• The New York Times reports that John McCain's presidential campaign suffers from a lack of organization, with no one able to really say who is in charge. Meanwhile, Mike Murphy, whose name became the topic du jour yesterday, has denied he has any interest in playing a role. Jason Zengerle has more on the Murphy back story at TNR.
• Rasmussen finds that voters perceive Barack Obama as the more "centrist" candidate, even as Obama himself denies he has moved to safer political waters for the sake of his presidential run.
• Barack Obama has hired Dana Singiser, Hillary Clinton's women's outreach director, as a senior adviser to his campaign.
• As Dana observed earlier, Carly Fiorina's position on health insurance for birth control makes a good amount of sense. Too bad her position contradicts John McCain's.
• The Washington Post reports that Democrats are gearing up for a big universal health care push this Fall.
• Mark Warner has some suggestions for how Democrats can turn Virginia blue this election year.
• Mikhail Gorbachev criticized both McCain and Obama today, suggesting their militarisitic foreign policy recalls a Cold War-era level of bellicosity.

--Mori Dinauer

Obama was introduced today at the League of United Latin American Citizens convention by a former Hillary Clinton die-hard, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa. Earlier today, John McCain enjoyed a friendly reception here at the Washington Hilton, but the crowd went absolutely wild for Obama, who greeted them with an enthusiastic "Si se puede!" and shouted out his "homies" from LULAC's Illinois chapter. And unlike McCain, who gave a tired speech on conservative tax policy, Obama focused on civil rights, frequently leaning into the microphone and shouting with passion. This was one of the best deliveries I've seen from Obama since early in the primaries. Toward the end of the speech, he even did a bit of call and response with the audience of states where Latino votes can make a difference in November.

McCain avoided focusing on immigration today, but Obama quickly addressed the issue of the 12 million undocumented workers who are "in hiding in this country," arguing against immigration raids that separate parents from children. "We have to finally bring undocumented immigrants out of the shadows," he said, while acknowledging, "Yes, they broke the law...but we have to put them on a path to citizenship." A few more issues Obama addressed that McCain didn't touch: The gender pay gap between Latina women and their male counterparts, bad working conditions for low-wage immigrant workers, and the need for Latino children to benefit from expanded Head Start programs.

Obama quote of the day: "Part of what makes America so beautiful is that there is no such thing as someone who looks like an American."

--Dana Goldstein

Over at Salon, Ed Kilgore reads my profile of Janet Napolitano and uses it to argue that she should be seriously considered as V.P. I agree. Just one quibble: Ed writes, "Goldstein suggests that Napolitano's great ambition in life is to become Attorney General of the United States." Actually, I think Napolitano aspires to be President. Some of her associates joke that her ambitions truly know no limit. But I think AG is the more realistic goal for her and she knows it -- at least for now.

--Dana Goldstein

Well, this is embarrassing for former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina, John McCain’s favorite ambassador to Ladytown. Talking with reporters yesterday about women and health insurance, Fiorina mentioned access to contraception. “There are many health insurance plans that will cover Viagra but won’t cover birth-control medication. Those women would like a choice,” she said.

Oops. I guess Fiorina hasn’t heard that McCain’s anti-choice agenda goes far beyond overturning Roe v . Wade — he also voted against requiring insurance companies to cover birth control. And for the record, McCain is opposed to comprehensive sex-ed and has said he’s not sure if condoms prevent the spread of HIV. “Choice” is not exactly the guy’s calling card.

—Dana Goldstein

Those looking for John McCain to strongly support a path toward citizenship for undocumented immigrants will be disappointed. Today at the League of United Latin American Citizens convention, McCain delivered a boilerplate supply side economic speech followed by just a few bullet points of special interest to the Latino community. For example, did you know:

• John McCain twice tried to pass comprehensive immigration reform. He learned in the process that "many Americans -- with good cause -- didn’t believe us when we said we would secure our border, so we failed."
• The border must be secured "while respecting the dignity and rights of citizens and legal residents of the United States of America."
• There are many Hispanic Americans serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, some of whom are not yet citizens.
• John McCain refused early release from prison camp in Vietnam, and that allowed his Mexican American friend to go home before McCain did.

McCain quote of the day: "For Americans who have lost their jobs to foreign competition, which is sad." Also: "To love your country, as I discovered in Vietnam, was to love your country."

--Dana Goldstein

Kai Wright on the increasing rate of AIDS among black people in the south:

Meanwhile, an AIDS apartheid has hardened here. John Edwards' two Americas are perhaps most clearly witnessed in the waiting rooms of AIDS clinics around the country. African Americans, who are 13 percent of the U.S. population, now account for a stunning half of all people living with HIV/AIDS and half of all those newly infected every year. The numbers are even more shocking when you look at the people among whom the virus is spreading most quickly. One depressing study of gay and bisexual men in five large U.S. cities found 46 percent of black men to already be positive. Nearly half. No population on Earth has registered infection rates that high.

Andrew Green reports that the U.S. lacks a national AIDS strategy despite the fact that we require one from all other countries that receive funding from us to fight the disease:

Before the United States will consider giving AIDS funding to another country, the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief requires the foreign government to create and implement a national AIDS strategy. "At the core of the implementation strategy," the requirements explain, "is a robust ongoing in-country planning effort" meant to "identify relevant U.S. government agencies, existing resources, needs, gaps, partners, programs, objectives, performance measures, staffing, and technical assistance requirements."

And Paul Waldman writes that although Obama gets some good press, the media slavishly follows any storyline from McCain's campaign:

"Sure, reporters have a soft spot for John McCain. But they've been pretty kind to Barack Obama, too. So what's going to happen now that two politicians they like are running against each other?" As I've been out promoting the book I co-wrote about McCain and the media, I've been asked some version of this question dozens of times. The premise is partly true, in that Obama has enjoyed some periods of positive coverage over the course of this campaign, but there was never any comparison between Washington reporters' feelings for the two presidential contenders. What happened last week with Gen. Wesley Clark made that all too clear, as do some emerging narratives that are moving right from the McCain campaign's mouth to reporters' pens.

Subscribe to our RSS feed to receive our articles as soon as they're published.

--The Editors

This afternoon, I'll be reporting from the national convention of the League of United Latin American Citizens, where both John McCain and Barack Obama will be speaking. The event is one of three opportunities the campaigns have scheduled in order to reach out to Latino community leaders; on June 28, both men spoke to the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials, and both will be addressing the civil rights group La Raza in San Diego next week.

Here's what to look out for: Greater specificity from both candidates on their political strategies for implementing comprehensive immigration reform, which they both say they support. McCain, however, during the Republican primaries, dialed back his enthusiasm for the Senate immigration compromise he had co-authored, saying it hadn't placed enough emphasis on securing the border before proceeding with a temporary guest worker program and a path toward citizenship. In more recent days, however, McCain has again been confounding immigrants' rights advocates by saying he once again considers comprehensive reform, not border security, his "top priority yesterday, today, and tomorrow."

From Obama, it would be interesting to learn if and when he plans to fit immigration reform into his first year agenda. The issue, after all, would likely require significant, complex negotiations with Congress and even among interest groups generally allied with the Democratic Party. With health care and global warming major priorities, would Obama have the political capital left over for an immigration fight? I just can't see him prioritizing immigration over those other issues.

--Dana Goldstein

John McCain has a new ad out, and the guy who keeps saying how much he hates talking about Vietnam is, what do you know, talking about Vietnam again:

And as a bonus, we get hippies! If the sight of them still makes your blood boil forty years later, then there's no doubt which candidate is for you. The opening line of the ad is, "It was a time of uncertainty, hope, and change: the Summer of Love." In other words, because he too talks about "hope" and "change," Barack Obama is a dirty hippie.

In its effort to reframe Obama's rhetoric, this ad is strikingly bleak. How about the passage that closes the ad: "He believes our world is dangerous, our economy in shambles. John McCain doesn't always tell us what we hope to hear. Beautiful words cannot make our lives better. But a man who has always put his country and her people before self, before politics, can. Don't hope for a better life. Vote for one."

There's an old adage that the more optimistic candidate is always the one who wins. This is not much more insightful than the adage that the taller candidate usually wins. Nonetheless, it's hard to see how saying you see the world as a miserable place, then telling people, "Don't hope for a better life" is a way to get them excited about your candidacy.

One of the most powerful features of Obama's "Yes we can" message is that it makes you as a voter into a participant in the country's story. In McCain's telling, on the other hand, you're not involved at all. It's McCain who is going to deliver you a better life. When you put it that explicitly, it just sounds ridiculous. Who thinks a politician is going change your life? You'd have to be a sucker to think that. And interestingly, it also contradicts traditional Republican arguments that government can't do much except get out of your way so you can achieve on your own.

All in all, an early contender for worst campaign ad of the general election.

-- Paul Waldman

There's been lots of outreach to Hillary and Bill allies in recent days, but this move is especially symbolic. From a campaign press release:

CHICAGO, IL- The Obama campaign announced today that Dana Singiser will be joining the campaign to serve as a Senior Advisor to Senator Obama and will help direct efforts to win the woman’s vote. ...

Prior to joining the campaign, Singiser served as the Director of Women’s Outreach for the Hillary Clinton 2008 campaign. Prior to that, she served as Staff Director of the Senate Democratic Steering and Outreach Committee chaired by Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton. In this capacity, she was charged with building support for Democratic party positions through constituency outreach on behalf of the Democratic caucus. Prior to joining the Senate in 2004, she served as Deputy Political Director for Governor Howard Dean’s campaign.

--Dana Goldstein

Is Iran a threat to the existence of the United States? Joltin' Joe Lieberman says yes:

Obviously Israel is first in the line of Iranian fire. And it represents an existential threat to Israel. But you know who is next? The Arab countries in the Middle East and they’re worried about the Iranian program and want us to ask strongly to stop it. And we’re next! Because Ahmadinejad in Tehran constantly leads the mobs in shouts of death to America. And they mean it.

Whoa, that's, like, pretty scary! We should stop Ahmadinejad before he marches into the Rhineland. But can we? Is it too late to prevent the emergence of this new world power? Fortunately, the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation has prepared a helpful chart:

MORE...

I suppose that this line from National Review's heartwarming tribute to unreconstructed white supremacist, homophobe, and enthusiastic supporter of brutal authoritarian governments Jessie Helms was inevitable: "Helms’s real offense was a stubborn and victory-making political incorrectness." I'm not sure if I know of a better example of the current wingnut definition of "politically incorrect," which seems to mean "bigoted arguments we'd prefer not to defend on the merits but want insulated from any criticism."

Elsewhere, Jonah Goldberg claims that the "liberal line" on Helms isn't true, although for some reason he can't be bothered to actually refute the extensive and unambiguous evidence concerning Helms's bigotry. Perhaps he can start by giving the non-racist explanation for his penchant for whistling "Dixie" around Carol Mosley-Braun. That sure was "politically incorrect"!

--Scott Lemieux

Sam Fulwood III has a curious piece in the Dallas Morning News arguing that Clarence Thomas' appointment to the Supreme Court was "the most significant development in U.S. race relations since the end of the civil rights movement" -- and that Thomas paved the way for Obama's presidential run. I was in elementary school during the Thomas hearings, but having just profiled Janet Napolitano, who first came onto the national political stage as an attorney for Anita Hill, I've been thinking frequently about the episode.

My sense is that any bursting of stereotypes that Clarence Thomas facilitated by being an affluent, conservative Republican black man with a white wife was severely mitigated by the allegations that he crudely sexually harassed Hill, his young, black, female employee. The Thomas hearings were undoubtedly a significant event in American race and gender relations, and had the positive outcome of introducing the broad public to the concept of workplace sexual harassment. But Thomas a path-breaker for black Democratic politicians? I think not.

Here's what rikyrah had to say about it at Jack & Jill Politics: "Personally, I believe, if Obama owes any Black Republicans, it’s Colin Powell and Condi Rice. Yeah, I’ll never give Uncle Clarence credit for anything. I admit it."

--Dana Goldstein

• Barack Obama has responded to the my.barackobama.com group determined to change the presumptive Democratic nominee's position on FISA, but he hasn't changed his position -- he is still arguing that the compromise is still better than what preceded it.
• William Kristol argues in his NY Times column today that the McCain campaign should hire Mike Murphy, who managed both of Jeb Bush's Florida gubernatorial runs. Both Christopher Orr and Jason Zengerle -- among others -- find this argument wanting.
• John McCain has a new favorite policy position: balancing the budget. Only problem is that this "plan" isn't a promise, just a "demand," and lacks any specifics about how the budget actually gets balanced. Even McCain's own economic advisers are less than thrilled his general economic plan.
• Charlie Black "concedes" that Barack Obama is patriotic in this Politico story.
• Obama is expected to give his nomination acceptance speech in a football stadium outside the smaller arena holding the actual convention. He will be the first Democrat to do so since John F. Kennedy. Meanwhile,The Washington Post reports that McCain could face a challenge at the RNC in St. Paul.
• Political Insider notes the gains Obama is making in ten states Bush won handily in 2004.
• As Dylan noted earlier, Virginia Sen. James Webb has categorically denied an interest in being Barack Obama's running mate.
• The Wall St. Journal documents how Obama is still facing resistance from some top Hillary Clinton supporters.

--Mori Dinauer

So I suppose all the commentary about the possibility that Barack Obama would pick Jim Webb as his running-mate was much ado about nothing. Today Webb released a pretty Shermanesque statement denying any interest in the spot. He states,

"Last week I communicated to Senator Obama and his presidential campaign my firm intention to remain in the United States Senate, where I believe I am best equipped to serve the people of Virginia and this country. Under no circumstances will I be a candidate for Vice President."

I suppose this means Webb listened to Ezra, who argued on the main site in May that Webb was too good for the vice presidency. However, Obama could still tap Webb as the keynote speaker for the Democratic National Convention, as Spencer Ackerman suggested on TAP Online in February. In any event, this is a surprising development since, as Ezra argued in his piece, Webb certainly seemed to be angling for the nomination.

--Dylan Matthews

A fascinating story out of Philadelphia: Tour guides are suing the city in response to a law, signed by Mayor Michael Nutter, that requires guides to pass a history test and get a license before leading tours in Philly's downtown historic district, which contains many of the sites associated with the nation's founding.

City officials say they are trying to protect the history that brings millions of tourists to Philadelphia and generates billions of dollars in revenue every year. They don't want anyone leaving town believing that Ben Franklin stands atop City Hall (it's William Penn) or that homes were once taxed based on how wide they were.

"Tourism is a major part of our local economy," said Douglas Oliver, a spokesman for the mayor. "It is reasonable to ensure that tourists are getting accurate information."

The tests will start being required in October. Washington, New Orleans and Charleston, S.C., have similar laws regulating tour guides.

The litigious guides see this as a First Amendment issue; city government, meanwhile, is casting itself as the protector of a proud historical legacy. I don't like the idea of anybody "owning" history, so here's where I come down: Create a test and certification system with prominent badges for guides who fulfill the requirements. Tour operators can brag in their promotional materials if their employees are certified. Guidebooks will learn about the system, advise tourists to use the city-certified services, and soon business to the fraudulent tours will decrease. None of that would infringe upon the non-certified guides' rights to conduct their business. Consumers should know what they're purchasing, though.

--Dana Goldstein

Vis a vis Scott's excellent post on Obama's silly pander about "mental distress" and "partial birth" abortion, it's worth reminding ourselves exactly how many late term abortions are performed in America each year.

Here are the facts: Ninety percent of abortions are performed within the first 16 weeks of pregnancy through a procedure called aspiration, in which a surgical vacuum is used to empty out a woman's uterus. The second most common abortion procedure is dilation and evacuation, which accounts for almost the entirety of the remaining 10 percent of abortions. D&E takes place after 16 weeks of pregnancy, often when a woman's health or life is at risk. In that procedure, the aspiration process is sometimes preceded by an injection into the abdomen that ensures fetal demise.

Intact dilation and extraction, aka D&X or -- to the antis -- "partial birth abortion," accounts for less than two tenths of one percent of all abortions performed in the United States each year, and is usually reserved for instances in which the pregnant woman is facing severe health risks or when expectant parents learn their fetus will not be viable outside of the womb.

--Dana Goldstein

Dana Goldstein profiles Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano (read a transcript of their discussion here) and concludes that she sounds an awful lot like a certain presidential candidate:

Napolitano was under a lot of pressure. Nevertheless, on Jan. 11, a few weeks ahead of Arizona's Super Tuesday primary, she announced her support for Barack Obama, citing his ability to attract independent voters and his appeal to national unity. For those who'd been tracking Napolitano's rhetoric and career, the move didn't come as too much of a shock, despite her Clinton connections. Napolitano has been dropping buzzwords like "unity," "compromise," and "nonpartisanship" since her first campaign for attorney general in 1998 -- years before a young Illinois state senator burst onto the political scene.

Napolitano's rhetoric -- and governing style -- has proved both successful and wildly popular. Today, it is almost impossible to find an Arizona progressive with a bad word to say about her, though it hasn't always been that way.

Also, Holly Yeager explores the continuing relevance, or lack thereof, of EMILY's List.

On this front, EMILY's List has built an impressive record since its founding in 1985, when no Democratic woman had been elected to the Senate in her own right. By building a network of donors -- and later, working on women's voter turnout, campaign staff training, candidate recruitment and other fronts -- EMILY's List now takes partial credit for electing 71 pro-choice Democratic women to the U.S. House, 13 to the Senate, eight to governorships, and 358 to state and local offices.

But despite its many electoral successes, EMILY's List faces significant challenges, including questions about who it endorses and how useful its fundraising techniques are in an Internet age. Its endorsements have been criticized for being too dedicated to the cause of women, even at the expense of liberal male politicians. Others question whether abortion rights remains the defining issue it was earlier in the group's history.

Subscribe to our RSS feed to receive our articles as soon as they're published.

--The Editors

Professor B provides some useful data about late-term abortions in light of Obama's dumb (and I guess now clumsily partially retracted) comments about abortion policy. Admittedly, the policy consequences of what Obama is proposing would probably be negligible; as long as the decision rests with individual doctors rather than a panel, the precise definition of a health exemption makes very little difference on the ground. (Pre-Roe, some states with very strict-sounding statutes had relatively easy access to abortion in practice, while other state with broader access on paper had limited access in practice.) Of course, this cuts both ways: because most women don't choose to get post-viability abortions and most doctors won't perform them, there's no "problem" that needs to be solved here by changing the law.

So as Jill, Amanda, and Jan Crawford Greenburg point out, the problem with Obama's statement isn't so much a policy issue as that it plays into right-wing frames about the abortion issue. As Greenburg notes:

History shows that those proposals — offered and embraced by legislators who would call themselves "pro-choice" — have been seized by conservatives who oppose abortion. As Dailard wrote, the attacks on the mental health exception have had "significant repercussions beyond that significant issue, seriously reviving a legislative attack on abortion rights that largely has been dormant for two decades."

Given the unpopularity of the Republican position of banning pre-viability abortions, it's obviously in their interest to focus on the tiny minority of (already restricted) post-viability abortions, and pretend that women routinely seek them for frivolous reasons. The appropriate Democratic response is to note that the vast majority of abortions are pre-viability and there's no reason to believe that the laws restricting the tiny fraction of post-viability abortions don't work. The Democrats have to stop playing on Republican turf, and Obama's comments show that he doesn't seem to understand that. As with foreign policy, but with even less reason, national Democratic politicians seem to think that the Permanent Defensive Crouch is the way to go.

And since this isn't the only place I've seen the conflation, I suppose I should note yet again that bans on "partial birth" abortion apply to some pre-viability abortions and don't prevent any abortions at any stage of gestation from being performed. Instead they require doctors to perform abortions with methods that aren't as safe. And hence, not only do such bans have nothing to do with restricting post-viability abortion, they are facially irrational.

--Scott Lemieux

Strange Maps features a regional depiction of American obesity rates. Unsurprisingly, the Deep South is deep-frying its way to diabetes and an early death, while the Northeast, West Coast, and Rocky Mountain regions are the thinnest in the country. At the Aspen Ideas Festival last week (held in America's thinnest state), Paul Campos, author of The Obesity Myth, argued that concern about fatness is really just an overblown symptom of rich Americans' desire to look down their noses at poor Americans. Indeed, obesity is associated worldwide with poverty, in large part because the cheapest foods created by our industrial agricultural system are high in fat and refined carbohydrates. But obesity is also expensive, and as Ezra points out, the American diet that causes obesity is also terrible for the environment. So obesity ought to be a national concern -- not because we should be castigating the overweight, but because healthier living benefits our larger society.

--Dana Goldstein

The destruction (and subsequent reconstruction) of the Iraqi Army has been a boon to arms dealers. Similarly, the War on Terror has generated any number of new channels for arms sales, often from one shady country to another, all in the name of fighting terrorism. The shifting political climate has produced an uncertain legal environment, in which various companies have been able to find loopholes large enough to drive a column of T-72s through. Many of these companies facilitate the transfer of weapons from Russia, the former Soviet republics, and Eastern Europe to buyers around the world.

Former Rep. Curt Weldon, it appears, has found a new career in this sector of the arms business.

Eagerly stepping into that virgin territory is Defense Solutions, a Pennsylvania-based company that is carving out a small but lucrative niche in a new international arms bazaar. The firm boasts as its advisors a number of influential Washington insiders, such as retired General Barry McCaffrey, the former White House drug czar.

Helping the firm make key connections is Curt Weldon, a former Republican congressman from Pennsylvania at the center of an FBI investigation into alleged conflicts of interest during his time in office. Weldon, now a key executive at Defense Solutions, is working with the company to set up these weapons deals. Defense Solutions has also proposed refurbishing Libya's BTR-60 armored personnel carriers, according to a sales proposal seen by Wired.com. Defense Solutions denies drafting a sales proposal to Libya.

It's an unusual, if not an entirely unexpected chapter for Weldon, whose time in office included frequent trips to Russia.

One of the more notable client targets for Defense Solutions (and Weldon personally) has been Libya, which has enjoyed a incomplete relaxation of arms sanctions since 2006. Weldon spent a week in Libya at the pleasure of Muammar Gaddafi's son, apparently for the purpose of concluding a deal to refurbish and modernize Libya's fleet of armored vehicles.

--Robert Farley

We appear to be entering a new phase of the campaign season. Let's call it the Age of Disillusionment (with Barack Obama). The New York Times capped a week of head-scratching over Obama's positions on FISA, gay marriage, the death penalty, and troop withdrawal by publishing a scathing editorial called "New and Not Improved." Yesterday Frank Rich, who was an Obama enthusiast throughout the Democratic primaries, compared the nominee unfavorably to Wall-E, a cartoon robot. Today E.J. Dionne writes that Obama is showing signs of "unsteadiness" in responding to the McCain campaign's goading on Iraq.

And let's not forget the continuing faux outrage from editorial boards over Obama's decision to privately fund his campaign; Republicans have more 527 funding groups, so Obama's choice ensured he can compete with McCain on even financial ground. The Hartford Courant, though, declared the decision "Mr. Obama's Flip-Flop" and called him a "hypocrite," all without mentioning conservative 527s.

Are we experiencing a genuine shift in Obama's issue positions and campaign strategy, or just a self-perpetuating media narrative? Obama's position on FISA does appear to represent a real capitulation. But his statement that he'd assess conditions on the ground before implementing his promised Iraq troop draw down is just common sense. Meanwhile, social liberals who profess to be surprised by Obama's stances on the death penalty, guns, and gay marriage have not been following either his writings on these topics or the campaign itself.

Political analysts and reporters are entering a phase of boredom and frustration with this campaign. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were the two most interesting people in the 2008 presidential contest; for many of us writing about the race a lot of the fun ended when Clinton dropped out. And because of how long the Dem primary went on, people seem particularly disappointed and annoyed by the shift in tone to the general election, in which candidates, naturally, appeal to the center.

Nevertheless, it's true that Obama hasn't been making strong progressive statements on domestic social issues. He hasn't been discussing the importance of the Supreme Court in a context larger than its recent decision, for example. (Hello, Roe?) Whether this trend will continue will be tested tomorrow, when Obama will speak here in Washington, D.C. to the League of United Latin American Citizens. Another contentious topic, immigration, will surely be on the agenda.

--Dana Goldstein

Wingnuts are freaking out because of the "discovery" in Iraq of a supply of uranium that has been monitored and sealed by the IAEA since the 1980s. This "discovery" is supposed to have vindicated a variety of assertions regarding Iraq's nuclear weapons program. Degroot and Mahablog have the rundown. It's nice to know that Right Blogistan can still surprise you; writing exhibiting this degree of lack of technical sophistication, ignorance of basic facts, and disregard for the most basic elements of a logical argument should embarrass a sixth grader.

-- Robert Farley

Ezra has the details on how you can help make Brian Beutler's recovery a little easier.

--The Editors

In honor of Independence Day, take a moment and check out what is probably the greatest rendition of the Star-Spangled Banner ever delivered. The song is widely agreed to be a musical abomination, almost impossible to sing in a pleasing way, no matter the talent of the singer. But there is at least one exception:

Only Marvin Gaye could make the national anthem so damn sexy - just listen to the crowd squeal. Happy birthday, America!

-- Paul Waldman

• Barack Obama might consider adjusting his Iraq withdrawal plan if elected president, the NY Times Caucus reports.
• An LA Times story alleging that Obama might shorten the Democratic national convention by one day to extend his post-nomination bounce has been denied by the campaign.
• A Time poll finds Barack Obama and John McCain statistically tied amongst Catholic voters.
• Talking Points Memo has constructed a useful timeline of Obama's changing position on FISA.
• A Rasmussen poll finds Obama beating McCain in Montana by five points.
• The Wall St. Journal reports on efforts by former swiftboaters to circumvent existing campaign finance law in order to allow them to more directly assist the John McCain presidential campaign.
• A USA Today/Gallup poll conducted for the Fourth of July weekend finds, shockingly, that Americans are into patriotism! And that one-in-six find flag lapels patriotic! Consider this the statistic of the day.

--Mori Dinauer

Apparently, one of the sticking points between SecDef Gates and the Air Force leadership involved a dispute over whether to deploy the F-22 to Iraq:

The Air Force wanted to send the F-22 to the Middle East and Defense Secretary Robert Gates nixed the plans, citing the strategic danger from the deployment if it were misread by Iran, among other factors. This comes from a single usually reliable source with knowledge of Air Force policy and operations....

The Air Force wanted the F-22 deployed for the same sort of reasons that drove the service’s decision to send B-2 bombers to Kosovo, to prove its effectiveness and demonstrate overwhelming US air superiority. A successful deployment — complete with videos of successful strikes and quotes from jubilant air crews — might have led Congress and the public to support a substantial increase in the number of F-22s purchased.

--Robert Farley

Steve Schmidt, the new head honcho of the McCain brigades, is doing a good job shifting the media storylines in his boss' favor (check out CW compilation the Note to get an idea of how excited the press is about this story). Various other pundits are checking in to chat about the man -- here's Ambinder -- but I think Jon Chait's take is the best.

The problem with the McCain campaign all year has been his wretched flip-floppery. Is he a Bush-style conservative who's going to bash heads and rally the base on the campaign trail? That's what the Schmidt choice suggests. One really has to wonder if a Rove-style base rallying strategy is going to pay off in this political climate. Or, it's possible, though unlikely, that McCain is a moderate maverick. But that's the problem -- if, as Chait predicts, letting McCain be McCain is going to be the strategy, it's a daily crap shoot to see which politician will show up for the stump speech.

One more guess to be hazarded: Apparently, Schmidt is set to radically re-tool the McCain campaign's (insane) plan to have a different field-message-political plan in each region. That's going to take some time, and Obama already has a head start on McCain in terms of organization, thanks to the DNC, the primary that wouldn't die and his cash money. Even if Schmidt can punch up his national message and earned media to the point that it can move voters, will they be able to have the necessary ground operation to capitalize on that advantage in November? I doubt it.

--Tim Fernholz

Matt writes:

As you can perhaps tell from my dyspeptic response to some of our Ideas Festival sponsors' efforts to brand themselves as "green," (see also Boeing's hilarious hand-crank powered flashlight) I don't see the "corporate social responsibility" movement as having a ton of promise. I think large firms will more-or-less inevitably seek to maximize profits and the role of the state is to ensure that that profit maximizing behavior takes place in a larger framework such that its impacts are beneficial.

Of course, we all know that states are not, after all, unitary rational actors; they are instead fragmented actors that respond to a variety of different external and internal stimuli in a way that leaves their behavior "rational" only in a very technical sense. I think that corporations can probably be treated similarly; the CEO of Proctor and Gamble does try to maximize profits, but there are internal as well as external constraints on P&G's behavior. If the employees strongly support a certain kind of environmental, recycling, or social program, then it becomes hard for P&G to ignore that concern in the pursuit of profit maximization. No corporation, after all, can simply fire all of its workers. As such, I think that Matt underestimates the prospect of some companies branding themselves as "green" in a meaningful ways. Such moves aren't simply public relations, but rather can also be a response to "grassroots" demands from within the corporation, and from shifts in corporate culture.

--Robert Farley

I agree with Sanchez and Patashnik that there's no necessary contradiction between Obama's nominal opposition to same-sex marriage and opposition to the California Restoration of Bigotry initiative. As I think I mentioned before, Dan Pinello found a significant number of Massachusetts legislators who didn't initially support same-sex marriage rights but was opposed to repealing them once granted. Obama's position isn't terribly surprising or unusual, and nor is it incoherent on its face.

Still, I also agree with Matt that while this position is a coherent rationalization of his stated views, something simpler is probably going on. Obama probably supports same-sex marriage but doesn't feel he can express this view while trying to hold a national coalition together.

And while people often focus on the backlash successful litigation provokes among hostile to same-sex marriage, there's another side to it: litigation also makes voting against same-sex marriage more difficult and provides political cover for politicians who would like to support it but are reluctant to support changes in legislation. In addition, having same-sex marriage is instituted in even a few states without the hysterically anticipated social apocalypse makes arguments against it harder to sustain.

--Scott Lemieux

Gershom Gorenberg writes about the trip Obama needs but can't afford politically:

Sometime in the weeks ahead, Jerusalem will receive the latest in a long line of American political pilgrims -- Barack Obama. Obama's entire overseas swing will be a tightrope act -- necessary, but unforgiving of a single stumble. Nowhere will the contradictory purposes of the trip be more constricting than in Israel. The visit he should actually make to prepare for the presidency is impossible. But it's worth imagining, if only as a yardstick to measure what politics allows him to do.

Bruce Ackerman and Ian Ayres argue that Obama's success at small-dollar fundraising shows that their proposed system of "patriot dollars" is a better fit for American voters than our current system of matching funds:

Barack Obama's rejection of public financing for the general election confronts us with a stark choice: Rethink the system or let it die. The current program has failed to generate sustained public support for good reason. It puts citizens on the sidelines and merely involves the bureaucratic transfer of funds from the Treasury to candidates who voluntarily forego private money. Given the lack of direct citizen involvement, it's not surprising that fewer than 10 percent of Americans support the campaign fund by checking off a box on their tax forms.

And Dean Baker has the latest economic news:

We all know about the shortage of oil sending gas prices through the roof. And of course, shortages of rice and corn have sent the prices for these commodities soaring also. But, what about the shortage of Europeans?

Well, if you aren't concerned about running out of Europeans then you obviously didn't read the section of last Sunday's New York Times Magazine. The magazine cover story was a 10-page warning that the populations of most European countries are shrinking, several at what the Times deems an alarming rate.

Subscribe to our RSS feed to receive our articles as soon as they're published.

--The Editors