ million should have gotten him an attractive yacht. But kudos to the guy for trying. And if you read the story, I’m sure you’ll agree the yacht sounds very cool even if it looks positively wretched.

1) From the Wall Street Journal, “The New Reality In Iraq” by Frederick W. Kagan, Kimberly Kagan and Jack Keane

The authors, contributing architects of the surge, have recently returned from a trip to Iraq and have taken note of some dramatic progress:

As far as the civil war is concerned, there have been virtually no sectarian killings recorded for the past 10 weeks. Violence is still perpetrated by organized groups, but AQI, the remnant Sunni insurgents and Shiite fighters are now focused on attacking their own members who have defected to our side. This is a measure of their weakness. The Iraqi population is increasingly mobilizing against the perpetrators of violence, flooding American and Iraqi forces with tips about the locations of weapons caches and key militant leaders – Sunnis turning in Sunnis and Shia turning in Shia…

If America remains firm in its commitment to success in Iraq, success is very likely. The AQI and Shiite militias at present do not have the capacity to drive Iraq off course – unless both the U.S. and the Iraqi government make a number of serious mistakes.

The most serious error would be to withdraw American forces too rapidly. That would strengthen the resolve of both al Qaeda and Iran to persevere in their efforts to disrupt the young Iraqi state and weaken the resolve of those Iraqis, particularly in the Iraqi Security Forces, who are betting their lives on continued American assistance.

The blunt fact is this. In Iraq, al Qaeda is on the ropes, and the Shiite militias are badly off-balance. Now is exactly the time to continue the pressure to keep them from regaining their equilibrium. It need not, and probably will not, require large numbers of American casualties to keep this pressure on. But it will require a considerable number of American troops through 2009.

The Democrats, as personified by their current standard bearer, have steadfastly declined to see reality in Iraq. Until days ago, Barack Obama was declaring the surge an abject failure and muttering sweet nothings about an Iraqi civil war into the netroots’ collective ear. Since the facts on the ground no longer support that view, Obama and his surrogates have pivoted to declaring the battle in Iraq over while lusting for battle in Afghanistan so they can show their tough guy bona fides.

The only thing the two divergent Obama views have in common is their refusal to deal with reality. The surge has been a success, but the gains have been hard won and are not irrevocable. If anyone would want to take a victory lap for the surge, one would think it would be the authors of this article who were among its architects. The Kagans and Keane have opted for a more sober and responsible approach.

I’ll buy into the Hope thing just for a moment and hope against all available evidence that Barack Obama is capable of showing the same characteristics.

2) From the Washington Post, “The Iron Timetable” by the editors

The Post takes the Democrats’ presumptuous nominee to the woodshed today. The last politician to take such abuse from the Post’s editorial board was Richard Nixon:

Mr. Obama reiterated yesterday that he would consult with U.S. commanders and the Iraqi government and "make tactical adjustments as we implement this strategy." However, as Mr. McCain quickly pointed out, he delivered his speech before traveling to Iraq -- before his meetings with Gen. David H. Petraeus and the Iraqi leadership. American commanders will probably tell Mr. Obama that from a logistical standpoint, a 16-month withdrawal timetable will be difficult, if not impossible, to fulfill. Iraqis will say that a pullout that is not negotiated with the government and disregards the readiness of Iraqi troops will be a gift to al-Qaeda and other enemies. If Mr. Obama really intends to listen to such advisers, why would he lock in his position in advance?

"What's missing in our debate," Mr. Obama said yesterday, "is a discussion of the strategic consequences of Iraq." Indeed: The message that the Democrat sends is that he is ultimately indifferent to the war's outcome -- that Iraq "distracts us from every threat we face" and thus must be speedily evacuated regardless of the consequences. That's an irrational and ahistorical way to view a country at the strategic center of the Middle East, with some of the world's largest oil reserves. Whether or not the war was a mistake, Iraq's future is a vital U.S. security interest. If he is elected president, Mr. Obama sooner or later will have to tailor his Iraq strategy to that reality.

The Post just tosses out the line that Obama is indifferent to victory, but the Obama campaign should actually respond to the charge. Does Obama care about winning in Iraq? If so, what would he be willing to do as president to ensure victory? Or at least pursue victory?

In 2007, Obama explicitly said that a potential or actual genocide wouldn’t cause him to reconsider his urgency to surrender. I know, you’re stunned – like me you thought liberals were nice and cared about other people. The state of play right now is that Barack Obama still cares only about ending the war.

And the Post shows undue optimism in stating that Obama will sooner or later have to tailor his strategy to the reality in Iraq. Really? Who’s going to make him? Harry Reid?

3) From the Wall Street Journal, “Prisoner Swap Signals Hezbollah's Clout” by Cam Simpson and Farnaz Fassihi

Behold the horror of going wobbly. Read it and weep.

In a deal brokered by the United Nations, Israel agreed to hand over all five Lebanese prisoners currently held in Israel. The men are expected to be flown Wednesday to Beirut after crossing at Rosh Hanikra, an Israeli-Lebanon border post hewn into a cliff above the Mediterranean Sea.

Mr. Kantar is Israel's longest-held security-related prisoner and the Jewish state's onetime poster boy for Arab terrorism. His attack on an Israeli coastal village in 1979 left five Israelis dead, including two young children.

For many anti-Israeli Arabs, however, Mr. Kantar represents the face of resistance.

Hezbollah will also receive the remains of all fighters from Lebanon killed and buried in Israel during the two countries' 60 years of conflict. Workers recently undertook exhumations from nearly 200 numbered graves in a potter's field the Jewish state maintains for enemy fighters.

A hero's welcome awaits the five prisoners in Beirut. They will be greeted there by a lineup of officials, and then taken to the Shiite suburb of Dahya for a rally.

Celebrations aren't expected in Israel unless one or both of the Israeli soldiers captured by Hezbollah and promised in the exchange turn up alive. After their July 12, 2006, capture, forensic evidence at the scene suggested the two -- Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev -- had been killed or seriously wounded in the Hezbollah raid. Three other Israeli soldiers died in the attack.

The deal has since gone down. Both of the Israeli soldiers came home in coffins. Meanwhile, what of this Mr. Kantar who returned to freedom today promising to resume the fight against Israel?

On April 22, 1979, Mr. Kantar, then 16 years old, and four other militants launched a motorized rubber raft from Lebanon and landed a few miles south -- at the northern Israeli coastal town of Nahariya, which is visible from the cliff-top border post the freed Lebanese prisoners will cross Wednesday.

Some supporters of Mr. Kantar have since said the sole aim of the raid was to seize Israelis who could be ransomed to win the release of Arab prisoners. The mission quickly turned bloody. The militants killed an Israeli policeman who spotted them. Then they stormed into an apartment building and seized a 28-year-old man and his 4-year-old daughter.

Mr. Kantar was later convicted of brutally killing them both, along with the policeman. The man's wife, hiding in the apartment, accidentally smothered her 2-year-old daughter as she tried to muffle the girl's cries. Another Israeli policeman was killed in a gun battle that led to Mr. Kantar's capture.

The Journal oddly sanitizes Mr. Kantar’s heroics (for that is how Hezbollah views his actions). He killed the four year-old’s father in front of her, and then shattered her skull.

The worst part? 61% of the Israeli public approves of the deal, and Israel’s pathetic Prime Minister Ehud Olmert will actually purchase a little bit of popularity from the exchange. At least until the results of showing such weakness become manifest.

4) From the New York Times, “May We Mock, Barack?” by Maureen Dowd

Yes, I’m recommending a Maureen Dowd column. I know that will suggest the End Times to some readers, but it’s actually quite entertaining:

If Obama keeps being stingy with his quips and smiles, and if the dominant perception of him is that you can’t make jokes about him, it might infect his campaign with an airless quality. His humorlessness could spark humor.
On Tuesday, Andy Borowitz satirized on that subject. He said that Obama, sympathetic to comics’ attempts to find jokes to make about him, had put out a list of official ones, including this:

“A traveling salesman knocks on the door of a farmhouse, and much to his surprise, Barack Obama answers the door. The salesman says, ‘I was expecting the farmer’s daughter.’ Barack Obama replies, ‘She’s not here. The farm was foreclosed on because of subprime loans that are making a mockery of the American dream.’ ”

The fact that Maureen Dowd has taken notice means the meme of Obama as a humorless scold is beginning to gain traction. In another month, Obama may come to resemble an elongated Michael Dukakis minus the rapier wit and the dead-on Carol Channing impersonation.

Let’s say for the sake of argument that Obama is as humorless as he appears. If so, should it matter? One could argue that it shouldn’t, and that if we wanted an Entertainer-in-Chief we could just elect Mike Huckabee president-for-life and be done with it. But central to Obama’s appeal is his ability to inspire. Aloofness, coldness and arrogance – three traits Obama’s been showing in abundance in recent days – are not known for their ability to inspire.

5) From the Wall Street Journal, “Why Airlines Lost Billions, and What Those Losses Mean for Passengers” by Scott McCartney

Delta and American both posted disastrous numbers for the second quarter today. While the tendency might be to dance on the airlines’ graves, McCartney points out that these numbers likely mean airline service will be getting even worse and even more expensive.

That’s for the short term, and I won’t allow such momentary inconveniences to dilute my joy over the airlines’ difficulties. With a couple of exceptions (Jetblue and Southwest leap to mind), the entire industry treats its customers like necessary evils. At best. What other business goes to such lengths to let 90% of its customers (the ones who fly coach) know they’re relegated to second class citizenship? If the airlines didn’t consider their customers a captive audience, they would exercise some discretion in this regard. Worse still, the trod upon customers are left footing the bill for the oligopoly’s adoption of untenable business models.

If ever an industry cried out for the creative destruction that capitalism can bring, it’s the modern airline industry. I say bring it on.

BONUS: New JibJab!

Send a JibJab Sendables® eCard Today!

1) From the Politico, “Talking About AfPak” by John McCain.

Fair is fair - I’ve criticized the McCain campaign when it has stumbled. It is thus only right that I give McCain and his team credit when they get one right. McCain gave a speech today on Afghanistan that displayed a superior understanding of our military needs in Afghanistan. “Superior to whom?” you say. Why a certain longtime community organizer who we’ll be discussing in a bit, that’s who.

Said McCain:

That strategy will have several components. Our commanders on the ground in Afghanistan say that they need at least three additional brigades. Thanks to the success of the surge, these forces are becoming available, and our commanders in Afghanistan must get them. But sending more forces, by itself, is not enough to prevail. In the 18 months that Senator Obama has been campaigning for the presidency, the number of NATO forces in Afghanistan has already almost doubled -- from 33,000 in January 2007 to about 53,000 today. Yet security has still deteriorated. What we need in Afghanistan is exactly what Gen. Petraeus brought to Iraq: a nationwide civil-military campaign plan that is focused on providing security for the population. Today no such integrated plan exists. When I am commander-in-chief, it will.

There are, of course, many differences between Afghanistan and Iraq, which any plan must account for. But, as in Iraq, the center of gravity is the security of the population. The good news is that our soldiers have begun to apply the lessons of Iraq to Afghanistan -- especially in eastern Afghanistan, where U.S. forces are concentrated. These efforts, however, are too piecemeal; the work of innovative local commanders, rather than a strategy for the entire country. In particular, the U.S. needs to reengage deeper in southern Afghanistan, the Taliban heartland.

One of the reasons there is no comprehensive campaign plan for Afghanistan is because we have violated one of the cardinal rules of any military operation: unity of command. Today there are no less than three different American military combatant commands operating in Afghanistan, as well as NATO, some of whose members have national restrictions on where their troops can go and what they can do. This is no way to run a war. The top commander in Afghanistan needs to be just that: the supreme com