When McCain Lost the Presidency

Linda Bergthold reacts to the choice of Sarah Palin:

I think we will look back at today as the day when the Republicans most certainly lost the Presidency. In choosing Sarah Palin of Alaska for Vice President, the Republicans have made a cynical but clever choice. At least they think it is clever. She is a woman, young (44 years old), a Governor (only two years), a mother (five children), pro-life, and pro-gun. But what is she not? She is NOT pro-choice. She has NO national experience. She has never been under the intense scrutiny of a national campaign. She is under investigation for some incident in Alaska that is messy and personal. She has no international experience. Her experience governing is in a very small state, famous for its "Bridge to Nowhere" kind of political graft. Her Republican colleague in that state, Senator Ted Stevens has been indicted for corruption.

When Republicans and independents go into the voting booth, will they have the confidence to vote for a McCain-Palin ticket, knowing that John McCain has had several recurrences of his skin cancer, and will be the oldest President ever? Can they imagine Sarah Palin stepping into the Oval Office and dealing with all the problems we face right now? The Russians and the terrorists must be quaking in their boots.

It's a slap in the face of other Republican women like Kay Bailey Hutchison, bless her heart, who was forced to stumble through an interview on TV trying to make the case for Palin whom she has never met. There are certainly women in the Republican party who were "in line" for this before Palin. Did the Rovian type advisors to McCain just cynically think that throwing a young attractive inexperienced woman into the mix would satisfy women who long to see a woman president? Women, and Republican women, are not so stupid as to fall for that! It is reminiscent of the Republicans putting up Alan Keyes to run against Barack Obama for the Illinois Senate just because he was black. Voters saw through that pretty quickly.

It's also a slap in the face of Democratic women voters. They don't get Hillary but they get Sarah as the first potential woman President? In fact, I can just hear Biden saying, "Sarah Palin, you are NO Hillary Clinton!" I would imagine that the few remaining Clinton supporters who are wondering if they should support John McCain are even more leery now. There is absolutely no overlap between the positions Hillary Clinton has fought her entire life for and Sarah Palin. The two women are not remotely substitutable. They are as different as they can be.

How will this cynicism play with American voters? It is insulting to women to suggest that just "any" woman will do!

The Palin Choice Continued...

On Kos, DemFromCT slices and dices the choice of Sarah Palin:

Can we please stop hearing from the media about how brilliant Karl Rove and Steve Schmidt are? John McCain is forced by the brilliantly-staged and historic Democratic convention...

His TV audience nearly doubled the amount of people who watched John Kerry accept the Democratic nomination to run against President Bush four years ago. Kerry's speech was seen by just over 20 million people.

…to pick an obscure, untested and unknown woman when we all know McCain wanted Lieberman and was willing to settle for Pawlenty. Instead:

“No one knows anything about her,” complained one GOP strategist, who spoke on the condition that he not be identified. “I don’t know anyone who has even met her.”

McCain succeeded in keeping his pick a secret until this morning, but the secrecy came at a cost: Surrogates who might have been counted on to sing Palin’s praises were caught flat-footed and unprepared instead.

“I don’t know much about her,” Texas Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison told CNN this morning. “I don't know Sarah Palin."

Palin will win a news cycle, quickly be obscured by Gustav, and be a long term failure as a pick. Not that that's entirely McCain's fault; the rest of his weak GOP bench would have been failures of different sorts. What we wound up with was the grumpy old guy and the charming creationist cheerleader. But let's be clear about what happened and why: McCain sensed he was going to lose and therefore threw the Hail Mary pass to try and win.

Is he entitled? Surely he is. But this was a move out of desperation, not out of genius. Not every conservative commentator fell in line and hailed the choice. And not every party official was thrilled.

Though it was high in shock value, the Palin pick left bruised feelings among the short-list contenders who were not picked -- and infuriated some Republican officials who privately said McCain had gone out on a limb, unnecessarily, without laying the groundwork for such an unknown. Two senior Republican officials close to Mitt Romney and Tim Pawlenty said they had both been rudely strung along and now "feel manipulated."

This was a tactical win and a strategic disaster. And all the pre-confirmation chatter was true. For all the 24-hour distraction, this is an unserious and lightweight choice which will not address any of the major and multiple problems this country faces. She has neither economic nor foreign policy chops, and is not ready to step up and be President (I haven't seen anyone who agrees she is, outside of the Bushbots like Healther Wilson). And given that that's the most important and vital role of a VP, and given McCain's 72 years of age, that's a game breaker.

She has strengths, certainly. She's new, unknown, charming, and from the West, and can talk credibly about energy [Big Oil]. Most importantly, it's a historic thing for the GOP to put a woman on the ticket. But she is not a qualified woman. She simply doesn't measure up where it counts. More background from Gregg Erickson, Columnist and Reporter, Anchorage Daily News and Editor at Large, Alaska Budget Report :

About her strengths and weaknesses: “She is smart, vivacious and energetic; she tends to oversimplify complex issues, has had difficulty delegating authority, and clearly has difficulty distinguishing the line between her public responsibilities and private wishes. She is under legislative investigation on this, the so-called "troopergate” issue, in which she is said to have used improper influence to try to get her sister’s ex-husband fired from the state troopers."

About her approval ratings: “Her approval ratings are high–65 percent, or so–but down from 80 percent earlier in her term. Most Alaskan’s haven’t watched her as closely as most reporters or legislators. If you took a poll of reporters and legislators I expect her approval rating would be down in the teens or twenties."

3 a.m.? I don't think so. And using her to go after the Clinton voters? Not if you know the record.

She said she felt kind of bad she couldn't support a woman, but she didn't like Clinton's "whining."

No doubt, voters will note those comments come the fall, along with her abuse of power issues, 2000 Pat Buchanan support and her hard-right creationism. Those characteristics will not play well in the suburbs. Debbie Wasserman Schultz called this "colossally bad judgment" on McCain's part. She's absolutely right. This was a weak and embarrassing pick, and McCain has failed his first executive decision. But for now, don't lose sight of the fact that this happened because McCain was losing.

The Palin Choice

Andrew Sullivan reminds everyone of Karl Rove’s recent remarks on Face the Nation about Tim Kaine’s “inexperience”:

Rove: "With all due respect again to Governor Kaine, he's been a governor for three years. He's been able but undistinguished. I don't think people could really name a big, important thing that he's done ... [Kaine] was mayor of the 105th largest city in America. And again, with all due respect to Richmond, Virginia, it's smaller than Chula Vista, California; Aurora, Colorado; Mesa, or Gilbert, Arizona; North Las Vegas, or Henderson, Nevada. It's not a big town."

Sullivan: Palin has been governor for less than two years of a state with 600,000 people, compared to Virginia's 8 million. Before that, she was mayor of a town with 6,000 inhabitants, compared to Richmond's 200,000. Someone able to become president of the United States at a moment's notice? Politically, I have no idea how this will play. As an act of presidential governing, as McCain's first real presidential decision, it was and is fundamentally unserious.

LBJ and Obama

Hillary was pilloried in the press when she invoked the name of LBJ and pointed out, rightly, that he was integral in helping bring to fruition the hopes and goals of the civil rights movement when he ushered the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Act into law. The controversy caused by Hillary's statement stems from the fact that LBJ's presidency is tainted by his failures in the Vietnam War and that his Civil Rights record was complex and evolved as he accumulated power in the Senate and finally ascended to the office of the Presidency after tragedy struck President Kennedy.

Barack Obama's acceptance speech tonight to be the Democratic nominee for President of the United States is another historic milestone in the fight for equal rights in this country. While LBJ will in all likelihood go unmentioned, his praises are being sung in two excellent op-eds. One written by George Packer and published in the New Yorker, LBJ's moment. The second, a NYtimes op-ed by Robert Caro, an LBJ biographer, Johnson's Dream, Obama's Speech.

Some Great excerpts in the case you don't have time to read both:
LBJ's Moment

James Farmer, the great leader of the Congress of Racial Equality, told the story of a conversation he once had with Johnson in the White House:

I asked him how he got to be the way he was. He said, “What do you mean?” I said, “Well, here you are, calling senators, twisting their arms, threatening them, cajoling them, trying to line up votes for the Civil Rights Bill when your own record on civil rights was not a good one before you became Vice President. So what accounted for the change?” Johnson thought for a moment and wrinkled his brow and then said, “Well, I’ll answer that by quoting a good friend of yours and you will recognize the quote instantly. ‘Free at last, free at last. Thank God Almighty, I’m free at last.’”

Four decades later, Barack Obama is a beneficiary of those transformative events of the early Johnson Presidency. His nomination would not be possible without the Voting Rights Act. Michael Janeway, the author of The Fall of the House of Roosevelt, told me that when Johnson’s former aide Harry McPherson, now almost eighty, went to vote in the Maryland Democratic primary in February, a precinct official recognized him and said, “Lyndon Johnson would be a happy man today.”

Johnson's Dream, Obama's Speech

All during this long primary campaign, after reading, first thing every morning, newspaper articles about Barack Obama’s campaign for the presidency, I would turn, as part of the research for my next book, to newspaper articles from 1965 about Lyndon Johnson’s campaign to win for black people the right to vote.

And I would think about Johnson’s great speech, when he adopted the rallying cry of black protest as his own, when he joined his voice to the voices of all the men and women who had sung the mighty hymn of the civil rights movement. Martin Luther King cried when he heard that speech. Since I am not black, I cannot know — cannot even imagine — Dr. King’s feelings. I know mine, however. To me, Barack Obama is the inheritor of Lyndon Johnson’s civil rights legacy. As I sit listening to Mr. Obama tonight, I will be hearing other words as well. I will be hearing Lyndon Johnson saying, “We shall overcome.”

It’s Not Just McCain, It’s Republicanism

Crooks and Liars: "In an op-ed at Murdoch’s London Times, associate editor Anatole Kalestsky writes that America must give the Republicans "a good kicking" to reassert the most important facet of democracy - not just to elect good governance but to get rid of bad governance. It’s an op-ed that is highly critical of the Democratic party’s choice - Murdoch’s UK papers preferred Clinton - and of Dem tactics to date. But it really gets the message across on McCain and the GOP."

Whether or not Mr McCain would continue the policies of President Bush (and much of the evidence suggests that his would be a Bush presidency on steroids), he would keep in power the coalition of interests that the Republican Party represents: the energy and military-industrial lobbies, the religious conservatives, the anti-environment interests and the neoconservative think-tanks. These groups - which have gained enormous influence, both financially and intellectually, under President Bush - are as responsible for the blunders of the Bush Administration as Mr Bush himself, arguably more so, given the President’s notorious lack of interest in the details of any of his own policies.

If a Republican is again elected president, these same centres of power will continue to dominate Washington. However many wars they encouraged, however high the price of oil rose, however many tax dollars were redistributed in their favour, the neoconservatives and Pentagon contractors and religious fundamentalists and oil and Wall Street lobbies would conclude that there would be no political price to pay for failure. They would be justified in concluding that there is no longer any democratic check on their ambitions.

It is only by ejecting the Republicans from the White House that American voters can send the message that they are still in charge of their country and that gross government incompetence will not go unpunished. Accountability - not personality or rhetoric or colour or age or gender - should be the overriding issue in this election.

The 45th Anniversary

A Clinton Masterpiece

Andrew Sullivan shares his initial reaction of the speech tonight by Bill Clinton:

Readers know my personal disdain for Bill Clinton. But longtime readers will also know I have always defended his solid centrist, smart record in office and defended him against his most over-reaching enemies. Tonight, I think, was one of the best speeches he has ever given. It was a direct, personal and powerful endorsement of Obama. But much, much more than that: it was a statesman-like assessment of where this country is and how desperately it needs a real change toward reform and retrenchment at home and restoration of diplomacy, wisdom and prudence abroad. Yes, he nailed it with this line:

"People around the world have always been more impressed by the power of our example than by the example of our power."

I don't buy his evisceration of everything the Republican party has done in the last quarter century. I think the GOP did a great deal to rescue this country in the 1980s and early 1990s. In fact, I think Clinton would have failed as a president without the foil of the Gingrich GOP. But since 2000, the worst aspects of Republicanism have crowded out its once necessary virtues. The reflexive impulse to use force over diplomacy, to use aggression over persuasion, to spend and borrow with no concern for the future, and to violate sacred principles such as the eschewal of torture with no respect for the past: these must not just be left behind. They have to be repudiated.

The United States needs this repudiation, as does the world. McCain, alas, cannot provide it. He may once have. But his party is too far gone, and his moment passed. His use of fear and deception and brattish contempt in this campaign have sealed the deal for me. But Clinton reminded all of us of what is more broadly at stake. He did it with passion and measure and eloquence. And surpassing intelligence.

We've seen the worst of Bill Clinton these past few months, Tonight, we saw the best. And it's mighty good.

More of the Same

Coming soon to billboards and bus stops in Minneapolis...

He Stole the Show

The LA Times reports: "It was Hillary Rodham Clinton's night at the Democratic National Convention, but party activists got a glimpse Tuesday of a surprising new breakout star: a jovial, round-faced warrior with a bolo tie who managed to attack Republicans while keeping a smile on his face. The unlikely partisan gladiator was Brian Schweitzer, who in 2004 became Montana's first Democratic governor in decades. Schweitzer, 52, won his office by eschewing partisanship -- campaigning as a pro-gun conservative with a Republican running mate. But on Tuesday he raised the roof at the Pepsi Center by exhorting thousands of party activists to "get off your hind end" and cheer for the demise of GOP rule."



Today, Schweitzer (a farmer and rancher whose Border Collie, "Jag", usually follows him to work every day) was greeted with a rock star reception everywhere he went in Denver. For Markos Moulitsas, he bestowed the ultimate honor - "knighting" him with one of his famous bolo ties.

The Turmoil in Kashmir

The Times recently shed some light on the increasingly dire, yet overlooked, situation in Kashmir. An excerpt:

It is true that India’s relations with Pakistan have improved lately. But more than half a million Indian soldiers still pursue a few thousand insurgents in Kashmir. While periodically holding bilateral talks with Pakistan, India has taken for granted those most affected by the so-called Kashmir dispute: the four million Kashmiri Muslims who suffer every day the misery and degradation of a full-fledged military occupation.

The Indian government’s insistence that peace is spreading in Kashmir is at odds with a report by Human Rights Watch in 2006 that described a steady pattern of arbitrary arrest, torture and extrajudicial execution by Indian security forces - excesses that make the events at Abu Ghraib seem like a case of high spirits. A survey by Doctors Without Borders in 2005 found that Muslim women in Kashmir, prey to the Indian troops and paramilitaries, suffered some of the most pervasive sexual violence in the world. Over the last two decades, most ordinary Kashmiri Muslims have wavered between active insurrection and sullen rage. They fear, justifiably or not, the possibility of Israeli-style settlements by Hindus; reports two months ago of a government move to grant 92 acres of Kashmiri land to a Hindu religious group are what provoked the younger generation into the public defiance expressed of late.

As always, the turmoil in Kashmir heartens extremists in both India and Pakistan. India has recently suffered a series of terrorist bombings, allegedly by radicals among its Muslim minority. Hindu nationalists have already formed an economic blockade of the Kashmir Valley - an attempt to punish seditious Muslims and to gin up votes in next year’s general elections. In Pakistan, where weak civilian governments in the past sought to score populist points by stirring up the emotional issue of Kashmir, the intelligence service can only be gratified by another opportunity to synergize its jihads in Kashmir and Afghanistan.

...India’s record of pitiless intransigence does not inspire much hope that it will take these necessary steps toward the final and comprehensive resolution of Kashmir’s long-disputed status. In fact, an indefinite curfew has already been imposed and Indian troops have again killed dozens of demonstrators. But a brutal suppression of the nonviolent protests will continue to radicalize a new generation of Muslims and engender a fresh cycle of violence, rendering Kashmir even more dangerous - and not just to South Asia this time.

An Odd Messenger

Throughout the Democratic Convention, the Republican war room has been in full swing. To help spread their message, they've deployed a number of also-rans to grab as much camera-time as possible and regurgitate the same old talking points. Most recently, the chief attack dog has been none other than Mitt Romney, John McCain's former antagonist and now his potential running mate. The choice of Romney for this role is an interesting one because of his infamously flexible principles and his obvious shortcomings as a formidable candidate (note his recent attacks on Joe Biden's foreign policy which would be humorous if they weren't so pathetic). But it's also interesting because of the animosity that was so palpable between he and McCain throughout the Republican primaries. Beyond disagreements over policy, they personally disliked each other and it was obvious throughout the campaign. The LA Times:

Just one year ago, McCain and Romney were engaged in probably the most petty and scurrilous rivalry of the whole election. One aide closed to the Arizona Republican's campaign once told me that, among the ranks, "everyone I talked to hated [Romney]. I have not met a single person associated with the campaign who doesn't." Officials with Romney's primary campaign frequently, though off the record, expressed similar sentiments for their competitor. Indeed, the attacks volleyed between the two GOP figures makes the current general election battle seem like an a exercise in political civility.

McCain's favorite charge against Romney, one that filtered its way into almost every ad, speech and debate line, was that the former Massachusetts governor was a political chameleon - untrustworthy to the core and an opportunist at heart. In late January 2008, when the race was still intense, the Arizona Republican commissioned an absolutely brutal robocall with the following script: "Unfortunately, on issue after issue, Mitt Romney has treated special issues voters as fools, thinking they won't catch on... Sorry Mitt, we know you aren't trust-worthy on the most important issues and you aren't a conservative."

Earlier that month, at a debate in New Hampshire, McCain himself delivered a memorable hit. At a time when even the GOP candidates were hoping to grab a little bit of Barack Obama's "change" mantle, the Arizona Republican resisted, dug in, and took a whack. "[Romney] we disagree on a lot of issues," he told his counterpart, "but I agree you are the candidate of change." The press, sequestered in a nearby gymnasium, howled in shock and journalistic delight. A week before that highlight moment, McCain was even more blunt.

In a TV ad released on December 28, the Senator borrowed a clip from a Concord Monitor editorial stating: "If a candidate is a phony ... we'll know it. Mitt Romney is such a candidate." The spot stung. In an ensuing report on ABC News Romney responded by saying: "It's an attack ad. It attacks me personally. It's nasty. It's mean-spirited. Frankly, it tells you more about Sen. McCain than it does about me that he would run an ad like that."

But such complaints fell on deaf ears. It seemed that McCain took a perverse pleasure out of digging his GOP rival. "Try to relax, Mitt," was his response. Indeed, it went on. Among the other criticisms McCain leveled included accusing Romney of a "wholesale deception of voters," being a "serial flip-flopper" that "voters can't trust" and continually taking "at least two sides of every issue, sometimes more than two." Romney's work as head of Bain Capital, a leveraged-buyout firm, became fodder. "As head of his investment company, he presided over the acquisition of companies that laid off thousands of workers."

And towards the conclusion of the primary, McCain even accused Romney of changing his position "on being a Republican." To be fair, Romney was not always the victim. Blessed with an abundance of self-provided resources, the former governor launched a series of attacks on McCain's character and politics. He compared, negatively, McCain's campaign to Bob Dole's failed candidacy - "The guy who is next in line and the inevitable choice and it won't work" - a political attack twofer that didn't go over well among some in the GOP. Not content to disparage one former conservative, Romney also accused the Arizona Republican of deliberately misrepresenting his position on Iraq in a style "reminiscent of the Nixon era."

Indeed, the vision Romney held of McCain was that of closet Democrat and shrewd political opportunist. He playfully ridiculed the Senator for "thinking about being John Kerry's running mate, in 2004. "Had someone asked me that question, there would not have been a nanosecond of thought about it. It would have been an immediate laugh," he said, before adding: "So we are different. I'm a conservative." On immigration, the hot button issue last year (how times have changed), Romney leveled his harshest charges. In one TV ad, an announcer declared: "McCain championed a bill to let every illegal immigrant stay in America permanently... He even voted to allow illegal immigrants to collect Social Security... On illegal immigration, there's a big difference."

McCain, as is his custom, had a brutal response to the charge. "Maybe I should wait a couple weeks and see if it changes," he said of Romney's own position on the issue. "Maybe his solution will be to get out his small-varmint gun and drive those Guatemalans off his lawn." But Romney was not deterred. In late January he detailed, in a Fox News interview, all the policies on which his rival could not be trusted. "Senator McCain was against the Bush tax cuts and now says he's for the Bush tax cuts. He was against ethanol, then for ethanol, then against ethanol," said Romney. "I think Senator McCain is willing to say anything to try and get elected. He's been looking for this job for a long, long time."

And as things grew even testier, and the nomination remained up for grabs, Romney went after McCain's leadership, pinning the "failures" of Washington "in the last 25 years" to the Senator's tenure there. On the economy, in particular, Romney argued, "[McCain] doesn't understand how it works." And then, the former Massachusetts governor showed what could be, a remarkable amount of political prescience. "Right now, [the economy] the biggest issue that voters here in Florida are concerned about," he said during an appearance on CNN. "And [voters] want somebody who does understand the economy. And having him time and again say, I don't understand how the economy works, I have got to get a V.P. that will show me how it works, that's a real problem for him."

And now, Romney has become that VP ... maybe.

For a campaign that has delighted in showing old footage of Hillary Clinton going after Barack Obama, Mitt Romney would be an odd choice as running mate for John McCain. Then again, it would bring the total number of homes owned on the Republican ticket to an even 12. There's something to be said for that, right?

Disenchanted or Delusional?

The Dangers of Unconditional Support

In the LA Times, Shawn Brimley and Colin Kahl discuss the "gathering storm" that has been the Maliki government's inexplicable crack-down of the Sunni "Awakening" or "Sons of Iraq" groups that have been so instrumental in recent security gains and decreased levels of violence in Iraq. Led by a group Sunni tribal leaders who became more and more outraged by the indiscriminate and brutal tactics of al-Qaeda in late 2006, these groups joined sides with coalition forces to expel the terrorists from Anbar in hopes of bringing some sense of stability and security back to their neighborhoods. It was a major turning-point in the war as one of our biggest foes - the Sunni insurgency - flipped sides to help fight another.

Throughout 2007, U.S. commanders capitalized on this Sunni movement, the so-called Awakening, to create an expanding network of alliances with Sunni tribes and former insurgents that helped turn the tide and drive Al Qaeda in Iraq to near extinction. There are now about 100,000 armed Sons of Iraq, each paid $300 a month by U.S. forces to provide security in local neighborhoods throughout the country. In recognition of the key role the Awakening played in security improvements, President Bush met with several Sunni tribal leaders during his trip to Anbar last September, and Petraeus, who cites the program as a critical factor explaining the decline in violence, has promised to "not walk away from them."

But Iraq's predominantly Shiite central government seems intent on doing precisely that. Maliki and his advisers never really accepted the Sunni Awakening, and they remain convinced that the movement is simply a way for Sunni insurgents to buy time to restart a campaign of violence or to infiltrate the state's security apparatus. In 2007, with Iraq's government weak and its military not yet ready to take the lead in operations, the Maliki government acquiesced to the U.S.-led initiative and grudgingly agreed to integrate 20% of the Sons of Iraq into the Iraqi security forces. Now, a newly confident Maliki government is edging away from this commitment.

It was always a tenuous partnership and the integration of these groups into the Iraqi Security Forces has been one of the key benchmarks crucial to long-term Iraqi stability and reconciliation. After all, these groups could not remain on the U.S. payroll and outside the apparatus of the Iraqi government forever. Regardless, the Maliki government, which has even been reluctant to provide much-needed reconstruction dollars to predominantly Sunni communities, has fought integration every step of the way - justifying its blatant sectarianism by claiming the "Sons of Iraq" are nothing more than armed militias or criminal gangs. In a tribal society, that may be true to a great extent (as we've also seen by the infiltration of Shia militias into the Iraqi Security Forces) but until the Shia-dominated government begins taking steps toward inclusion - toward true reconciliation between the various sectarian groups - long-term stability can never be achieved. Instead, it will be a perpetual cycle of violence between various sects, fighting desperately to gain the upper hand over their rivals. There is no U.S.-role in that civil war.

Plans to integrate these Sunni fighters into Iraq's security forces or provide them with civilian employment have been consistently "slow rolled." While Maliki has committed to incorporate 20% of the 100,000 Sons of Iraq members under U.S. contract into Iraq's army or police forces by the end of this year, only a small fraction have actually been hired. When asked if the Iraqi government had created stumbling blocks to integrating the Sons of Iraq, Petraeus said in a recent interview, "That certainly has been the case."

It gets worse. Over the last several weeks, Iraqi army units and special operations forces (which report directly to Maliki) have arrested Sons of Iraq leaders, dismantled checkpoints and otherwise harassed local security volunteers in Diyala province and greater Baghdad. There are reportedly plans to detain hundreds of Sons of Iraq members in the coming weeks. "These people are like cancer, and we must remove them," an Iraqi army general in Abu Ghraib, a Baghdad suburb, told a reporter last week. Another Iraqi commander in Baghdad confided, "We cannot stand them, and we detained many of them recently," before telling that reporter of plans to instigate a major crackdown as early as November.

As Brimley and Khan point out, the underlying driver of this recklessness is the growing hubris of the Maliki government - which is fueled by the unconditional support of its benefactor, the Bush Administration. Until the President says enough is enough, and no longer allows a corrupt and incompetent foreign government to hold hostage our national security interests and the well-being of our armed forces, it will be more of the same. The continued deployment of U.S. troops must be conditioned upon Iraqi political progress. Barack Obama understands this. John McCain offers nothing but a blank check of American blood and treasure.

It is obvious where this road might end. The last time tens of thousands of armed Sunni men were humiliated in Iraq - by disbanding the Baath Party and Iraqi army in May 2003 - an insurgency began, costing thousands of U.S. lives and throwing Iraq into chaos. Yet Maliki and his advisers risk provoking Iraq's Sunni community into another round of violence. The rising tensions in Iraq reveal a weakness in U.S. strategy and the Bush administration's approach to the war: the unconditional nature of our support to Maliki's government.

The "surge" strategy in Iraq, as described by President Bush in January 2007, rested on the belief that tamping down violence would provide a window of opportunity that Iraq's leaders would use to pursue political reconciliation. But this has not occurred, despite the dramatic security improvements. Indeed, if the problem in 2006 and 2007 was Maliki's weakness and inability to pursue reconciliation in the midst of a civil war, the issue in 2008 is his overconfidence and unwillingness to entertain any real accommodation with his political adversaries. America's blank check to the Iraqi government feeds this hubris.

U.S. strategy must be reengineered to exploit our diminished but still significant leverage. Despite recent military successes, the Iraqi security forces remain critically dependent on U.S. air power, logistical support, intelligence and training. The United States must make continued security assistance conditional on Maliki carrying through on his commitments to integrate and gainfully employ the Sons of Iraq.

The Fight Against al-Qaeda

In a recent edition of the Christian Science Monitor, Seth Jones and Martin Libicki discuss the fight against al-Qaeda, the fallacy of the so-called “War on Terror” and why the Bush-McCain over-reliance on military force in conducting counterterrorism runs contrary to our national security interests.

Military might against Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups isn't working – and no wonder. After studying the record of 648 terrorist groups between 1968 and 2006, we've found that military force has rarely been effective in defeating this enemy. Indeed, the US reliance on military force – especially conventional military forces – has often been counterproductive.

Take Al Qaeda: Despite suffering a setback in Iraq and several senior operatives killed or captured, it has carried out more terrorist attacks after Sept. 11 than it did before, and these attacks have spanned a wider geographic area across Europe, Asia, the Middle East, and Africa.

The group's methods – from improvised explosive devices to increased suicide attacks – have grown more sophisticated. Its organizational structure has evolved as well, including encouraging a grass-roots approach by members while maintaining strategy and operations from a central location in Pakistan. This resurgence is reason enough to trigger an overhaul of US counterterrorism strategy. History offers some critical guidance.

Since 1968, more than three-quarters of terrorist groups have ended because of a political settlement or joint policing and intelligence efforts. But a political solution is not in the cards with Al Qaeda. Its goal – to take down multiple state regimes to create a pan-Islamic caliphate – is too radical to lead to any sort of negotiated settlement with Middle Eastern governments.

A good start toward peace, though, would be for Washington to stop thinking of this as a "war" with a battlefield solution. Most US allies, such as Britain and Australia, already have. In Britain, for example, the government shuns the phrase "war on terror" despite a long history of dealing with such terrorist groups as the IRA.

And rightly so. Military force often has the opposite effect from what is intended. It is often overused, alienates the local population by its heavy-handed nature, and is a boon to terrorist recruiters. The term "war" also has a symbolic cost. It feeds into the jihad or "holy war" concept that attracts the attention of potential terrorists by elevating them to "holy warrior" status. Terrorists should be perceived and described as criminals, not holy warriors.

What we are engaged in, more aptly, is "counterterrorism." Rather than a military focus, policing and intelligence should form the backbone of US and allied counterterrorism efforts. Tracking down Al Qaeda's network of members worldwide will require more work abroad from the CIA and FBI, as well as cooperation with foreign police and intelligence agencies.

Such a strategic shift will demand a change in spending. Of the $609 billion in counterterrorism funding authorized by Congress between 2001 and 2007, 90 percent went to military operations. Much of that money would be better spent on law enforcement and intelligence agencies working overseas.

To be sure, when Al Qaeda is involved in an insurgency it may be necessary to use military force particularly special operations forces. But US successes against Al Qaeda in Iraq and the capture of several of its top terrorists in Pakistan suggest that the military and intelligence agencies should increasingly play a background role whenever possible.

Local military, police, and intelligence forces typically have more legitimacy to operate than do US forces, and have a better feel for the lay of the land. The US military should generally resist being drawn into combat operations in Muslim societies, especially in large numbers, where its presence is likely to increase terrorist recruitment.

There are good reasons to be hopeful. Al Qaeda's probability of success in actually overthrowing any government is close to zero. Its objectives are virtually unachievable. And no religious terrorist group that has folded since 1968 has achieved victory. While Osama bin Laden enjoys some popular support in the Muslim world, he has made enemies of virtually every government across the globe.

By alienating most of the world and declaring unachievable objectives, Al Qaeda has set a losing strategy. Let's not make countering it more difficult than it has to be.

McCain: Wrong on National Security

On the Huffington Post, Arianna Huffington lays out some clear examples of why John McCain is dead-wrong on national security issues. In doing so, she rightly contends that "every day between now and November 4th voters should be reminded that:"

McCain has been among the most ardent supporters of the war in Iraq -- the most disastrous foreign policy decision in American history.

McCain falsely claims that, from the beginning of the war, he called on former Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld to resign. He should have, but he didn't.

McCain thinks it's "not too important" when American forces come home from Iraq.

McCain has repeatedly claimed that Iran was training members of al-Qaeda in Iraq, showing a fundamental misunderstanding of the key players in the war. He doesn't understand the difference between Shiites and Sunnis, and even after being corrected he still doesn't get it.

McCain falsely claimed that the surge was what led to the Anbar Awakening, even though the Sunni revolt against al-Qaeda in the province began months before Bush even announced his plan to send more troops to Iraq.

McCain falsely claimed at the end of May that American troops in Iraq were down to "pre-surge levels" (brandished as proof that the surge was "succeeding") -- even though two-thirds of the additional surge troops were still in Iraq. And, when called on his mistake, he refused to acknowledge that he was wrong.

McCain falsely claimed that the war in Iraq was "the first major conflict since 9/11" -- either forgetting about the war in Afghanistan or deeming it not major enough. This is not all that surprising, since McCain's policies on Afghanistan -- the real central front in the war on terror -- have been all over the map. Indeed, McCain first attacked Obama's policy on Afghanistan, then adopted it for himself.

McCain has a long history of paying lip service to supporting America's troops but voting against their interests. His handling of the new GI bill was the latest example of his hypocrisy: he consistently and vocally worked to defeat it, then, once it passed, tried to take credit for it.

Need more proof of why McCain is not "ready to lead"? Do you want a president who thinks there is an "Iraq/Pakistan border"? Who believes Darfur is in Somalia? And that Czechoslovakia is still a country?

McCain and his handlers believe that national security and terror will be their secret weapon come the fall -- and any day when their ability to deploy it is not undermined by the Obama campaign is a good day indeed. (Hence the celebrity distraction.)

This is why Obama needs to come out firing after his vacation. Over and over and over again. The myth of John McCain's competence on foreign policy has been allowed to take root over many years -- so it will take more than a few polite swipes destroy it.

And this is not just strategic thinking and acting on the Bush-proven tactic of going after your opponent's primary strength. It is also the essential truth of this campaign. The world cannot afford McCain in the White House. George Bush has brought us to the brink of disaster; John McCain's will undoubtedly take us over the edge.

Obama needs to make it clear to the nation that that's what this election is all about.

Veepstakes: The Best and Worst

In its ongoing veepstakes series, the Fix provides an interesting breakdown of the best and worst vice presidential selections in US campaign history.

THE BEST

5. Joe Lieberman (2000): The Connecticut Senator, back when he was still a Democrat, gave a historic feel (because of his faith) to the Democratic ticket and helped Al Gore "win" Florida.

4. Dick Cheney (2000): Surely our most controversial pick but remember that at the time Cheney was seen as giving George W. Bush much-needed gravitas.

3. Walter Mondale (1976): Jimmy Carter was a little known Southern governor about whom many in the Washington establishment had real concerns. In picking Mondale, a veteran insider, Carter not only allayed those doubts but gave himself a boost in national polls.

2. Al Gore (1992): Gore reaffirmed the idea that the election hinged on a generational choice between the youthful Bill Clinton and the aging George H.W. Bush. Gore also went on to reinvent the responsibilities of the vice president.

1. Lyndon Johnson (1960): John F. Kennedy didn't much like Johnson (the feeling was mutual) but knew the Texas senator was the key to winning the South. The pick was made and Johnson delivered his home region.

THE WORST

5. Dan Quayle (1988): Bad press seemed to cling to the Indiana Senator. From mispelling "potato" to his inexplicable war against "Murphy Brown," Quayle never seemed to be able to get out of his own way.

4. Andrew Johnson (1865): Picked by Abraham Lincoln in order to show a unified front to the nation, Johnson came drunk to his own inauguration and promptly insulted any number of dignitaries in attendance with his speech.

3. Thomas Eagleton (1972): Sen. George McGovern (S.D.) picked Eagleton, a Missouri senator, after several more high-profile choices turned him down. It turned out to be a huge mistake as revelations that Eagleton had been hospitalized for depression forced him off the ticket.

2. Aaron Burr (1800): Although not "picked" by Jefferson -- until the Twelfth Amendment was ratified in 1804, the candidate with the second most electoral votes became vice president -- Burr shot and killed Alexander Hamilton while in office. Nuff said.

1. Spiro Agnew (1968): Richard Nixon spent much of his first term trying to figure out how to kick Agnew, a former Maryland governor, off the ticket in 1972. Agnew did the deed himself in 1973 when he resigned amid federal charges of bribery and corruption.

The Musharraf Resignation

The Times reports on the imminent resignation of Pervez Musharraf:

Faced with desertions by his political supporters and the unsettling neutrality of the Pakistani military, President Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan is expected to resign in the next few days rather than face impeachment, Pakistani politicians and Western diplomats said Thursday.

His departure from office seems likely to unleash new instability in the country as the two main parties in the civilian government jockey for his share of power. It would also remove from the political stage the man who has served as the Bush administration’s main ally here for the last eight years.

The details of how Mr. Musharraf would exit, and whether he would be able to stay in Pakistan or would seek residency abroad, are now under discussion between representatives of Mr. Musharraf and the governing coalition, the politicians said.

Mr. Musharraf would probably leave in the “next 72 hours,” Sheik Mansoor Ahmed, a senior official of the Pakistan Peoples Party, the major party in the coalition, said Thursday.

What remained to be worked out were guarantees for Mr. Musharraf’s physical safety if he stayed in Pakistan, or where he would go into exile. Among the places that Mr. Musharraf is said to favor if he goes abroad are Dubai, Turkey, the United Kingdom or the United States, though his strong preference is to stay in Pakistan, Pakistani politicians familiar with the negotiations said.

Mr. Musharraf also wants immunity from prosecution for any impeachable deeds, which the governing coalition appears willing to grant if he steps down, they said. The question of who would succeed Mr. Musharraf is a subject of almost as much maneuvering within the coalition as the plan to get rid of him.

The Post explores the potential White House reaction:

Still unknown is whether Musharraf will reach out to the White House and seek to revive his once-close relationship with President Bush. U.S. officials said there had been no high-level contact with Musharraf for some time. They said that Bush's top national security advisers had counseled him "not to take the call" if Musharraf telephoned but that Bush had not yet communicated a decision on the matter.

…Although the United States imposed sanctions on Pakistan after Musharraf overthrew Sharif in 1999, the Bush administration became a vocal backer of his government when he declared allegiance to Washington following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. His government has provided unprecedented U.S. access to Pakistani territory, including operational support to fight an Islamist insurgency that has spread from Afghanistan to Pakistan's remote tribal areas along the 1,500-mile-long Afghanistan-Pakistan border.

But while the administration supported Pakistan's return to democracy this spring, it was reluctant to sever ties with Musharraf, who remained president. Concerns over the coalition government's determination to continue the counterterrorism fight have increased measurably in recent weeks. U.S. officials have charged that Pakistan's powerful intelligence agencies -- long under military control -- have been aiding the Taliban in Afghanistan, and that the government lacks the ability, and perhaps the desire, to control them.

Veepstakes Cont.

Today’s Fix ranks the prospective vice presidential candidates. As Chris Cillizza points out, the choice for Obama is between “change and experience” - does he opt for someone who reinforces his fresh approach or does he opt for someone well-known who can bring experience to the ticket? For McCain, the choice is between “throwing a short pass or a Hail Mary" – does he opt for the safe pick in someone personally close to him or does he opt for someone unexpected and unorthodox who could shake up the race? The updated rankings:

The Republicans

5. Bobby Jindal: The chatter surrounding the Louisiana governor has died down significantly of late but we still believe that if McCain decides on making a true surprise pick, Jindal's the guy. (Previous ranking: 5)

4. Mitt Romney: On the one hand, Romney seems to make the most sense for McCain -- shoring up the ticket's economic bona fides and helping the nominee in Michigan and New Hampshire. On the other, McCain is a total "gut" politician and, if he trusts his instincts, he's not likely to pick someone with whom he is not close personally. (Previous ranking: 1)

3. Joe Lieberman: Believe it -- the Connecticut Democrat-cum-Independent is very much in the mix for McCain. Why? Lieberman has long been supportive of McCain's position on the war in Iraq and the two men like each other immensely. Plus, picking Lieberman could be spun by pro-McCain forces as yet another example of his commitment to bipartisanship. (Previous ranking: N/A)

2. Tom Ridge: The former Pennsylvania governor is the hottest name in the Republican veepstakes - due in large part to McCain's repeated praise of him and the growing sense that the Arizona Senator is seriously considering a pro-choice pick. Ridge would almost certainly put Pennsylvania more squarely in play and would also allow McCain to double down on the national security message in the general election. (Previous ranking: N/A)

1. Tim Pawlenty: Tpaw returns to the top of the Line thanks to the fact that out of all true "Final Four" lists he checks the most boxes. He is pro-life, has been elected twice as governor in a swing Midwestern state and has a personal friendship with McCain. Is it enough? (Previous ranking: 2)

The Democrats

5. Kathleen Sebelius: There's no question that of the names on this list, Obama feels closest to Sebelius and Tim Kaine. But, is a close personal relationship enough? Sebelius' star has faltered somewhat as some within Democratic circles have come to believe the Kansas governor is not ready for such a big stage. And, can Obama really choose a woman not named Clinton as his vice president? (Previous ranking: 5)

4. Jack Reed: Perhaps the least buzzed about serious vice presidential candidate in history, the Rhode Island senator remains a real option. And, if security is the central theme of the convention, Reed could be a perfect fit: his resume includes a stint in the U.S. Army and service on the Senate Armed Services Committee. (Previous ranking: 4)

3. Tim Kaine: In naming former Virginia governor Mark Warner as the convention keynote speaker earlier this week, the Obama campaign either a) closed the door on Kaine as veep or b) opened the door for a Virginia-centric convention designed to highlight the importance of that swing state. We tend to believe option "a" though the Virginia governor's early support for Obama should not be underplayed as a factor in the final decision. (Previous ranking: 2)

2. Evan Bayh: To the extent there was buzz around Bayh - those words don't usually end up in the same sentence together - it has died down over the last week. Some in the party - especially those on the liberal left - believe picking Bayh would be a sell-out of the principles that won Obama the nomination. The Indiana senator and former governor remains very much in the running, however, thanks to his Midwestern roots, his executive experience and his youth. (Previous ranking: 1)

1. Joe Biden: Biden is peaking at the right time. Barely mentioned at the start of the veepstakes, he is now the favorite to be the pick. Biden's deep foreign policy resume, charisma, blue-collar appeal and debate skills all recommend him. And, the normally loquacious Biden has been stone silent over the last few weeks -- stoking speculation that he is the one. (Previous ranking: 3)

She's Not a Go-Getter

The DSCC just released a new ad targeting Elizabeth Dole, in what appears to be a more competitive race (with State Senator Kay Hagan) that we initially expected. While the ad has stirred up some controversy because the Dole campaign insists it unfairly makes Dole's age an issue, the DSCC spokesperson, Matthew Miller, put things in perspective: "It's not that Elizabeth Dole is too old, it's that after 40 years in Washington she's too ineffective. Dole should remember her own words from two years ago, when she said that voters should elect a candidate with 'fresh leadership' over one who'd been in government for 40 years" - referring to a Dole appearance on "Meet the Press," when she told Maryland voters they should defeat then-Rep. Ben Cardin in his Senatorial campaign.

Out of Touch

Paul Krugman recently penned a good post in the Times about the Republican embrace of "know-nothing" politics. President Bush, the right-wing talking heads and many of the conservative ideologues in Congress have perfected this approach over the years, and it has quickly become the only thing consistent about the McCain campaign. An excerpt:

Republicans, once hailed as the “party of ideas,” have become the party of stupid. Now, I don’t mean that G.O.P. politicians are, on average, any dumber than their Democratic counterparts. What I mean, instead, is that know-nothingism - the insistence that there are simple, brute-force, instant-gratification answers to every problem, and that there’s something effeminate and weak about anyone who suggests otherwise - has become the core of Republican policy and political strategy. The party’s de facto slogan has become: “Real men don’t think things through.”

John McCain is quick to repeatedly spout poll-tested policy one-liners and slogans but it’s becoming increasingly apparent that he lacks a basic understanding of the fundamental issues of our time. The topic on which he is most out-spoken - national security issues - is no exception. And it just happens to be the most consequential. Not realizing Vladimir Putin is no longer President of Russia, thinking Iraq and Pakistan share a border, forgetting that Czechoslovakia no longer exists, and confusing Somalia and Sudan are all disconcerting gaffes but can be spun by campaign staff as misspeaks brought on by campaign fatigue. I don’t buy it but I get it. But McCain also knows that tough-talk appeals to his base and he is increasingly quick to “overlook” or distort facts, or simply make up new facts (al-Qaeda is not being trained in Iran), to try and justify his increasingly out-of-touch policies. On issues of war and peace, that is simply unacceptable. And that is why a McCain presidency is so dangerous.