Northman's Fury

Some pretty interesting numbers from Gallup on who both Democrats and Republicans think would be the toughest opponent for McCain to beat would be.

The survey was conducted March 24-27, interviewing a nationally representative sample of 1,005 Gallup Panel members. Democrats were asked whether Clinton or Obama has the better chance of defeating McCain in November: 59% say Obama does; 30% say Clinton. Republicans were asked whether McCain has a better chance of defeating Clinton or Obama on Election Day. Sixty-four percent say McCain has a better chance of beating Clinton, compared with only 22% choosing Obama, meaning Republicans view Obama as the more formidable candidate.

That tracks with just about every other poll I've ever seen. What makes me curious, is that at the same time as this poll, Obama and Clinton were basically tied on the daily tracking poll. Even now, Obama is at just over 50%.

That seems to say that there is a significant chunk of Clinton supporters who want her to win despite believing that Obama is the better general election candidate. I wonder what they're thinking?

Reading the coverage of the Texas caucus results, and particularly this post at Cogitamus, reminds me once again that the more I learn about how the US chooses it's president, the more convinced I am that the system is totally FUBAR'd and in need of a serious overhaul.

The Republicans ended up with the guy who was basically everybody else's alternate choice, and the Democrats find themselves with two really good candidates for once, which is leading to a self-destructive circular firing squad between their supporters. There's the primaries, caucuses, conventions, the primacaucusaurus of Texas, state and convention delegates, and the wondrous interplay of the superdelegates, and that's just the prelims. Once we get to the general election, we get to play with the wild and wonderful electoral college.

Add to that the ridiculous sums of money it takes to be considered a competitive candidate and the virtual shutting out of any third party chances, plus the outdated first past the post system that makes any third party candidate an almost automatic spoiler for whichever of the two party's appear closer to said individual's positions.

This is seriously one of the most messed up ways to choose a leader I'm aware of, (though of course still better than (more) non-democratic means).

Another in the continuing series of why Obama is a better choice than McCain. Given the fighting in Basra and other parts of Iraq, it is worthwhile to contrast the reactions of the two candidates.

Obama, as per usual, uses the grey matter between his ears and comes to the same conclusion as the experts:

Senator Barack Obama of Illinois suggested the news from Basra highlighted his contention that American military involvement could not solve the deep-seated problems facing Iraq.

“I don’t want to suggest I’ve absorbed all of the facts,” about the situation in Basra, Mr. Obama said. But, he continued, what he had heard “appears consistent with my general analysis. The presence of our troops and their excellence has resulted in some reduction in violence. It has not resolved the underlying tensions that exist in Iraq.”

McCain, also as per usual for him, parrots the White House spin, posits two mutually exclusive conclusions, and tosses in a measure of fear-mongering for good measure:

Mr. McCain, of Arizona, said he was encouraged that Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki’s government had sent its troops to reclaim Basra from the Shiite militias. “I think it’s a sign of the strength of his government,” Mr. McCain said Friday at a stop in Las Vegas . . .

. . . Some are saying the fighting strengthens their case for troop withdrawals.

But the McCain campaign is hoping to turn that argument on its head, asserting that the battle in Basra shows just how dangerous the situation on the ground in Iraq is. It says this bolsters Mr. McCain’s argument that a premature withdrawal of American troops would lead to more widespread violence, instability and perhaps even genocide.

“I think that what this demonstrates is that there are very powerful forces that still remain that do not want to see the success of the central government and that would relish the prospect of the American withdrawal so that they could try to fight or shoot their way into power,” said Randy Scheunemann, the McCain campaign’s senior foreign policy adviser. “Would you rather have the Maliki government in control, or the Iranian-backed special groups in control, or Al Qaeda in control?”

So, if you're paying attention, the Bush/McCain crowd is saying that the fighting is a sign of the Iraqi government's strength, while conversely also saying that it is a sign that the Iraqi government is too weak to stand up on its own and needs a continued US military presence, all the while pushing the line that either you support Maliki or the terrorists will win.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm tired of that kind of bullshit. It is long past time to have someone in charge who is willing to see the situation for what it is, rather than what their ideological spinmeisters say it should be.

Listen, it was a bullshit charge when the Clinton camp was accusing Obama over it, and I'm not going to give it any more credence now. Politicians borrow. Deal with it.

Whatever else you can say about Obama, he inspires some really kick-ass videos.

Iraqis killing Iraqis is good news!

So long as we’re backing one of the sides, otherwise it’s the reason we can’t leave.

The "Politics of Personal Destruction" are just fine since we're good at playing that game.

Missed this when it happened, but apparently Mike Gravel, who last I checked was still officially running for the Democratic Party's nomination for president, has changed his party affiliation, but that's not the fun part.

In an announcement released late Tuesday, Gravel said he is joining the Libertarian ranks because it “is a party that combines a commitment to freedom and peace that can’t be found in the two major parties that control the government and politics of America.

. . .

Last month, Gravel endorsed Green Party presidential nominee Jesse Johnson. National Multimedia Director Sklyer McKinley said at the time that Gravel didn’t see any reason “why not” to offer his backing since “voting party line is not smart” and he agrees with Johnson’s message as well as the Green Party’s approach of “direct democracy, mobilizing at a grassroots level, working with people one-on-one and enabling citizen democracy.”

“He’s a current Democratic presidential candidate who is now a member of the Libertarian Party who has endorsed a member of the Green Party,” Davis said.

Hard to get much more non-partisan than that.

An article from the New York Times examining one of the many private contractors the US is using to equip the forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. A few key points:

The company awarded the $300 million dollar contract is run by a 22-year old with a licensed masseur as a vice-president.

The ammo they supplied was oftentimes more than 40 years old, manufactured in China, and shipped in boxes that were falling apart.

The US knew for some time that the munitions were next to useless.

The vaguely-worded contract failed to specify the quality of ammunition.

The US allowed continuing procurement by the company even though he was dealing with a known arms smuggler.

The Pentagon is still planning on honouring the contract for continued small-arms ammunition.

And one of my personal favourites, the owner used national security grounds, being the president of an "licensed Defense Contractor to the United States Government in the fight against terrorism in Iraq", to try to delay court proceedings in a stalking case.

The US government in Bushland. And you have to know this isn't an isolated case.

Two polls with somewhat similar results yesterday.

If McCain vs. Obama, 28% of Clinton Backers Go for McCain

Which I think goes to show that if you keep telling your supporters that McCain is better than Obama, they'll start to believe you, and that's something Hillary has done repeatedly.



The second poll give a bit more context, showing Hillary's negatives rising to ever higher levels, and this tidbit about who might be able to heal the party:

Because among Obama voters, Clinton has a net-negative personal rating (35-43) while Clinton voters have a net-positive view of Obama (50-29). Taken together, this appears to be evidence that Obama, intially, should have the easier time uniting the party than Clinton.

Most Obama voters are willing to hold their nose and vote for Clinton if they have to in order to avoid a McCain presidency. It probably helps that Obama doesn't run around telling everyone how much better McCain is than Hillary. But his supporters, listening to the underhanded tactics Clinton is using to attack him, are really growing to hate her. With this latest attack over Wright, I'd expect that to grow even worse.

In a major speech, Sen. John McCain distanced himself Wednesday from President Bush's foreign-policy tactics but embraced Bush's foreign-policy goals.

So while the Democrats are busy trying to self-destruct, "Bomb, bomb Iran" McCain is out trying to convince people that while he believes in everything Bush does, he won't be such an incompetent jackass about it all. Given that nearly seven years after 9/11, and five from the start of the Iraq War, McCain still has issues figuring out just who the major sectarian groups are in the Middle East, I no longer give him any points for being able to handle the situation competently, let alone that he won't start something that will piss off what remains of America's allies.

The speech "is definitely an effort at triangulation," said Duke University professor Bruce Jentleson. McCain, he said, is "trying to show he is a realist and not a neocon," and at the same time "trying to sound like not just a realist, but an internationalist" by endorsing cooperative action with other nations.

Jentleson, who served as a policy adviser to then-presidential candidate Al Gore, said McCain's speech reminded him of Gov. George W. Bush in 2000, who pledged a "humble" foreign policy and dismissed "nation-building."

I was going to write more, but Cernig has already covered far more than I was likely to. Go read.

I tried, really I did.  I did my damnedest, bit my tongue, and kept from launching anti-Hillary tirades.  I even stopped short of posting the mash-up of Hillary’s bald-faced lying about her Bosnia trip.

But while I can knock unfair blogosphere attacks on either candidate, and refuse to use or transmit them, it is a far different thing when it’s the candidate themselves doing the smearing.  After being mostly civil and acting like she actually gave a damn about the Democratic Party’s chances rather than just her own for the last couple weeks, Hillary is back on the smear track, breathing new life into the Wright controversy.

"He would not have been my pastor," sniffed La Clinton. "You don't choose your family, but you choose what church you want to attend."

The obvious reply is that you also choose which ministers receive the honor of an invitation to a White House prayer breakfast addressed by the president of the United States. Well, OK, maybe you don't, but the Clintons did, back in 1998, when Bill Clinton was seeking political absolution for his affair with a White House intern. As the Obama campaign is all too happy to point out, Wright was invited to that breakfast. (Click here for a picture of Wright shaking President Clinton's hand.)

And the real fun part of all this is just who Hillary is talking to about all of this; the very centre of the vast, right-wing conspiracy himself, Richard Mellon Scaife, who, among other things, accused Hillary of killing Vince Foster.  If anyone needed to know how deep into the mud Hillary was willing to go to try and tear down Obama, there probably isn’t much lower she could sink.

Steve Benen does a pretty good job of describing the low road Clinton has taken:

This may sound cynical, but my guess is that media interest in Clinton’s debunked Bosnia story had become too great a distraction. The controversy (and damaging videos) undermined Clinton on two fronts — credibility and national security experience — both of which are of critical significance.

So, how better to change the subject that to revive the Jeremiah Wright story with brand new criticism?

Clinton has been offered repeated chances to comment on the Wright controversy for three weeks. She’s not only declined, she’s avoided saying a single word. Today, all of a sudden, Clinton has all kinds of concerns she’s anxious to share. What a remarkable coincidence.

What’s more, we now have a situation in which John McCain defended Obama against Wright-related charges, and Mike Huckabee defended Obama, but Hillary Clinton sat down with editors of a conservative newspaper to reignite a fire that had already largely gone out.

Less than a week ago, former Mondale campaign manager Bob Beckel said, “Many liberals like myself, who would be happy to support Hillary Clinton if she earned the nomination, would abandon her if her campaign seeks to exploit the Wright controversy either in the remaining contests or with superdelegates.”

Now, it appears she’s doing both. I’d hoped Clinton was above this.

And John Cole, though speaking about another tactic before the Wright story was resurrected by Clinton, sums up my feelings nicely:

I really tried to give them a chance. I chided Sullivan for his full-on Clinton Derangement Syndome (something he admits to having), I defended Hillary from bullshit attacks. I recognize there has been a lot of sexism chucked her way.

But I simply can not be alone in thinking the entire Clinton team has gone insane, and it bothers me when I read David Brooks and he sounds like he is right. David Brooks sounds sane. David Brooks was the dumbest man at the NY Times before they hired Bill Kristol. And now he sounds sane.

Meanwhile, the constant drip of nonsense from the Clinton camp has me wishing I had never even started to follow politics. I am so turned off by a group that simply can not face reality, simply can not be honest. They can not even admit the Bosnia statements were bullshit, something that even Taylor Marsh recognizes was a mistake. Instead of saying I was wrong, it is “I misspoke” or Hillary made a “misstatement.” And I won’t even dwell on the fact that this means fucking Sinbad has a better memory and a better grasp on reality than a potential President. Think about that for a minute.

Even those who called for unity are getting fed up with Clinton. For myself, it is no longer a question of whether or not Hillary is trying to destroy the Democratic Party, because she is, at least so far as the presidential race is concerned.

Polls like this are the proof that the longer Hillary battles on, and she's indicated that she'll keep slinging mud right up to the increasingly bitter end, the more likely everyone will be singing "Hail to the Chief" to President John McCain.

If the Democratic Party had any balls, they'd end this bloodletting before it becomes irreparable. Instead, the uncommitted stand around wringing their hands about how damaging this all is and how somebody should try and stop the bloodletting before it becomes too damaging. Here's a hint: get off the damn fence and choose! Sooner is better than later and sooner could be right now.

It won't be, of course. The spineless wonders that make up the Democratic leadership will watch the train-wreck continue until its too late. Leave it to the Dems to figure out a way to screw this up and hand the presidency over to someone who will continue Bush's legacy for another four years.

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

. . .

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

Eric Martin, doing double-duty at The Newshoggers and American Footprints, has been keeping a close eye on the Sadrist cease-fire and the American (and Iranian) –backed Shiite militias that are al Sadr’s rivals. He’s noted that with provincial elections coming up, and facing a loss of influence, ISCI may be trying to tilt the playing field to their advantage by moving aggressively against the Mahdi Army with US backing to make up for their disadvantages in popularity.

Today, McClatchy is running down the negative consequences of breaking that cease-fire in terms of reversing the fragile and temporary successes of the “surge”.

On Sunday, a barrage of at least 17 rockets hit the heavily fortified Green Zone and surrounding neighborhoods, where both the U.S. and Iraqi government headquarters are housed, according to police. Most of them were launched from the outskirts of Sadr City and Bayaa, both Mahdi Army-controlled neighborhoods.

On Monday, the Sadrists all but shut down the neighborhoods they control on the west bank of Baghdad. Gunmen went to stores and ordered them to close as militiamen stood in the streets. Mosques used their loudspeakers to urge people to come forward and join the protest.

Fliers were distributed with the Sadrists' three demands of the Iraqi government: to release detainees, stop targeting Sadrist members and apologize to the families and the tribal sheiks of the men.

The Iraqi security forces issued a statement promising to deal with those who terrorized shopkeepers and students.

The article also notes that US troop and Iraqi civilian deaths appear to be increasing again, particularly in the Baghdad area where the troops sent in for the “surge” are now being withdrawn, something also noted yesterday but mostly lost in the noise of the 4,000 death milestone coverage.

American forces have just experienced the most violent two-week period in Iraq since September 2007. Unfortunately, I'm afraid this fact will be lost in the media coverage over the number 4,000 during the next several days.  Of the two significant numbers this week--4,000 killed during war and 25 in the last two weeks--the latter figure is far more significant with regard to the current situation on the ground.

We hear talk of attacks against Americans "ebbing," ceasefires holding, and of the situation in Iraq being "not that fragile," but this is all a bunch of happy-talk nonsense.  Between March 10 and March 23, 25 American soldiers were killed in Iraq.  The last two-week period in which U.S. forces sustained similar losses was between September 14 and September 27, when 26 were killed--a period that capped off the bloodiest summer of the war.

This morning comes reports of heavy fighting in Basra between the “government”, read ISCI, forces and Basra miltias:

Heavy fighting has been raging in Basra as thousands of Iraqi troops battle Shia militias in the southern city.

. . .

British forces carried out air strikes to support embattled Iraqi army tanks and artillery on the ground.

Oil-rich Basra is in the grip of a bitter turf war between armed groups, including the Mehdi Army, say analysts.

The Mehdi Army - which supports radical Shia cleric Moqtada Sadr - called for a nationwide campaign of civil disobedience

. . .

Some of the fiercest fighting in the operation - dubbed Saulat al-Fursan (Charge of the Knights) - has focused on Mehdi Army strongholds.

All of this points to the fact that the “surge” has been a strategic failure. It's stated purpose, which few of those crowing about it's "success" seem to remember, was to provide the Iraqi government breathing room to hammer out a political compromise to the issues that were driving the insurgency.

As noted repeatedly about the "awakening councils", Just because some people have agreed to stop shooting at you for piles of cash doesn't mean they like you any more than they used to. A large part of the "success" of the surge can be attributed to many of the combatants simply laying low and rearming for the next round of fighting.

The warfloggers pointed to the decrease in attacks in Baghdad as proof the surge was working, but now that the troops are leaving, the attacks are again rising. The successes were tactical, not strategic. This explains why both the British and US forces are planning to "pause" their withdrawal of troops. With the underlying situation unchanged, when the troops leave, so do the security gains.

With the added pressure of the new elections coming up in the fall, the temptation for the various groups to begin competing and consolidating their power bases will grow. The fighting in Basra is likely a harbinger of things to come.

Matt Yglesias asks the pertinent question:

Why is it the best strategy to do what bin Laden wants?

I don't know the answer, but I do know that it is one among many signs that McCain wishes to continue the failed policies of the Bush administration.

A good reminder of why the developing situation in Pakistan is important to the effort in Afghanistan:

Suspected militants in Pakistan have attacked oil tankers supplying fuel to foreign forces in Afghanistan, destroying 36 tankers and wounding up to 70 people, officials and residents said.

. . .

No one claimed responsibility for the attack, the second on oil tankers bound for Afghanistan in two weeks, but the official blamed militants.

Foreign forces fighting the Taliban in land-locked Afghanistan get many of their supplies via Pakistan, where militants have been stepping up attacks on supply lines.

Not that I'm anymore a big fan of the Afghan mission, but since the Canadian Forces will be there for at least another three years, I wouldn't mind seeing their supply lines more secure.

Deep thought for the day from Tim F at Balloon Juice:

any honest discussion of race will inevitably reveal that some people are honestly racist morons. This is not a bad thing.

The headlines and stories about Rev. Wright won't stop. It is pretty much all the opponents of Obama have in their arsenal to negatively attack the man with, and for the Republicans in particular, negative attacks are all they have. Substantive discussion of the issues, and particularly this issue, is the last thing they really want.

Obama's speech was probably the most candid and honest discussion of race I've ever heard from a politician in my lifetime. That doesn't mean it was perfect, and David Brin says what the real problem with Obama's speech and his relationship with Wright is: Why didn't he confront Wright on those views before?

I did feel a bit let down by BHO. Yes, he spoke of Reverend Wright like that beloved Uncle Bob who is 90% goodness itself, always helping neighbors, volunteering as a crossing guard, mentoring youths... but who then rants about how the Apollo landings were faked and it’s all the fault of those #$#$! Albanians. It resonated. We all have uncles or aunts or cousins or neighbors like that. And Obama’s effort to depict Wright that way had some real plausibility.

But still, he evaded a crucial issue. Why, if he had heard such things (less awful, perhaps, but still cringeworthy) from his minister in the past... why did he not minister to the minister?

. . .

Look, I am backing Barack Obama. He is our hope, despite my deep wish that we had more years to get to know this promising fellow, before hurtling him into the Oval Office. Nobody else other than BHO seems to have a clue, and he can motivate, big time! A whole new generation. Moreover, the second after he swears in, we’ll have allies again! A fact that will increase our safety and national security by leaps and bounds.

Indeed, this racism speech satisfied a few of my small doubts... and yet...

...and yet I’d be no good friend if I did not offer a small poke of CITOKATE. (Criticism Is The Only Known Antidote To Error), along with the praise. Barack, you should have spoken up, reached out, during (or shortly after) Reverend Wright’s rants. You owed it to all of us to use your eloquence on a small scale, as well as the large. To minister to your minister.

Now, from an interview yesterday, Obama claims that he has had conversations with Wright regarding his more controversial views "from the day I first met him". As with most claims made after the fact, it's truth is hard to judge. At the very least, Obama has made no moves to embrace similar people or act in any manner that shows he shares any of Wright's more controversial sentiments. (As an aside, Dr. Dawg has a very interesting and different take on Wright's "controversial" comments.)

The same cannot be said of the Republican candidate and his growing chorus of hate-mongering preachers he's reaching out to, but for some reason McCain gets a pass on this:

Using Nexis and Google News, I went ahead and did another search this morning. How many of the nation’s largest daily newspapers ran stand-alone articles about McCain’s outreach to a bigoted and nutty televangelist?

Here’s the list:

Washington Post — Zero

New York Times — Zero

Los Angeles Times — Zero

Boston Globe — Zero

Chicago Tribune — Zero

USA Today — Zero

Wall Street Journal — Zero

Now, to be fair, in a couple of instances, some of these papers made brief reference to the flap in editorials or columns. More recently, a couple of the dailies ran huge stories about Barack Obama and Jeremiah Wright, and made brief reference therein to “questions” about McCain’s Hagee association.

But despite condemnations from the Speaker of the House, the chairman of the DNC, Catholic groups on the left, Catholic groups on the right, and Jewish groups, none of the major dailies ran a single article about the Republican presidential nominee cozying up to a bigoted megachurch preacher or the outrage it caused in some circles.

As with many things in politics, things come down to choosing the lesser of evils. Obama isn't perfect, but he's light-years ahead of McCain, on this issue as well as others. Why McCain can boldly flip-flop and embrace far more hateful ideologues than Wright and have a series of "senior moments" without being called out on it, is a question for another time.

The real danger here is that McCain's outreach and pandering to the Hagees and Parsley's of the world means he is far more likely to incorporate their views into his administration. Since the Republicans are never going to drop the Wright storyline, I would suggest that the Democrats and their allies should take Libby's advice and stop focusing their efforts on tearing each others candidates down and start aiming across the aisle at the guy getting a series of free passes from the MSM.

Start asking why, if Obama's association with Wright is such a big deal, the same standard isn't being applied to McCain's religious advisors? Ask why the media gives McCain a pass on his Iran/al Qaeda comments and admit the Democratic nominees would have been treated differently? Start, for lack of a better term, "working the refs" for the benefit of those who don't want religious extremists expanding their power in the US government and would like to avoid the "bomb, bomb Iran" scenario.

US Military Deaths Reach 4,000

A 17-year-old died at Carolinas Medical Center Thursday after a Charlotte-Mecklenburg police officer shocked him with a Taser during a confrontation at a grocery store in northeast Charlotte.

An autopsy will determine how Darryl Wayne Turner died.

You just have to love some of the comments from the Clinton campaign about the endorsement of Obama by Bill Richardson. John Cole was up in arms over the tin-eared Mark Penn's dismissal of the endorsement, but that pales in comparison to James Carville's characterization:

“An act of betrayal,” said James Carville, an adviser to Mrs. Clinton and a friend of Mr. Clinton.

“Mr. Richardson’s endorsement came right around the anniversary of the day when Judas sold out for 30 pieces of silver, so I think the timing is appropriate, if ironic,” Mr. Carville said, referring to Holy Week.

Whatever else you can say about the Clinton's and their supporters, they are really poor losers. And on a day when Clinton the Bill made another in a series of comments that put down Obama, this time slyly implying questions about his patriotism, among other things, it is a good idea to look at why Richardson turned his back on his long and cordial relationship with the Clinton's to embrace Obama.

Mr. Richardson said he was dispirited by the tone of the Democratic nominating fight, reflecting a sentiment that has been increasingly voiced by party leaders. Unlike many others, though, Mr. Richardson placed the blame on Mrs. Clinton.

“I believe the campaign has gotten too negative,” Mr. Richardson said, speaking to reporters in Portland. “I want it to be positive. I think that’s what’s been very good about Senator Obama’s campaign — it’s a positive campaign about hope and opportunity.”

This other tidbit is also interesting.

Mr. Richardson is the 62nd superdelegate to endorse Mr. Obama since Feb. 5, compared with fewer than five who have moved into Mrs. Clinton’s column since then.

Given that there is virtually no chance of Clinton winning the pledged delegate or popular vote race, the fact that the superdelegates are also moving in steady numbers to Obama's side is just one more sign that her continuing campaign is an exercise in futility. The only question now is how much of a boost McCain gets in the meantime.

Two stories written about the same Bush speech, in which he said that Iran has "declared they want a nuclear weapon to destroy people".

McClatchy makes no bones about the statement's accuracy:

Bush erroneously says Iran announced desire for nuclear weapons

President Bush contended that Iran has "declared they want a nuclear weapon to destroy people" and that the Islamic Republic could be hiding a secret program.

Iran, however, has never publicly proclaimed a desire for nuclear weapons and has repeatedly insisted that the uranium enrichment program it's operating in defiance of U.N. Security Council resolutions is for civilian power plants, not warheads.

Hell, they put it right up in the title that Bush is making a false claim. Compare that to the way the Washington Post reports the story:

Iran a Nuclear Threat, Bush Insists
Experts Say President Is Wrong and Is Escalating Tensions

. . .

"They've declared they want to have a nuclear weapon to destroy people -- some in the Middle East. And that's unacceptable to the United States, and it's unacceptable to the world," Bush told U.S.-funded Radio Farda, which broadcasts into Iran in Farsi.

Experts on Iran and nuclear proliferation said the president's statement was wrong. "That's as uninformed as [Sen. John] McCain's statement that Iran is training al-Qaeda. Iran has never said it wanted a nuclear weapon for any reason. It's just not true. It's a little troubling that the president and the leading Republican candidate are both so wrong about Iran," said Joseph Cirincione, president of Ploughshares Fund, a global security foundation.

Others said it is unclear whether the president believes what he said or was deliberately distorting Iran's position.

"The Iranian government is on the record across the board as saying it does not want a nuclear weapon. There's plenty of room for skepticism about these assertions. But it's troubling for the administration to indicate that Iran is explicitly embracing the program as a means of destroying another country," said Suzanne Maloney, an Iran specialist at the State Department until last year and now at the Brookings Institution's Saban Center.

National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe said Bush was referring to previous Iranian statements about wiping Israel off the map. "The president shorthanded his answer with regard to Iran's previously secret nuclear weapons program and their current enrichment and ballistic missile testing," Johndroe said.

The paper offers no opinion of its own, simply quotes multiple people with multiple explanations for the Bush comments. Pick the one you like, I suppose.

I'm sure the Post is doing this out of some sort of twisted sense of "objectivity". Have to give both sides room to make their case. But objectivity doesn't mean you ignore the facts, and the facts in this case are clear; the president's statement was wrong.

So for the Washington Post, get over your fence-sitting, "he said, she said", philosophy of just writing what other people say the facts are, and start reporting what some of the real facts are. If you need help figuring out how to do that, start reading McClatchy.

Nice post by Hilzoy about the controversy of Rev. Wright and the non-controversy over Hagee, Parsley, Robertson, et al.

if a white candidate is affiliated in some fashion with a white religious figure who preaches incendiary sermons, he's a nutty preacher, and it's a one day story or doesn't make the TV news at all. The white candidate can say: "if he said insulting things about Catholics or Jews, I strongly disagree," entirely ignore hatred of Muslims, and that's that. If a black candidate is affiliated with a black religious figure who preaches incendiary sermons, he's a nutty BLACK preacher, and it's a weeklong story & a huge threat to his candidacy. Repeatedly denouncing the preacher's excessive remarks--in specific terms--and giving the most thoughtful speech about race in America in decades & exhibiting no hatred of whites or anyone else, is not sufficient. A lot of people say there is nothing that Obama can do or say that can excuse his association with a black man who would say those things. Never mind whether Obama was there. Never mind when Obama found out about them. Never mind whether they're typical of Wright's sermons--the media cannot be bothered to explore that question at all. Never mind that Obama specifically denounced those remarks, repeatedly. Never mind that Obama obviously doesn't share those views. Never mind that there is absolutely no evidence in his entire public record that he hates America or hates white people, or that he has ever pandered to those sentiments. He is guilty of fraternizing with an angry, scary black man; he is therefore unfit for the presidency.

To paraphrase Geraldine Ferraro out of context, Obama wouldn't be in this position if he wasn't a black man.

Timothy Noah has the right idea.

Why should you waste your time, at this late date, ingesting the opinions of people who were wrong about Iraq? Wouldn't you benefit more from considering the views of people who were right? Five years after this terrible war began, it remains true that respectable mainstream discussion about its lessons is nearly exclusively confined to people who supported the war, even though that same mainstream acknowledges, for the most part, that the war was a mistake. That's true of Slate's symposium, and it was true of a similar symposium that appeared March 16 on the New York Times' op-ed pages. The people who opposed U.S. entry into the Iraq war, it would appear, are insufficiently "serious" to explain why they were right.

I suppose if the media pundit class actually had to start looking at how poor their judgement was compared to others, it would bring up the question of why we should be listening to them now? Better to ignore and dismiss those with better judgement lest the media be called to account for its inaccuracies.

17,481 pages documenting Hillary Clinton's schedule during the years her husband was president have finally been released, bringing with them expectations of being pored over for proof of her "35 years of experience" claim, to see just how involved she really was with the big and important issues of the last Clinton presidency.

Of course, that was assuming a press corps with more than peanuts for brains:

Hillary Was in White House on 'Stained Blue Dress' Day

The epitome of American journalism.

It is little wonder that Obama gets compared to JFK on a regular basis. Kennedy was long dead before I was even a gleam in my father's eye, and the main thing I know about him is the "ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" line from his inauguration. It was a challenge to the American people.

Today Obama challenged Americans again, this time to take a hard look at the issue of race in America. Where it comes from and why it exists, and what they are willing to do about it. And he did it while acknowledging more than just one side of the issue:

In fact, a similar anger exists within segments of the white community. Most working- and middle-class white Americans don’t feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race. Their experience is the immigrant experience – as far as they’re concerned, no one’s handed them anything, they’ve built it from scratch. They’ve worked hard all their lives, many times only to see their jobs shipped overseas or their pension dumped after a lifetime of labor. They are anxious about their futures, and feel their dreams slipping away; in an era of stagnant wages and global competition, opportunity comes to be seen as a zero sum game, in which your dreams come at my expense. So when they are told to bus their children to a school across town; when they hear that an African American is getting an advantage in landing a good job or a spot in a good college because of an injustice that they themselves never committed; when they’re told that their fears about crime in urban neighborhoods are somehow prejudiced, resentment builds over time.

Like the anger within the black community, these resentments aren’t always expressed in polite company. But they have helped shape the political landscape for at least a generation. Anger over welfare and affirmative action helped forge the Reagan Coalition. Politicians routinely exploited fears of crime for their own electoral ends. Talk show hosts and conservative commentators built entire careers unmasking bogus claims of racism while dismissing legitimate discussions of racial injustice and inequality as mere political correctness or reverse racism.

Just as black anger often proved counterproductive, so have these white resentments distracted attention from the real culprits of the middle class squeeze – a corporate culture rife with inside dealing, questionable accounting practices, and short-term greed; a Washington dominated by lobbyists and special interests; economic policies that favor the few over the many. And yet, to wish away the resentments of white Americans, to label them as misguided or even racist, without recognizing they are grounded in legitimate concerns – this too widens the racial divide, and blocks the path to understanding.

I've known that anger, in myself and others, justified and not. I've seen it expressed in varying forms of politeness in every debate about any kind of affirmative action. This is the first time I've hear a politician address it in a frank and candid fashion, at least on the progressive side and not looking to harness that anger for their own ends.

Outside of the moron-osphere, to whom I'm guessing nothing short of Obama lending a hand in Rev. Wright's lynching would be sufficient, this speech appears to be acceptable in defusing the controversy Wright's comments began. But given its tone and content, I wonder if it may be the launching point of something greater?

Is it possible for a single speech to change the rules of political discourse in America? In my lifetime, that claim has been made for Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream" speech in 1963 and for Ronald Reagan's "Tear Down This Wall" speech in 1987. We may yet hear the same claim made for the refreshingly honest and eloquent speech about race that Barack Obama delivered this morning in Philadelphia.

It was a speech that, had I been Obama's campaign manager, I would have advised him not to give, because it gave no quarter to the realities of identity politics as practiced in American politics.

. . .

This isn't about taking sides, Obama said. (By noting his mixed parentage, Obama pointed out that he couldn't take sides even if he wanted to without denying a part of himself.) This is about recognizing the legitimate grievances of blacks and whites, often expressed in the language of bigotry and bitterness, and then moving to address them. It's about not ignoring the ugliness in American life—when's the last time you heard a politician admit that ugliness can be found even in American churches?—but neither is it about defining yourself solely in opposition to that ugliness. It's about keeping your eye on the ball, staying focused on what can be achieved, even when the conversation turns to race, the single most divisive topic in American life. (My apologies to feminists, but we didn't fight a civil war over the place of women in American society.) It's about rejecting identity politics while honoring the nobler aspirations of the identity politicians. And it's about feeling confident that positive social change can be achieved, because it's been achieved in this country in the past. That Obama managed to say all this without displaying an ounce of false piety, or bitterness, or sentimentality, or denial, or self-righteousness, makes his speech a milestone in American political rhetoric.

Will the smears and hatred win out and push back the debate another generation or two? Or, when Americans look at themselves in the mirror, will they echo Obama and say, "Not this time"?

What does it say that the guy we keep being told is the best choice to deal with the "terrorists" can't keep their allegiances and supporters straight?

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

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

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

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

It of course has been commonly asserted by the Bush administration and their supporters that Iran has been helping out al Qaeda, with the same kind of "evidence" that linked Saddam to al Qaeda, meaning they just keep saying it and hope nobody calls them on it.

It's nice to see the MSM has finally called someone on the error. Though to be fair, Lieberman is the one who brought it to everybody's attention. Maybe he's a mole.

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

Well, it will only undermine him with those who understand the difference between different groups of Muslims, which is to say that his support among Republicans is probably unchanged.

From bastard.logic

Shorter Ron Fournier: “The boy’s a bit too uppity for my liking. Doesn’t know his place, if you know what I mean.”

This is such a joy to watch. More than most election campaigns, the US is about to drag all of its worst excesses regarding race relations out for all the world to see. Hopefully they shrivel when exposed to the light.

The LA Times has an interesting take on how the Chinese government is playing the Tibetan situation to its domestic audience.

Even as China faces global criticism for its crackdown on Tibetan Buddhists, it's winning the battle that it most cares about: support for its policies among Chinese back home.

One key factor is a media strategy that, while still blunt and heavily reliant on censorship and propaganda, shows more nuance than usual for the lumbering Communist Party.

This last week the government has used something it traditionally viewed as a big negative, any suggestion that it's not in total control, to its advantage by going large with print, still and video coverage of Tibetans attacking Han Chinese in the Tibetan capital, Lhasa, and destroying their property.

Not only does this rather ironically paint the Chinese state and its massive police force as something of a victim, analysts said, but it also stirs up feelings of fear and anger among many Han, the nation's majority population, that add a personal dimension to the riots.

At a political level, the coverage has also bolstered the government's assertion that its archenemy, the Dalai Lama, the exiled Tibetan spiritual leader, is masterminding the protests from abroad and the atheist government's long-standing contention that Tibetan monks are anything but neutral, nonpolitical and peace-loving.

Many of the videos of the riots on the state-run CCTV website have been shot and edited to point up crimson-robed monks bashing and burning with the best of the mob. And to the extent the Dalai Lama has stopped short of outright condemning the monks and the protest, China gains points.

"In this crisis, their strategy has been pretty effective," said Xiao Qiang, director of the China Internet Project at UC Berkeley. "They've been able to portray it as 'we Chinese' versus 'they Tibetans' and seen public opinion go their way."

The world condemns, but the domestic audience supports. As we approach the fifth anniversary of the Iraq invasion, that little dichotomy is a bit of a future echo, and not by accident.

The Chinese strategy is apparently working quite well, as do most strategies where the "other" is portrayed as evil. It is almost ridiculously easy to whip up hatred against another group, particularly a minority, and use it to justify the ever-increasing harsh tactics the Chinese government will be using to crush the demonstrations in the near future.

What's more interesting is down in the very last paragraph, where the article reveals just where the Chinese have learned these impressive new propaganda tactics.

"The government is showing more confidence and learning more about spin," said Michael Anti, a well-known Chinese blogger on a Nieman fellowship this year at Harvard. "They've learned more PR tactics from Western people. They see the way the White House and the Pentagon do it."

Ah, the Bush legacy. The gift that keeps on giving.