Camp Meeting

We're in the airport getting ready to head out on vacation and then, at the end of the week, pick up the kids from camp. So posting will probably be pretty light this week.

Better watch out now for the gamma rays

Granite countertops contain uranium and emit radiation and radon?

On the bright (glowing?) side, will the countertops at least kill off the salmonella and e. coli?

Sucking wind oh tell me when does it end

John McCain, yesterday, in New Hampshire:

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.

Will this result in anything like the saturation bombing that General Clark endured for his (honest, but – I’m trying not to be biased here – awkward) statement about John McCain’s experience?

I’m fairly certain we know the answer.

Yet McCain and his brigade will nevertheless continue their absurd whining about Barack Obama being a media darling. Which itself will get more media attention than McCain’s galling remarks.

Take a ride with the preacher in the ring

Joe Lieberman to the adoring masses at the Pastor John Hagee's Christians United for Israel conference, on the views of some who thought he shouldn't attend: "The bond that I feel with Pastor Hagee and each and every one of you is much stronger than that, and so I am proud to stand with you tonight."

Time to be amazing

This is a test post from my phone. Pretty neat.

You never know who you hurt with your words

A new poll shows that Joe Lieberman has a much bigger "Problem with Jews" than Barack Obama.

This news was going to lead me into a discussion about the problem that is Joe Lieberman and the damage he has caused within the party, and particularly with elderly Jewish voters in South Florida. But Glenn, who hammers Holy Joe today on his ongoing Hagee ties, and the Daily Show (below), with it's brilliant piece last night on retirement community South Florida Jews, have addressed most of the issue for me.



That being said, we've still got a big problem out there, and it is typified in large part by Joe Lieberman. The point of having Joe out there is not to convince the entire Jewish community to vote for John McCain. It's just to convince enough of them to not vote for Barack Obama.

On top of that, there's still the issue that older Jewish women continue to have an impassioned, if not irrational, attachment to (or obsession with) Hillary Clinton. We see it in the Daily Show clip, with the absurd visual of Lisa, the "younger looking" Jewish woman ("beautiful diction" - oy), protesting that if Obama didn't make Hillary Clinton his VP choice, she was going to sit out the election. The story half kids us, letting us in on the joke that some of the commentary is manipulated to make it funnier, to make the participants appear a bit ridiculous. But, of course, that's part of what makes the truths so biting. Lisa's comments, while perhaps partially out of context (although I suspect not much), reflect a much deeper reality.

I had dinner on Saturday night with relatives visiting from a few hours south, including my aunt, a fundamentally good person, a baby boomer Jewish woman, who will be voting for Barack Obama -- who nevertheless asked me whether I really, truly thought Obama was qualified to be president, and that how in her mostly older Jewish comminity in South Florida, the women had been excitedly discussing Hillary Clinton up until Senator Obama locked up the nomination, and now none of them discuss or shows a shred of interest in Barack Obama.

And I couldn't help thinking, after hearing this discussion and seeing the Daily Show clip, that Joe Lieberman has in part done this to us, that he is both a symptom and a cause of a problematic worldview. The issue is not one of substantive positions, on whether aging mostly-female transplanted Northeastern Jews believe that Barack Obama really is bad for Israel and John McCain will be the saviour of the Middle East. We're dealing with aging liberals here, remember. Instead, we're still stuck trying to get past the turn of the century, the transition from Clinton/Gore (and, in some minds, Lieberman) to Bush/Cheney, and the farce that was the 2000 election.

Let me see if I can make the point a bit better.

For one thing, there's an attitide of entitlement, manifested in a refusal to accept the results of a hard-fought primary election season, and an insistence that the rules be changed to conform to one side's desired outcome. In essence, the basic norms of acceptable behavior in a democratic republic governed by rules have given way to a revolutionary selfishness. Regardless of the will of the party's voters as a whole, some still believe that their preferred candidate still has some legitimate claim to the nomination.

It is the same mindset that led to Joe Lieberman shunning the results of the Connecticut Democratic primary for his Senate seat two years ago. By reelecting Joe Lieberman as an "Independent Democrat" (with a coalition of a majority of Republicans and a minority of misled Democrats who took Lieberman at his word that he would remain loyal to the Democratic Party, that he favored a withdrawal from Iraq, and that he would fight hard to put a Democrat in the White House) over Democratic nominee Ned Lamont, Connecticut voters enabled the mindset that Joe's behavior was legitimate and fair, despite common sense dictating otherwise. Of course, the reality is that Senator Lieberman has, since the election, smarting from the Democratic Party's rejection of him in Connecticut and in the presidental primaries of 2004, continued to try to punish the Democratic party for following the will of the Democratic voters.

Bolstered (unconsciously, I'm sure) by what happened with Joe Lieberman's reelection to the Senate, Hillary Clinton's campaign showed the same stubborn selfishness, cynically refusing to accept defeat and harping about the supposed disenfranchisement of Florida and Michigan voters. In her supporters' minds, Hillary was (and remains) entitled to the Democratic nomination and Barack Obama better recognize that by making her his Vice President, or else Obama will be made to suffer at the hands of hundreds of thousands of residents at Century Village and Kings Point and the myriad other Jewish retirement communities in South Florida.

Worse, these communities seem to have misunderstood the lesson of 2000 and hanging chads. Feeling cheated out of their votes in 2000 (which votes, I'll be honest, were cast for Al Gore -- or Pat Buchanan, but that's another story -- but made passionate by his choice of a Jewish running mate), many people seem to have stubbornly internalized that disenfranchisement. Instead of focusing on the fact that as a result of the failure of their vote to be counted for the intended candidate, the other candidate won the presidency, the focus instead seems to be that the voters themselves are important--more important than the actual result of the election and the impact on the country--and their voices must be heard. And if it takes defeating the Democrat Barack Obama (who, let's be honest again, does have Hussein as a middle name, nudge nudge) and putting John McCain into the White House to do that, so be it. Because it worked so well for the Naderites, right?

Of course, it doesn't help that Joe Lieberman is spending more time with the retired South Florida Jewish community than in Washington D.C. or his home state of Connecticut, stirring the flames.

Basically, it's a temper tantrum. It wouldn't be acceptable from our children, but what do we do about it when it comes from our grandparents?

Go tell it to the people there

You may not remember this, but back in 2000, the Vice Presidential "debate" between Dick Cheney and Joe Lieberman was hailed for its "civil, thoughtful" tone. As CNN reported at the time:

Both Cheney and Lieberman talked in steady, dignified tones, with the debate's sit-down format reducing the formality of the event.

Steady, dignified tones that reflected the brazen certitude of a pair of charlatans.

One of the most unfortunate aspects of our media today and their so-called objectivity is that no matter how ridiculous a statement someone makes, if it is spoken in a way that sounds civil and authoritative, it is considered a reasonable position. Few people in politics have demonstrated this better than Dick Cheney (who continued to get a hearing and respect for his statements about WMDs in Iraq long after any rational person could have gotten away with such nonsense) and Joe Lieberman (who continues to hold a reputation in the media as a "moderate" despite his radical, far-right positions on the wars and other matters). There must be an entire wing at most of the media giants where they store their huge acquisitions of snake oil.

This attitude has made people like Bill Kristol fixtures in our mainstream media, despite the fact that they are almost universally wrong - and demonstrably so.

John "Straight Talk" McCain has learned this lesson well. So now at least our media, if not the voters, have become convinced of the reasonableness of John McCain's assertions that he has been right all along on the surge, or that drilling for oil off of the coast of Florida is a thoughtful position (even asserting that Florida voters seem to support this position, which is completely absurd -- Charlie Crist does not speak for his constituents on this matter at all), or that there should be a gas tax "holiday".

At what point do we focus on the underlying truth behind assertions, rather than being bogged down in tone and artificial collegiality?

Take out the trash

OK, the fact that this effort to rename a water treatment plant in San Francisco the "George W. Bush Sewage Plant" was able to get enough signatures to get on the ballot is kind of funny. But it's also pretty unproductive. Way to undermine a message of change, folks.

Where the grass seems greener

I referred earlier to the PEPFAR (President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief) legislation that was being held up in the Senate, despite overwhelming support, which would dramatically increase spending on international AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis programs, and which bill would also overturn the HIV travel ban. It looks like the Senate finally passed the bill today, and a final bill to be sent to the White House is expected within a matter of days. From MSNBC:

The Democratic-led Senate, rarely in agreement with the White House, gave Bush credit for initiating the program. Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and a chief negotiator in crafting the bill, said PEPFAR is "the single most significant thing the president has done."

The global AIDS program will save tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of lives, Biden said, "and the president deserves our recognition for that."

Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., top Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee, and co-negotiator with Biden, said the program "has helped to prevent instability and societal collapse in a number of at-risk countries." He added that it has "facilitated deep partnerships with a new generation of African leaders, and it has improved attitudes toward the United States in Africa and other regions."

Credit where credit is due.

First to laugh is the last to know

You've got to be kidding, right? Liddy Dole has proposed naming legislation aimed at providing aid to foreign nations to fight AIDS after Jesse Helms. From Helms' attitude toward foreign assistance ("If you mean foreign assistance in the form of handouts to various nations funded by U.S. taxpayers, I do not approve in any circumstances") to his attitude on AIDS (the Senate is still tied up today on trying to overturn Helms' ban on travel to the U.S. for people with AIDS) and homosexuality ("Think about it. Homosexuals and lesbians, disgusting people marching in our streets demanding all sorts of things, including the right to marry each other."), there are just so many things wrong with this that it must be a joke.

Update: Apparently, I was a bit unfair above. Although remaining unrepentant in his views against homosexuality and AIDS in the U.S., Jesse Helms did change his tune about foreign aid for AIDS assistance, at the urging of Bono, believe it or not. Naming this proposed new legislation after him is still a joke, but this at least provides a bit of context.

Didn't say anything to him

Bush Administration to appease Iran.

William Burns, America's third highest-ranking diplomat, will attend talks with the Iranian envoy, Saeed Jalili, in Switzerland on Saturday. The talks are aimed at persuading Iran to halt activities that could lead to the development of atomic weapons, a senior U.S. official told the Associated Press on Tuesday. It will be the first time such a high-ranking U.S. official has attended such talks.

I'm sure the Administration and John McCain will inform us how this is a smart policy and completely different from Barack Obama's position on talking to our enemies. And, of course, our media will agree.

I'll buy a big house to put 'em all in

I think I may be having some problems with the English language, because I continue to have problems understanding what in the world people are talking about, and why our media, when they're not responsible for the perceived non-sequitur in the first place, doesn't follow up to figure out what is going on. So I'm thinking that it must be me.

So today, George Bush says this in reference to the growing banking crisis, following the collapse of IndyMac Bank (Member FDIC, slogan: "Raise your expectations") and the meltdowns of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac:

And by the way, the decisions on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- I hear some say "bailout" -- I don't think it's a bailout. The shareholders still own the company. That's why I said we want this to continue to be a shareholder-owned company.

So apparently a bailout is not when a failed business is propped up by the government so that the shareholders of that failed business don't lose out. Just so we're clear on that.

And just to square the circle, apparently IndyMac Bank was formed by Countrywide Financial--which was just "bailed out" by Bank of America--as a way to collateralize Countrywide mortgage loans that were too big to be sold to--yes, you got it--Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Iambic pentameter

Today's poetry by Senator Obama:

I strongly stand
by my plan
to end
this war.

Barack Obama is making it clear that he has in no way moved toward an endorsement of John McCain's policies.

Anyone who refers to Obama as an appeaser, or weak, or a flip-flopper, is just buying into spin. Rather than cowering in the face of dishonest misrepresentation of his views, he continues to drive his point home -- that the war in Iraq was a mistake from the start, that it is time to bring the troops home, and that one of the greatest consequences of the folly of the past seven years has been the squandering of the opportunity for America to lead, in a way that only America can, to a brighter future, with the support of the civilized world behind us.

Imagine, for a moment, what we could have done in those days, and months, and years after 9/11.

We could have deployed the full force of American power to hunt down and destroy Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda, the Taliban, and all of the terrorists responsible for 9/11, while supporting real security in Afghanistan.

We could have secured loose nuclear materials around the world, and updated a 20th century non-proliferation framework to meet the challenges of the 21st.

We could have invested hundreds of billions of dollars in alternative sources of energy to grow our economy, save our planet, and end the tyranny of oil.

We could have strengthened old alliances, formed new partnerships, and renewed international institutions to advance peace and prosperity.

We could have called on a new generation to step into the strong currents of history, and to serve their country as troops and teachers, Peace Corps volunteers and police officers.

We could have secured our homeland--investing in sophisticated new protection for our ports, our trains and our power plants.

We could have rebuilt our roads and bridges, laid down new rail and broadband and electricity systems, and made college affordable for every American to strengthen our ability to compete.

We could have done that.

Senator Obama continues:

What's missing in our debate about Iraq - what has been missing since before the war began - is a discussion of the strategic consequences of Iraq and its dominance of our foreign policy. This war distracts us from every threat that we face and so many opportunities we could seize. This war diminishes our security, our standing in the world, our military, our economy, and the resources that we need to confront the challenges of the 21st century. By any measure, our single-minded and open-ended focus on Iraq is not a sound strategy for keeping America safe.

Of course, the parties that have been most distracted and that seem incapable of focusing on the real issues, instead of cheering on the mistakes and distractions, are our media, the guardians of our discourse.

And so now the question is, when will the media stop adopting McCain's talking points?

Video link to come when available.

Where do we go from here?

Barack Obama clearly and explicitly lays out his Iraq strategy in an Op-Ed in today's New York Times, to remove U.S. troops from Iraq within sixteen months, allowing for tactical adjustment as necessitated by conditions "on the ground." The closer in the Op-Ed:

In this campaign, there are honest differences over Iraq, and we should discuss them with the thoroughness they deserve. Unlike Senator McCain, I would make it absolutely clear that we seek no presence in Iraq similar to our permanent bases in South Korea, and would redeploy our troops out of Iraq and focus on the broader security challenges that we face. But for far too long, those responsible for the greatest strategic blunder in the recent history of American foreign policy have ignored useful debate in favor of making false charges about flip-flops and surrender.

It’s not going to work this time. It’s time to end this war.

Triflin' Energy Draining

I promised a post on energy issues a while back, and while I have had most of text effectively written since then, it was cobbled together in some email exchanges, and I just hadn't put it together in a readable form yet.

This post came about following a dialogue about whether hydrogen is the "answer" to the question of what is the best auto fuel for the future, from an environmental and self-sufficiency perspective. And I'm not sure that I ever convinved the other party of anything, because they were ideologically committed to the idea that hydrogen was the fuel of the future.

But the great hopes for hydrogen are construced on a myth, that it is the fuel of the future, a clean, efficient, smart solution that relies on American ingenuity without dependence on foreign sources, that leaves water vapor as its only footprint. And it's hard to counteract the hyperbole around hydrogen, because most people are looking only at the end user - a pump puts compressed hydrogen into a tank, the car drives along, and water - only water - comes out as the exhaust. But for the reasons I will discuss, we need to stop pretending that hydrogen fuel cells are an answer based on current proposals - as currently envisioned, it just disguises the problem.

Hydrogen may be part of a solution, but it is not a solution in and of itself. In large part, that is because hydrogen is not a true fuel source, it is just a carrier, similar to a battery. You still need the actual fuel source, whether that is oil, nuclear, coal, natural gas, solar, wind, hydroelectric, whatever. Moreover, the current most promising way to get the hydrogen itself is from natural gas, yet another fossil fuel. So, in today's world, using hydrogen as your "solution" means you need to get natural gas and separate the hydrogen for use in fuel cells, and separating the hydrogen requires yet another energy source, which in today's world means, for the most part, dirty, environmentally destructive coal.

Under the most efficient vision of hydrogen power under this framework, it takes about the same amount of energy to create the hydrogen as the hydrogen fuel yields (take water or natural gas, use an energy source to separate the hydrogen, etc., so that when you use the hydrogen to "create" energy, you are restoring the hydrogen to its pre-split state) - and then the hydrogen fuel has to be transported to the distribution network. At the end of the day, the hydrogen fuel has actually provided less energy than was required for its creation and distribution. As I said, that's not an energy source, but rather a carrier.

Where does the energy come from to create the hydrogen? As alluded to above, the alternatives are (1) fossil fuels such as coal, which is environmentally worse than oil, (2) nuclear, which is the McCain/Republican favorite because they're slaves to the nuclear energy lobby, believe that their God will protect them from the risks, and don't care about the waste, or (3) renewable sources such as solar and wind. But at this point there is no network of wind and solar that can do the job.

So how can hydrogen be part of a solution? Admittedly, its promise is, in some ways, better than a battery because it can be rapidly refueled and give you a much greater range compared to today's batteries. But it only really works if you can get to where you are sourcing the hydrogen (preferably locally) from the electrolysis of water using a clean, renewable energy source.

Hydrogen fuel cells may make it to market, and people may be able to pretend that they are achieving something, because the actual cost and environmental impact is hidden away from them -- all they see is the water vapor.

But at this point hydrogen is really just the coal and natural gas industry's fantasy. Hydrogen fuel cells are full of problems. For instance, a fuel cell "tank" would need to be larger (some say up to four times larger) than a gasoline tank, in order to carry an equivalent amount of energy as a gasoline tank. This may or may not account for the supposed greater efficiency of a hydrogen fuel cell engine -- some say it is up to three times more efficient, so you would need to fill up with less "energy" to travel the same distance; however, others maintain that the idea that hydrogen is three times more efficient is just wrong, and that hydrogen is only marginally more efficient. But even conceding, for point of argument, that hydrogen is dramatically more efficient than a gasoline engine, hydrogen is not better. Others have done a good job highlighting the scientific and environmental problems with the hydrogen economy.

So, hydrogen fuel cells may present an an energy alternative that helps eliminate dependence on foreign oil. It may also be somewhat of a cost solution, because it relies on cheap coal, combined with the potential (discussed above) for greater efficiency than gasoline engines (but, of course, that neglects looking at the entire process of creating the hygrogen itself, which reduces that true efficiency of hydrogen, since there are numerous inefficiencies in the process of rendering the hydrogen).

Hydrogen fits in with the interests of various contingencies, too. T. Boone Pickens would be happy to have hydrogen as a long-term solution, as it supports his natural gas play, since under current scenarios natural gas is the source for the hydrogen. Scientists and engineers love the project, because there is a challenge to it and it is pumping cash to them.

But the reality of hydrogen fuel cells is that it is more fantasy than reality, and not the ultimate source of the energy itself, and so it requires blinders as to all of the details.

The real "answer" is renewable energy -- preferably solar where it works. That renewable energy can be used to charge up more efficient batteries in plug-in hybrid cars. Some back-up energy is required where the electricity is unavailable or drained from the battey, and it is there that hydrogen makes some sense. The drive to create the Chevy Volt is at the forefront of this technology.

If a fraction of the dollars being put into hydrogen fuel cells goes toward increasing solar cell efficiency, the payoff would be huge.

So the best solution today for autos remains a hybrid solution. If all homes included solar power, plug-in hybrids are even better. And if solar power can be used to efficiently split hydrogen from water for use in a hydrogen fuel cell engine, we will have closed the set on a true "answer."

But to look at hydrogen in a vacuum doesn't do anything to address the environmental and energy needs going into the future.

Defenders of the Flag

L.F. Eason III, the laboratory manager for the North Carolina Department of Agriculture state standards lab (which calibrates regulated measuring equipment, for things like gasoline) in Raleigh, and who has worked for the Department for his entire 29-year working life, was forced into early retirement for instructing his staff not to fly the U.S. or North Carolina flags at half-staff Monday in honor of Jesse Helms.

I cannot help thinking that Helms was just not worth it.

Hey old man, how can you stand to think that way

I think this is how Jesse Helms would like to be remembered.



I was living in North Carolina at the time and had the misfortune of seeing this advertisement in real time. I would say it was disappointing, but really it was Jesse Helms, and he rarely disappointed.

Here's a fitting tribute from Michael Moore from his old and brilliant show, TV Nation (back before Moore became a caricature of himself):



Update: Hilzoy chronicles the instructive conservative reaction to the death of Jesse Helms (for example, President Bush: Jesse Helms was "an unwavering champion of those struggling for liberty", "a kind, decent, and humble man" and a "great patriot"; and John McCain (as he tries to get some conservative points while arguing he didn't say anything at all): "At this time, let us remember a life dedicated to serving this nation"), and lays out some of Helms' views in his own words.

Update #2: It turns out that John McCain's chief strategist, Charlie Black, was closely associated with some of Jesse Helms' racially-charged campaign tactics.

This isn't deep, it's not profound

I was complaining last night to my wife about the complete inanity of our press, how they cannot understand the difference between strategy and tactics. Barack Obama announces that there may be a need to adjust specific tactics for a withdrawal from Iraq based on facts on the ground, and our idiotic press, following the lead of John McCain, attacks with claims that Obama has changed his policy of getting our troops out.

Here's what Obama said:

I've always said that the pace of withdrawal would be dictated by the safety and security of our troops and the need to maintain stability. That assessment has not changed," he said. "And when I go to Iraq and have a chance to talk to some of the commanders on the ground, I'm sure I'll have more information and will continue to refine my policies.

Of course, that's a perfectly sensible comment, and not in any way a flip flop or a change to John McCain's position of eternal occupation, but rather a statement that he will adjust tactics in a way to ensure that we exit Iraq carefully, in a way that is safest for ourtroops and Iraq.

It is inconceivable that our media overlords don't understand this. But, apparently, they do not. And the last remaining shreds of faith in our mainstream media's competence and intellect has almost completely collapsed.

Josh, of course, understands, and takes the so-called journalists to task:

The McCain camp seems to have a lot of reporters eating out of its hands since many journalists don't appear to grasp the basic distinction between strategy and tactics. I've even had normally sensible journalist colleagues forwarding me RNC press releases like they're passing on the revealed truth. McCain's campaign actually put out a statement claiming that Obama "has now adopted John McCain's position that we cannot risk the progress we have made in Iraq by beginning to withdraw our troops immediately without concern for conditions on the ground."

I've watched this campaign unfold pretty closely. And I've listened to his position on Iraq. He's been very clear through this year and last on the distinction between strategy and tactics. Presidents set the strategy -- which in this context means the goal or the policy. And if the policy is a military one, a President will consult closely with his military advisors on the tactics used to execute the policy.

Josh then drives his point home:

For the McCain campaign to put out a memo to reporters claiming that Obama has adopted McCain's policy only shows that his advisors believe that a sizable percentage of the political press is made up of incorrigible morons. And it's hard to disagree with the judgment.

The simple truth is that this campaign offers a very clear cut choice on Iraq. One candidate believes that the US occupation of Iraq is the solution; the other thinks it's the problem. John McCain supports the permanent deployment of US troops in Iraq. That is why his hundred years remark isn't some gotcha line. It's a clear statement of his policy. Obama supports a deliberate and orderly withdrawal of US forces from Iraq. It's a completely different view of America's role in the world and future in the Middle East. Reporters who can't grasp what Obama is saying seem simply to have been permanently befuddled by George W. Bush's game-playing over delegating policy to commanders.

These fools have spent so long just reading the RNC releases as if they are fact, and spitting out the nonsense verbatem. The Fourth Estate continues to fail us.

Oh, what a time

Happy Independence Day!

Found the wife and the wind so still

Governor Charlie Crist steps up his campaign for John McCain's vice presidential running mate, believing that McCain needs him to secure a victory in Florida, which is probably a make-or-break state for McCain. If only Crist can make himself palatable to the national Republicans, he's a frontrunner for McCain's veep. And Charlie is apparently going to do whatever he thinks he needs to do in order to secure that.

Last week Crist turned on the state and jumped into bed with John McCain and his ridiculous plan to drill for oil off of the Florida coast. By getting engaged today to "New York socialite" Carole Rome, Crist fulfilled the right wing requirement that he get married and put a stop to rumors that persist about a 50-something bachelor. And on Tuesday, Governor Crist got to oversee his first execution as governor. Check, check, check.

Join the chosen few

And since I brought up Glenn Greenwald last night, here's more evidence that he's one of the best voices on the internets. I've written a bit on this issue, but as usual, Glenn does a better job.

Often feels betrayed

Has Barack Obama wavered on FISA and telecom immunity? Yes, without a doubt. Would I be happier if he had opposed the new FISA bill? Absolutely. As usual, Greenwald is right.

OK, now let's get over it, and get on with electing Barack Obama president.

We've been poisoned by these fairy tales

I know, I know, I've got to drop this issue. But I'm just going batty about the media's complete failure to address this "controversy" in honest terms, instead of the knee-jerk protection racket that they are throwing out for John McCain.

Here's an example of a John McCain ad, where he's obviously not (not) running on his military record and experience as a POW as qualification for the presidency.



But it's off limits for Wes Clark or other Democrats to point out that McCain's Vietnam experience does not qualify him for the presidency. Sheesh.

The Columbia Journalism Review goes there, a bit, taking down the current press meme that Clark's statements regarding McCain's fitness for the presidency constitutes an attack on McCain's military service.

It’s crucially important that we have a political debate in this country that’s at least sophisticated enough to be able to handle the following rather basic idea: Arguing that a person’s record of military service is not a qualification for the presidency does not constitute “attacking” their military credentials; nor can it be described as invoking their military service against them, or as denying their record of war heroism.

That’s not a very high bar for sophistication. But right now it’s one the press isn’t capable of clearing.

And to top it all off, all of this goes on at the same time that Joe Lieberman's claims -- on the same show -- that the U.S. will get hit by a terrorist attack in the first year of an Obama administration go essentially unchallenged.

TPM has put together a video of the media nonsense:



Here's Wes Clark's statement:

Statement by General Wesley K. Clark (ret):

"There are many important issues in this Presidential election, clearly one of the most important issues is national security and keeping the American people safe. In my opinion, protecting the American people is the most important duty of our next President. I have made comments in the past about John McCain's service and I want to reiterate them in order be crystal clear. As I have said before I honor John McCain's service as a prisoner of war and a Vietnam Veteran. He was a hero to me and to hundreds of thousands and millions of others in Armed Forces as a prisoner of war. I would never dishonor the service of someone who chose to wear the uniform for our nation.

John McCain is running his campaign on his experience and how his experience would benefit him and our nation as President. That experience shows courage and commitment to our country - but it doesn't include executive experience wrestling with national policy or go-to-war decisions. And in this area his judgment has been flawed - he not only supported going into a war we didn't have to fight in Iraq, but has time and again undervalued other, non-military elements of national power that must be used effectively to protect America. But as an American and former military officer I will not back down if I believe someone doesn't have sound judgment when it comes to our nation's most critical issues.

And so we get to the real point of all of this: to discredit Wes Clark, one of most credible voices on national security and defense in the Democratic party. If the Republicans can bludgeon the press into making someone like General Clark irrelevant or a liability, they can make John McCain essentially unassailable.

Which is the point.

This is not a fair fight. And by "rejecting" Clark's comments, the Obama campaign has handed the right an unearned victory.

Those convicting may be the guiltiest of all

Some perspective on the whole Clark kerfuffle.

Andrew Sullivan has spent substantially more time unrepentantly condemning Wes Clark for making a factually true statement about John McCain (regardless of tone or perception), than the brief acknowledgement made of John McCain and his crony Joe Lieberman attacking Barack Obama for being "endorsed by Hamas" (which acknowledgement happened to come as an aside amidst Sullivan's gushing praise of McCain's character).

Sullivan's strongest condemnations of McCain: "Ugh" and "It's a lame and cheap shot. And beneath McCain." Compare those to Sullivan's screeds against Wes Clark yesterday. Or, if we must compare apples to apples (or surrogates to surrogates), compare Sullivan's reaction to Wes Clark to his minimal reactions to the almost daily offenses by Joe Lieberman against Barack Obama.

But, of course, there's the rub. Andrew Sullivan insists for some reason on believing that that type of commentary is "beneath McCain", whereas he has complete contempt for Wes Clark (and what is the basis for that? I'd really like to know), so Clark gets none of the benefit of the doubt. He refuses to doubt McCain's integrity, even when McCain's offense is unpardonable. As a result, when McCain makes a comment that is subject to no positive interpretation, such as the charges that Obama is the candidate of choice of a terrorist group, Sullivan still knows deep down in his heart that there is a "good McCain." (I guess it is similar to the way that George Bush was able to get a sense of Vladimir Putin's soul when he looked in his eyes.) To the contrary, when Wes Clark responds to Bob Schieffer with Schieffer's words (carelessly, I agree, but not inaccurately), Sullivan (and all of those "tone deaf" Democrats) are subject to Sullivan's condemnation and ridicule.

Very telling, indeed.