« July 27, 2008 - August 2, 2008 | Main | August 10, 2008 - August 16, 2008 »

August 9, 2008

Russia Attacks Georgia, Bush Attacks the Olympic Mountain Bike Course

Both Jon McCain and Barack Obama commented yesterday on Russia's invasion of Georgia, an event in some ways overshadowed by John Edwards' shenanigans, and the opening of the Olympic games. McCain is taking an aggressive stance saying Russia should “unconditionally cease its military operations and withdraw all forces." Obama offered that “now is the time for Georgia and Russia to show restraint, and to avoid an escalation to full-scale war.”

Menwhile, George Bush had a busy Saturday in Beijing, biking the Olympic mountain bike course, volleying with beach volleyball players, and posing with the US softball team. Of the course, Bush called it "really, really difficult." In general, Bush seemed to be in his element, that is, among people who see it as their jobs to work out all day. He did take time out at one point to tell reporters that he's "deeply concerned" about "a dangerous escalation in the crisis" in Georgia.

A senior US official has called Russia's attack on Georgia "far disproportionate" to Georgia's alleged attack on Russian peacekeepers. Russia, meanwhile, is likely motivated by Georgia's bid to join NATO, which would bring the alliance to a 475-mile shared border with Russia. Already five of Russia's 14 neighbors are NATO member countries.

August 8, 2008

John Edwards Confirms that the National Enquirer is Credible

Perhaps the most disturbing thing about today's revelation that John Edwards—in the midst of launching a presidential campaign—indeed had an affair, is that the National Enquirer was spot on, eight months ago. In his ABC confessional, to air tonight on Primetime, Edwards points out that the Enquirer got it right when it reported that he met with his lady friend at the Beverly Hilton two weeks ago. Edwards still denies the baby-daddy accusation, saying he is not the father of Rielle Hunter's child, though DNA may be called for given his truth track record here.

Makes one wonder, did the DNC finally have its act together on this one? Think about it, if his "friends and supporters" knew enough to perhaps pay her living expenses (which Edwards suggests in tonight's interview) then perhaps some organized party machinery pushed him out of the limelight just in time. I mean, the man with the Plan to Build One America, set out some lofty plans for this country. But Americans want their politicians faithful and straight (or at least as far as they know).

I have been following this sad story, admittedly with some gossip shame. But also as a member of the non-tab media who's supposed to toss away gossip rags as sources of anything credible. But the Enquirer, and Jossip, one of my new favorite blogs, have been all over this story. ( One link I sent to a fellow editor at Mother Jones got returned with the note: "Jossip.com, huh?" To which I responded, "Gossip can pay the most unlikely dividends.")

There is more truthiness than we dare to admit in the supermarket aisles. Sure there is a ton of trash and nonsense, but it would behoove all of us journalistas to pick up on the trail they break sometimes. Though perhaps part of the reason we didn't in this case, we like to tell ourselves, is, what a worthy politician does in his personal life is his own business. But is it, ever? And when they pay their lady friend campaign money to make webisodes, what then of the divide?

Two Americas, media people, the gossip rags and the rest of us. This round goes to the rags.

New Liberal Group Gets Tough With Conservative Donors

You could call it an attempt by long-beleaguered liberals to finally stop Swift Boat groups before they to attack Democratic candidates. You could also call it scare tactics.

Tom Matzzie, the former Washington director of Moveon.org and Judd Legum, the research director for Senator Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign, have teamed up to create Accountable America, a group independent of the Obama campaign and the DNC that will identify, publicize, and potentially create legal headaches for donors who fund conservative attack groups.

Accountable American will "deter Swift Boating groups by discouraging contributions to the groups," said Matzzie on a conference call Friday afternoon with reporters. By publicizing the misdeeds of the groups and the sometimes sordid histories of the people who enable them, Matzzie said, the group will "create a sense of scandal around donating to these groups."

Matzzie and company have started by mailing a letter to 10,000 prominent conservative donors. Matzzie says the letter "warns donors of the risk of engaging with these… organizations." If the organizations violate the law by improperly meddling in federal elections, each contribution that funds them could an unlawful transaction. The donors are being made aware this. "We're going to put them at risk," says Matzzie.

Matzzie was originally slated to run Progressive Media USA, a $100 million independent group that intended to run a full-scale nationwide advocacy campaign. After Obama displayed a distinct lack of enthusiasm for independent groups operating on his behalf, either because of a desire to control message or because of independent groups' tendency to practice a brand of politics Obama eschews, funding for Progressive Media USA dried up.

Matzzie says that his new groups needs far less money. In addition to the letters to conservative donors, it is investigating conservative independent groups and their funders, to find misbehavior large and small. After it's found in one or two instances, Matzzie can pressure the majority of conservative donors all over again. "We're asking donors to these groups whether or not they really want to be associated with these organizations and their peer donors," he said.

Currently he's offering a $100,000 reward to anyone with information on a conservative independent group that can be found in a criminal or civil impropriety. And despite the fundraising challenges Matzzie has faced in the past, it looks like doling out that figure won't be a difficulty. Matzzie said on the conference call that Accountable America has raised $50,000 since announcing itself Friday morning, and $200,000 in the past two weeks.

The Politics You'll See As You Watch 100M Hurdles

I mentioned earlier that the presidential campaign will essentially go on a short hiatus, starting today and lasting for a week or so. Don't think the lack of news will mean a stop to the TV ads, though, especially if you live in a battleground state.

Barack Obama has released his ad that will play during the Olympics. It's here:

A new McCain ad that will also be showing in the next few days is here:

Now, try to forget for one second that McCain's ad has a number of claims that numerous non-partisan outlets are calling substantively false or misleading. Instead, let's look at the obvious difference in tone. Obama's ad is positive, with smiling people and lots of light. Americans are hard at work, and the narrator suggests that our can-do spirit will ensure that we'll be hard at work in the future even as the economy evolves. A bounty of new ideas, some only vaguely defined, paints Obama as a candidate with a new vision.

Consider the McCain ad. It's negative from start to finish. The happy Americans in the ad, including a mother and her little girl, seem under threat from an ominous narrator and heavy shadowing. There are no new ideas. There is no new vision.

Now, I've stated here before I'm a believer that McCain will do his best when he emphasizes his own credentials as a reformer and maverick — in a recent ad he asserted that "Washington is broken," which frames the election as a battle between two "change" candidates. That seems to obviously be a better situation for McCain than an election with just one "change" candidate.

So it's no surprise that I don't think McCain's negative approach will be successful. Ceding the "new vision" ground to the other guy, when you are already associated with the party that drove the country into a ditch for eight years, seems like a bad plan. And repeatedly complaining that too many people like the other guy ("he's so popular") feels like a strategy we'll be laughing about in 2009. But then, perhaps I am too innocent. I've underestimated the power of negative ads before.

U.S. Places Violent Iraqi Prisoners In Standing Coffins

The United States. Not China. Not Zimbabwe.

The U.S. military is segregating violent Iraqi prisoners in wooden crates that in some cases are not much bigger than the prisoners.

The military released three grainy black-and-white photos of what it calls the “segregation boxes” used in Iraq. They show the rudimentary structures of wood and mesh. Some of the boxes are as small as 3 feet by 3 feet by 6 feet tall, according to military officials. They did not release a picture of a box that size.

The military said the boxes are humane and are checked every 15 minutes. It said detainees, who stand in the boxes, are isolated for no more than 12 hours at a time.

Here's how the story was uncovered. You can see the photos at the link — they're like something out of the Great Escape.

So, Why Do We Hate Us? New Book Tries to Explain

41GORi-mMxL._SL500_AA240_.jpg

I was born in the 1970s, and even at my tender age, have fallen victim to a creeping cynicism (too often expressed in the form of easy sarcasm) that has me worried lately. I'm too young for such negativity. I haven't earned that badge. Not yet, anyway. For years, I chalked it up to a generational entitlement: after all, isn't my brood, Generation X, defined by its feelings of apathy and emotional confusion? That was the message of popular culture at the time. (Just watch "Reality Bites" or read Douglas Coupland's Generation X.) And it's the culture that is the problem, writes Dick Meyer in his new book, Why We Hate Us: American Discontent in the New Millennium.

Meyer, the editorial director of digital media at NPR, ticks off the many widely shared annoyances of everyday life: telemarketers, pedestrians with eyes glued to their iPhones, t-shirts emblazoned with vulgar or stupid messages, and the ever-expanding menu of inane reality TV shows.* Lest you think he's just a grumpy old man, he also takes on weightier subjects, such as the impact of social networking sites, the decline of "organic communities," the all-pervasive presence of marketing, and our national worship of celebrity, among many other things. All told, it's a composite of exactly the sort of cultural ugliness that feeds our collective distrust of government, the media, entertainment, and each other.

If, like me, you believe that something is rotten in the state of Denmark, but you're not sure what, give Meyer's book a read. You'll laugh, if nothing else, and might just find that it helps you to look on the bright side of things.

*I have an iPhone, some stupid t-shirts, and have been known to enjoy certain reality TV shows. I have never worked as a telemarketer.

Okay, Folks. Ready for a Deep Breath?

Because here's your chance to grab one. I just got a copy of Barack Obama's public schedule and it looks like this.

Friday, August 8: "Welcome to Hawaii" Event in Honolulu, HI.

Saturday, August 9 to Friday, August 15: No public events.

That's called a vacation. It will be interesting to see if Obama will come out of hiding to react to major international news, an important investigative report, or a particularly vicious attack by the McCain campaign. To not do so would be a pretty foolhardy attempt to impose his will on the furiously paced 24-hour news cycle. I assume he'll do it. He might even get in a couple photo-ops along the way — as someone remarked to me earlier, he's just got to be careful to avoid the windsurfing.

Meanwhile, the Olympics start tonight, meaning that what little news there will be in the presidential race will get even less coverage. The McCain campaign might do well to think of next week like a NBA coach: when the other guy removes his big, you do the same to get yours some rest. Surely McCain could use it.

Did the Son of the NRA-Connected Private Spy Lose His Job Because of Mom?

Is Sean McFate the first casualty of Gun-gate?

Sean McFate is the son of Mary Lou Sapone (a.k.a. Mary McFate), the NRA-connected private spy who infiltrated the gun control movement for about 15 years. Her tale was first disclosed by Mother Jones last week. That article noted that Sean, a Brown- and Harvard-educated paratrooper, and his wife, Montgomery McFate, a controversial Pentagon adviser, had once both worked for Mary Lou Sapone's business, which specialized, according to an old version of Montgomery's resume, in "domestic and internal opposition research" and "special investigations." Sean and Montgomery McFate might also have been involved in Mary Lou Sapone's penetration of the gun control community.

More recently, Sean McFate was program director of the national security initiative at the Bipartisan Policy Center, a Washington think tank boasting an advisory board composed of four former Senate majority leaders: Howard Baker, Bob Dole, George Mitchell, and Tom Daschle. That is, he was until the appearance of the Mother Jones story on his mother.

As that story was being posted last week, McFate was listed on BPC's staff list on its website. Days later, his name was gone.

Asked about McFate's fate, the BPC issued this statement:

Prior to the publication of the recent Mother Jones article, Sean McFate resigned from the Bipartisan Policy Center (BPC) to pursue a different professional project. The BPC was unaware of any allegations regarding the activities of Sean's family members and never had any reason to believe that Sean was involved in any questionable behavior.

The timing of the Mother Jones article was purely coincidental, and was in no way related to Sean's resignation. We wish him well as he pursues his professional interests.

A coincidence? Perhaps. But McFate, as noted above, was on the staff list until after the story hit. Moreover, after Mother Jones had contacted McFate for the story but before the article was posted, his title on the BPC website changed. Twice. He went from being listed as a program director to being described as a consultant to again being listed as a program director--all within a few days. Why the back and forth? (McFate refused to talk to Mother Jones about his mother or his work with her.)

It could be that Sean McFate's departure from the BPC was no more than a case of odd timing. But would the BPC--which works to develop "solutions that can attract the public support and political momentum to achieve real progress" and which happens to be located one floor below the Brady Campaign To Prevent Gun Violence, the nation's most prominent gun control organization (which McFate tried to penetrate)--want on its staff a fellow linked to an undercover operation that targeted a neighbor? And the work of Mary Lou Sapone was hardly in the spirit of bipartisanship. It's not surprising that Sean McFate picked this moment to move on.

Meanwhile, the NRA has yet to respond to the exposure of Mary Lou Sapone's snooping. Nor has she. After the story came out, Mary Lou Sapone skedaddled to Belize and has not replied to requests from various news organizations.

August 7, 2008

Hamdan Taken Out of Bush's Hands

Salim Hamdan, convicted earlier this week of providing material support for terrorism (a.k.a. being Osama bin Laden's driver), has been sentenced to five and a half years. Because he'll get credit for time served, he could be released in as few as six months. The government asked for 30 years of prison time.

The Bush Administration, which plays by a set of rules that exist only in its collective brain, made it clear before the verdict that it was prepared to continue detaining Hamdan even if he was found not guilty. Presumably, a Bush White House would keep Hamdan locked up well past the six month mark. But half a year of jail means that Hamdan is essentially John McCain or Barack Obama's responsibility — statements from both explaining how they would handle Hamdan's detention would be very interesting.

Circumstantial Evidence Against Ivins Called "Compelling"; Widow Presses Lawsuit

Shortly after the 2001 anthrax attacks, U.S. bioweapons researcher Bruce Ivins emailed some poems he'd written to a friend, including this one: "I'm a little dream-self, short and stout. I'm the other half of Bruce—when he lets me out. When I get all steamed up, I don't pout. I push Bruce aside, then I'm free to run about." The previous year, he'd confided to a friend that he was feeling deeply depressed and acknowledged that his psychiatrist believed he might be suffering from "Paranoid Personality Disorder." Combined with everything else we've learned about Ivins in the last week—his late nights at the Fort Detrick lab; his professional disappointments; his obsession with sorority girls; his threats against his counselor; his long history of sociopathic and psychotic behavior; his custody of an anthrax vial considered to be the "parent flask" of the material used in the attacks; and even his possession of what the FBI has declared to be a suspicious book, The Plague by Albert Camus (couldn't he just have been well-read?)—Ivins seems to fit the profile of someone capable, personally and professionally, of sending the anthrax letters.

The Justice Department and the FBI appear to be satisfied that he did, declaring at a press conference yesterday that Ivins was "the only person responsible" for the attacks. Even after it described its evidence against him, while ordering the simultaneous public release of 14 affidavits and search warrants, the Justice Department's case remained largely circumstantial—something US Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeffrey Taylor freely acknowledged. "Circumstantial evidence?" Sure, some of it is," he told reporters. "But it is compelling evidence."

Not so, says Ivins' lawyer, Paul Kemp. Far more people, numbering perhaps in the hundreds, had access to the so-called parent flask (the "murder weapon," according to Taylor) than the FBI has admitted, he argues. "The idea that anyone could say they could convict someone with what they have is stunning," Kemp told NPR. "They have nothing. There was not a single piece of evidence produced from all those search warrants and all those affidavits. He was a weird, bookish, nerdy kind of man. But he didn't do it. He was an open, caring, honest man with a great sense of humor who was beloved by his friends and family."

Hmm. Maybe, but there's little doubt that Ivins' suffered severe psychological problems. And given his history, it inspires very little confidence that he continued to have access to the Fort Detrick laboratory until November 1, 2007—six years after the anthrax attacks. That fact forms part of the basis of a lawsuit filed in 2003 by Maureen Stevens, the widow of Robert Stevens, who died after receiving an anthrax-laden letter at his office at the National Enquirer. She's suing the federal government for $50 million dollars, charging that it is responsible for the death of her husband. Ivins "was not just a little weird," she told reporters today. "He was certifiable, and he had been for years... It is now time for the United States of America to own up to its responsibility to my family and to right this wrong that resulted in the loss of my beloved husband and my children's beloved father." Her contention is that lax safety standards at Fort Detrick enabled the attacks to occur.

Easiest Comeback Ever

It's time for dueling web videos! From the McCain campaign:

And the obvious Democratic response:

A Senator Presses the NRA for Information on the Gun Lobby Mole

So far the National Rifle Association's reaction to the Mother Jones investigation that revealed that a NRA-connected mole had penetrated the gun control community for 15 years has been nothing but silence. No matter which media outfit asks the gun lobby for a comment--ABC News, Associated Press, Mother Jones--the NRA declines to say anything. It just refuses to explain its connection to Mary Lou Sapone, the self-described "research consultant" who infiltrated various gun control groups under the name of Mary McFate. As we first reported, a onetime business associate of Sapone said during a deposition that the NRA was a client for Sapone.

Why won't the NRA speak? Can anyone compel it to respond to the Sapone story?

Senator Frank Lautenberg, a New Jersey Democrat, is the first in Congress to give it a try. On Thursday, he sent a letter to John Sigler, the president of the NRA:

I write regarding Mother Jones' recent expose of a reported National Rifle Association (NRA) operative who infiltrated a number of gun violence prevention organizations. This story contains serious allegations and I urge you to address them quickly.

According to Mother Jones, Mary McFate spent more than a decade rising through the ranks at several gun violence prevention organizations, including CeaseFire PA, Freedom States Alliance and States United to Prevent Gun VIolence. At the same time, however, McFate--going by the name Mary Lou Sapone--reportedly was a paid "research consultant" for the NRA. As a result, McFate/Sapone was in a position to learn about, and to report back to the NRA on, the concerns, plans and strategies of various gun violence prevention groups.

In light of these serious charges, I call upon you to immediately:

* Admit whether these charges are true or false;

* If these charges are true, disclose the precise nature of the NRA's relationship with Mary McFate/Mary Lou Sapone, including how much she was paid, the time periods for which she received payment and the services she provided;

* Make public the names (including any aliases) of any other NRA employees, consultants, members, or volunteers who have joined gun violence prevention organizations in order to report to the NRA on their activities; and

* Denounce and discontinue the practice of asking or encouraging NRA employees, consultants, members and volunteers to infiltrate gun violence prevention groups.

Although the NRA and I certainly have had our disagreements over the years, I hope that we can agree that the gun violence prevention debate should be based upon an open and honest exchange of ideas, not on underhanded tactics.

Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.

Lautenberg also sent copies of this letter to Wayne LaPierre, the CEO of the NRA, and Chris Cox, who heads the NRA's political arm.

Will Lautenberg receive a prompt reply of any substance? As an advocate of gun control measures, Lautenberg is indeed not one of the NRA's favorite legislators. But can the gun lobby ignore his request for information about its involvement in the McFate/Sapone episode? And if it does tell him to get lost, what might happen next? But whatever occurs, the NRA's silence up to now hardly allays suspicions about its role in the McFate operation.

"I Got Your Pledge of Allegiance RIGHT HERE"

Back before he went all crazy and started going pink-faced crazy on people at campaign events, Bill Clinton was pretty good at handling hecklers. It's one of those random skills you have to learn if you're going to run for president, I guess.

Well, Obama took a fairly novel approach to a heckler on Tuesday. He just gave the guy what he wanted. Check it out.

Photographer insists on Pledge of Allegiance before Obama rally

Okay, This Illustrates the Silliness of Polls

Under the short but entirely appropriate heading of "WTF?" Wonkette observes that the Lifetime Network actually commissioned a poll to ask women voters... well, I'll let Wonkette explain.

"NEW YORK (Reuters) - Women would rather carpool or go on vacation with Democratic White House hopeful Barack Obama than with his Republican rival John McCain, a new poll of U.S. women voters showed on Tuesday." What the fuck does this even mean? "Carpooling" and "vacationing" are two very distinct acts. So they have asked women across the country, basically, which candidate they would rather schlep to pre-school or, conversely, go to the Jersey Shore with.

And that's relevant how? Lifetime commissioned the poll as part of its "Every Woman Counts" campaign, which seeks to increase engagement in politics by women. Is it making the incredibly patronizing suggestion that women's voting behavior is informed by which candidate they would rather take on a beach getaway? As opposed to, say, the candidates' energy platforms?

We'll know even more after the Golf Channel's poll on which candidate male voters want to snap towels with at the Elks Lodge. Thanks, Lifetime!

Illustrating the Silliness of Polls

Over at Open Left, they've noted something about national polls in the general election. Specifically, they've found that two of the most famous polling companies, Rasmussen and Gallup, consistently poll a closer race everyone else. In the 34 Gallup and Rasmussen polls taken since the general election began, Obama has been up an average of 2.2%. In all the polls taken by 11 other polling companies, Obama has been up 5.4%.

Most times a Gallup or Rasmussen poll comes out, it fuels the conventional wisdom that Obama is under-performing because he is locked into a dogfight in a election season heavily favoring Democrats. As a result, everyone from the media to committed Democrats freak out.

It's nonsense. The counterfactuals could easily go in either direction. If Gallup and Rasmussen were more in line with everyone else, Obama would be seen as having a thin but comfortable lead. If a few more polling companies were like G & R, McCain might even be winning. The lesson? Don't freak out and don't get overconfident either. Things on the whole are better for Obama than the media's evaluation of his performance suggests (after all, as Nate Silver noted, "If you had told a Democrat a year ago that, on the last day of July, their candidate would be ahead in Ohio and Florida, well ahead in Pennsylvania , way ahead in California, tied in Montana, within single digits in a couple of states that went really red in 2000 and 2004, they'd be pretty thrilled with that set of polling.") but things can change at any moment, and have in the past.

Musharraf to Face Impeachment Proceedings

Today, at a press conference in Islamabad, the leaders of Pakistan's ruling parties announced the decision to pursue impeachment proceedings against President Pervez Musharraf, the Pakistani general and US terror-war ally who seized power over the country in a 1999 coup. Asif Ali Zadari of the Pakistan People's Party and Narwaz Sharif of the PML-N, the leaders of an uneasy ruling coalition that defeated Musharraf's allies in February's national election, reached agreement on the impeachment after three days of talks. "We have good news for democracy," Zardari declared. "The coalition believes it is imperative to move for impeachment against General Musharraf." It will be the first impeachment process in Pakistani political history.

After his party's loss in the February election, Musharraf gave up his military commission, but retained the power to dissolve parliament—a step he could now take to head off his impeachment. He has not yet issued a public statement on today's events. And despite widely circulated reports that he had decided to remain in Pakistan to manage the political crisis, Musharraf's staff announced today that he will attend the opening ceremony of Beijing Olympics on Friday evening.

Despite his powers to do so, the embattled president might not choose to dissolve parliament, at least not yet. The move would be spectacularly unpopular at home, and more importantly, might be premature given the substantial hurdles the impeachment bid now faces. To remove Musharraf, impeachment proponents would need a 50 percent majority in the Senate or National Assembly. Musharraf would then have three days to respond, followed by a joint session of the Senate and National Assembly to formally consider the charges against him. A final decision to remove the president would require a two-thirds majority of the joint session. According to the BBC, "some opposition parties do not support impeachment and nor do some members of the [Pakistan People's Party] itself—so there is scepticism that such a majority could be reached."

Photo used under a Creative Commons license from Muhammad Adnan Asim.

A Brief History of Claims the White House Has Called "Absurd"

This week, after a new book by journalist Ron Suskind reported that the White House had ordered the CIA to plant a forged letter that alleged that 9/11 lead hijacker Mohammad Atta had trained extensively in Saddam Hussein's Iraq, a White House spokesman called Suskind's allegation "absurd."

"The notion that the White House directed anyone to forge a letter from [former Iraqi intelligence chief] Habbush to Saddam Hussein is absurd," White House spokesman Tony Fratto said.

Today, washingtonpost.com columnist Dan Froomkin lays out a brief history of other recent White House statements calling past allegations similarly absurd. Froomkin:

Fratto's response is also highly reminiscent of some previous White House non-denials.

One of my favorites has always been former press secretary Scott McClellan's response to a British press report in 2005, to the effect that Bush had raised with British Prime Minister Tony Blair the idea of bombing al-Jazeera television headquarters. All McClellan would say about that is: "Any such notion that we would engage in that kind of activity is just absurd."

Here's McClellan in October 2003, responding to questions about the White House's campaign against former ambassador and administration critic Joe Wilson: "We -- this White House -- it is absurd to suggest that this White House would seek to punish someone for speaking out with a different view. We welcome people with different views. That's a healthy part of our democracy."

And of course here is McClellan, in September 2003, responding to questions about whether Karl Rove was involved in the leak of Valerie Plame Wilson's identity as a CIA operative: "I've made it very clear that it was a ridiculous suggestion in the first place."

Of course, we later learned that many of those allegations, despite initial White House protestations that they were "absurd" or even "ridiculous," were also true. (Froomkin says the Al Jazeera charge was not fully explored).

August 6, 2008

Dems Hitting McCain Hard on Lobbyist Ties

Democrats began today what is sure to become a long-term campaign of attacking McCain for his ties to lobbyists. Democrats seek to target McCain's reliance on lobbyists for fund raising and, frequently, upper-level staffing.

The Democratic National Committee launched a strategy today of using images—always tinged deep Republican red—to disseminate the idea that McCain is owned by big oil. One such image, a fake check for $2 million from "Exxon and friends" comes on the heels of some suspicious donations from Hess employees.

The campaign finance watchdog group, Public Campaign Action Fund, also piled on today, launching a website dedicated to cataloging McCain's lobbyist ties.

Of course, Public Campaign Action Fund may not be as totally nonpartisan as they claim. Major donors include billionaire Democratic activist George Soros and the group Campaign to Defend America, which is run by MoveOn.org co-founder Wes Boyd and Tom Matzzie. Matzzie is—wait for it—a lobbyist, having worked for MoveOn.org as well America Coming Together and Media Fund. The Washington Post described the latter two as "outside-the-party" Democratic groups.

There's also McCain's record. He may still rely on the lobbyists Obama goes without, and the implications of his lobbyist ties remain severe and real, but he did co-sponsor the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. Better know as McCain-Feingold, the law was an historic blow to lobbyist tactics like soft money and buying political ads. The law is also the reason why political candidates must state "I'm so-and-so, and I approve this message" in every ad. McCain may not be Obama when it comes to independence from lobbyists, but he's not George W. Bush, either.

—Max Fisher

Future President Paris Hilton Responds to McCain Ad

Paris Hilton, never one to pass up an opportunity to display money or pander for attention, has produced a video response to Sen. McCain's attack ad comparing Sen. Obama with Hilton.

See more Paris Hilton videos at Funny or Die

The helpful wonks over at The New Republic actually fact-checked Hilton's energy spiel (slow news week, guys?), so check that out if you want. Ok, so maybe she won't be our next Secretary of Energy—and she's not that funny, either.

But, unlike the two senators actually running for the most important job in the free world, she demonstrates a working knowledge of satire and the ability to make a simple joke without offending the entire English-speaking world. With both candidates gaffing their way through the summer, Republicans protesting in dark, empty rooms, and Democrats plotting secret back-room strategies that get immediately leaked, Paris Hilton may actually be the political MVP of these first few days of August.

And that is the state of American politics today. How long until Rasmussen starts tracking her in the polls?

—Max Fisher

Hamdan Guilty on One Count

Salim Hamdan, he who will always be detained, was found guilty of one charge today, providing material support for terrorism. Considering Hamdan never denied he was Osama bin Laden's driver, it's stunning that it took the United States government seven years to get this verdict. Here's an interesting point from Ken Gude, Associate Director of the International Rights and Responsibility Program at the Center for American Progress Action Fund:

The worst aspect of this whole episode is that the Bush administration has completely devalued the concept of a war criminal. War crimes should be reserved for the most serious offenses and war crimes trials are extraordinary. Charles Taylor is a war criminal. Radovan Karazdic is a war criminal. Salim Hamdan is a chauffer. He is clearly guilty of the crime of material support for terrorism. But now he has been elevated to the status of warrior, legitimizing al Qaeda terrorists’ belief that they are waging a holy war against the United States and our allies.

We waited seven years to convict a low-level al Qaeda figure of a crime he never denied.

Ivins Accused FBI of Stalking; Investigation Details Forthcoming, Says FBI

In the absence of specific evidence linking Bruce Ivins to the anthrax attacks, there is gathering speculation that the FBI's case against him might not be as strong as first thought. To be sure, the circumstantial case is there, but Steven Hatfill will tell you: circumstantial evidence doesn't always lead in the right direction. According to NPR, the Department of Justice could be preparing to put doubts to rest by releasing the details of its case against Ivins, perhaps as early as today.

In the meantime, reports are emerging that before his suicide Ivins had accused the FBI of stalking him and his family. This included, Ivins claimed, offering his son $2.5 million to give evidence against Ivins and attempting to turn his hospitalized daughter against him. From the Associated Press:

Ivins complained privately that FBI agents had offered his son, Andy, the money plus "the sports car of his choice" late last year if he would turn over evidence implicating his father in the 2001 anthrax attacks, according to a former U.S. scientist who described himself as a friend of Ivins.

Ivins also said the FBI confronted Ivins' daughter, Amanda, with photos of victims of the anthrax attacks and told her, "This is what your father did," according to the scientist, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

The scientist said Ivins was angered by the FBI's alleged actions, which he said included following Ivins' family on shopping trips.

The FBI declined to describe its investigative techniques of Ivins.

UPDATE: The Justice Department has released a file of court documents related to the investigation. Read them for yourself.

With Tire Gauge Nonsense, GOP Fights the "Silver Buckshot"

That's Grist's very astute explanation of why the GOP is hammering Barack Obama over his recommendation that people properly inflate their tires to save gas. Check it out.

Military: Hamdan Is an Enemy Combatant and Will Be Detained if Acquitted by Jury

It's stuff like this that ensures we have no credibility abroad. And really makes you angry.

After a number of ill-fated attempts stopped by the courts, the Bush Administration has finally closed its case against Salim Hamdan, Osama bin Laden's driver. He is being tried by a jury of six uniformed military officers who are set to deliver a verdict at any minute, following a two week trial at Guantanamo Bay. But the government doesn't have a great track record on prosecuting terrorism cases. What happens if Hamdan is found not guilty?

He'll be locked up indefinitely anyway. We just keep proving our fiercest critics abroad correct, over and over. Here's Pentagon spokesperson Geoff Morrell:

MORRELL: Even if he were acquitted of the charges that are before him, he would still be considered an enemy combatant and therefore would continue to be subject to continued detention. Of course, that said, he would also have the opportunity to go before the administrative review board and they could determine whether he is a suitable candidate for release or transfer.

But in the near term, at least, we would consider him an enemy combatant and still a danger and would likely still be detained for some period of time thereafter.

The process for trying Guantanamo detainees has gone through so many iterations, you almost got the sense that the Bush Administration was really trying to find something that worked. Nope. Shame on you for giving that bunch the benefit of the doubt. "We would consider him an enemy combatant and still a danger" — that's the only standard someone has to meet to be locked up by the United States of America.

Don't Ask, Don't Tell: Compromising the Mission

In recognition of the importance of specialized language skills, the Army is considering offering a retention bonus of as much as $150,000 to Arabic-speaking soldiers. According to the Christian Science Monitor, the Army has around 600 soldiers who speak key languages like Arabic, Kurdish, Dari, Pashtu, and Farsi, and it wants more.

Truth be told, it could have 10 percent more right off the bat, if it weren't for Don't Ask, Don't Tell. As Think Progress notes, "A GAO report found that between 1998 and 2003, more than 60 linguists specializing in Arabic or Farsi were expelled from the military for being gay."

Obama's Ideal Focus for the Homestretch: Trade and Taxes

Yesterday we cobbled together a strategy for John McCain — paint himself as the more experienced of two "reform" candidates (best not to use "change," it's too obviously owned by the other guy), ignore all issues where he mirrors Bush, and allow third party attacks to keep hammering away at Obama's character and otherness. Today, in the Washington Post, Harold Meyerson has a prescription for Obama:

One key contrast Obama has been reluctant to draw is over globalization and investment. On these issues (and most others), McCain is a standard-issue Republican. He's never met a trade deal he didn't like, and his formula for boosting the American economy is to preserve tax cuts for the very rich and slash taxes on corporations. Obama, by contrast, acknowledges the costs as well as the benefits of trade and argues that globalization requires strengthening the safety net for American workers at home and putting enforceable labor standards into any future trade deals. Unlike McCain, he favors a domestic investment policy that designates tax dollars and tax credits for building a greener economy.

But these are contrasts that Obama has yet to draw in a compelling way. In a speech on the economy Friday in St. Petersburg, Fla., he talked about investing in infrastructure projects and green jobs without contrasting his stances with those of McCain, or of George W. Bush, whose economic policies are essentially indistinguishable from McCain's.

It's a great point — one that shouldn't have to be made by Meyerson, considering that Obama returned from his overseas trip and announced that he'd be focusing on the economy for the duration of the election. On these issues, McCain's history as a reformer is irrelevant. Obama's "celebrity" and unknown quality are irrelevant. McCain's willingness to seek the middle on energy, immigration, and other issues is irrelevant. Obama's relative lack of experience, his sometimes unconventional foreign policy positions, and all the other aspects of this campaign that give Obama headaches are irrelevant.

On these issues, Obama is a standard Democrat and McCain is a standard Republican, and right now America is begging for a new economy policy. As Meyerson puts it, "Essentially, Obama is declining to swing at hanging curve balls."

So, hey David Axelrod and David Plouffe — giddyup. Your next ad in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and the Great Lakes states should be all about McCain's embrace of trade agreements that send job overseas and his tax plan that rewards the same corporations that pull the trigger on that off-shoring. That indeed is a fat pitch.

Update: You'll note that the recipes for success outlined here suggest McCain focus on biographical issues, Obama focus on economic issues, and neither candidate focus on Iraq. I think that's about right. My instinct is that the Iraq War is a wash politically and that Americans are tired about hearing about it. I would guess neither candidate benefits greatly from mentioning it regularly.

August 5, 2008

McCain Re-Embraces "the Maverick"

After months of mixed messages or no message at all, the McCain campaign has finally hit on something that I think might get some traction. For starters, it's actually about McCain, and not simply slamming Obama.

The thing is, this election is tailor-made for the John McCain of eight years ago. A Republican has spent eight years screwing up