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.

Beginner's Luck

In the Post, Eugene Robinson provides a good read on the “luck” of Barack Obama and the growing crankiness and desperation of John McCain. A brief excerpt:

If the grouching and grumbling continue, a campaign that once promised to be a referendum on Barack Obama's experience threatens to become a referendum on John McCain's temperament. At the moment, one of the candidates is acting presidentially and one isn't.

McCain's crankiness toward Obama reminds me of something the French writer Jean Cocteau once said: "Of course I believe in luck. How otherwise to explain the success of those you dislike?"

The McCain Drift

In this week’s TIME, Joe Klein explores John McCain’s foreign policy frustrations. As the campaign rolls on, not only do the differences in ideology between the candidates become more apparent but so do their differences in temperament and their approach to addressing the complex issues of today. Their recent back-and-forth on national security issues has been a perfect case in point. McCain, who has always spoken of the responsibility of candidates in electoral politics to raise the level of discourse above the petty partisanship and personal attacks we’ve become accustomed to, has quickly thrown all scruples out the window by questioning Barack Obama’s patriotism. We knew the Republicans would make that assertion sooner or later but we didn’t realize it would come straight from McCain and so early in the election. Perhaps it stems from a growing frustration that he no longer has the upper hand in the ongoing debate over America’s national security priorities. Klein:

"I had the courage and the judgment to say that I would rather lose a political campaign than lose a war," John McCain said during a Rochester, N.H., town meeting on July 22. "It seems to me that Senator Obama would rather lose a war in order to win a political campaign." It was a remarkable statement, as intemperate a personal attack as I've ever heard a major-party candidate make in a presidential campaign, the sort of thing that no potential President of the United States should ever be caught saying. (A prudent candidate has aides sling that sort of mud.) It was also inevitable.

You could see McCain's frustration building as Barack Obama traipsed elegantly through the Middle East while the pillars of McCain's bellicose regional policy crumbled in his wake. It wasn't only that the Iraqi government seemed to take Obama's side in the debate over when U.S. forces should leave (sooner rather than later). McCain was being undermined in Washington as well, by his old pal George W. Bush, who seemed to take Obama's side in the debate about whether to talk to Iran. Bush sent a ranking U.S. diplomat to negotiate with the Iranians on nuclear issues — and also let it be known that a U.S. Interests Section could soon be established in Tehran, the first U.S. diplomatic presence on Iranian soil since the 1979 hostage crisis.

In the end, both Obama and McCain seemed to have a piece of the truth about Iraq, but Obama's truth was larger and more strategic. Obama had been right about the war in the first place. It was a disastrous idea, a phenomenal waste of lives and American credibility that diverted focus from our real enemy, al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan. And Obama was right about the war now: the progress in Iraq was enabling a quicker withdrawal — a plan already hinted at by Bush. And Obama was right about the future: the Iraqis don't want long-term U.S. bases on their territory, a McCain keystone and the source of his infamous comment about staying in Iraq for 100 years. McCain's piece of the truth was tactical: he was right about the surge and right about the brilliance of David Petraeus' battle plan, which had helped quiet down Iraq. McCain was justifiably infuriated that Obama wouldn't acknowledge that success - indeed, Obama seemed to understand that he was pushing McCain's buttons, hoping perhaps to elicit McCain's Vesuvian temper, and in Rochester the eruption occurred.

Ultimately, the one-time maverick’s downfall will be traced to his steady embrace of a neoconservative foreign policy ideology. In Klein’s words, that would be best defined as “unilateral bellicosity cloaked in the utopian rhetoric of freedom and democracy.” This drift has led McCain to become more myopic and less adaptable to changing circumstances - and yes, more Bush-like. As Klein contends, "McCain has straitjacketed himself in an ideology focused more on enemies (real and imagined) than on opportunities."