The situation in South Ossetia remains uncertain, and it's generating a lot of discussion.

• The BBC has footage (from a Russian source) of Russian tanks presumably on their way into South Ossetia, as well as footage of Georgian jets attacking "separatist" positions.
• Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili has been all over CNN, explaining (in excellent English) that the conflict is part of a war between freedom and tyranny.
• Jamestown Foundation fellow Vladimir Sucor has a strongly pro-Georgia account of the conflict, suggesting that the fight in South Ossetia was provoked by Russian-supported separatists. Certainly, the Russian response to the Georgian invasion has been very quick; on the other hand, the Georgians were bombarding the capitol of the region only yesterday.
• Nathan Hodge has two posts on the degree of military support that the United States has given Georgia in the past several years.
• Josh Keating argues that the conflict has essentially killed Georgia's chances to enter NATO, and notes that the the situation in Abkhazia (the other breakaway territory of Georgia) may soon also become unstable.
• Wu Wei is blogging directly from Tblisi about the conflict.
• Barack Obama and John McCain have both issued statements calling for a ceasefire, with McCain's being more strongly condemnatory of the Russians. Matt Duss points out that one reason for this might be that Randy Scheuenemann, McCain's main foreign policy advisor, used to be a registered lobbyist for the Republic of Georgia.
  

It's fair to say that the situation will continue to develop throughout the weekend.

--Robert Farley

I'm going to cosign what Ta-Nehisi Coates said about Stephen Cohen being able to join the CBC. Rep. William Lacy Clay's explanation is patently ridiculous.

"Quite simply, Rep. Cohen will have to accept what the rest of the country will have to accept -- there has been an unofficial Congressional White Caucus for over 200 years, and now it's our turn to say who can join 'the club.' He does not, and cannot, meet the membership criteria, unless he can change his skin color. Primarily, we are concerned with the needs and concerns of the black population, and we will not allow white America to infringe on those objectives."

Cohen's district is mostly black. If the priority is to address the needs and concerns of black Americans, then I assume that means the black folks in TN-09, who voted for Cohen as their representative. Unlike in 2006, where his mandate was questionable because he won with a small percentage of the vote in a crowded field, Cohen's victory this year represents a conclusive rejection of the presumption that he needs to be black to best represent them. (See my new web article for more on the race and challenger Nikki Tinker's attempt to use Cohen's race against him).

This isn't about giving Cohen honorary black status, it's about making sure the needs of his constituents are better served. As it stands, Clay has essentially said addressing the needs of the black community in Memphis is less important than making Cohen understand that he isn't black. I'm pretty sure he's figured that out by now. 

On a somewhat unrelated note, someone needs to have a talk with Cohen about his views on Armenians. This was a comment he made to a local Memphis television station after physically ejecting Armenian-American filmmaker Peter Musurlian from his home. Musurlian is angry at Cohen for voting against the U.S. recognizing the Armenian genocide in Turkey:

There have been Armenians who have assassinated and killed many people, including people in this country, in Los Angeles, in the 70s and 80s. And so I don't rest very comfortable with one of these fellows coming into my home."

Seriously?

-- A. Serwer

I haven't been following Howard Gleckman as much as Ezra has, but this post offering the ridiculous idea that Douglas Holtz-Eakin should be Obama's OMB director also includes this:

Second, Holtz-Eakin would enjoy fiscal credibility in the financial markets. The bond vigilantes have not cared about deficits for years, but they tend to get interested when Democrats run the government. Just ask Bill Clinton. Today, they see Obama as little more than a big-government liberal with a good speech. This might show them he is more complex than that.

Jeez. Is this really how financial professionals work? I mean, the Bush administration is posting record deficits and has increased spending more than Carter or Clinton -- the largest increase, in fact, since LBJ. But none of this worries people because a conservative is doing it. And John McCain, who is planning on cutting taxes by $300 billion, doesn't concern them since his commitment to continuing to stay in Iraq and not making clear where he would cut spending is the epitome of fiscal discipline. But, if a liberal were elected, he would need a conservative hack in his administration to prevent people from worrying about the deficit. That's credibility!

--Tim Fernholz

Yesterday, Tom Maguire pointed to what he claims is an old defense of the "conventional wisdom" on the exclusion of Saint Casey from the 1992 Democratic convention (although, in fairness, his analysis is actually a little more intelligent than that.) But I see no reason to believe that Begala (who Maguire also links to) is wrong that Casey's failure to endorse the Democratic ticket played a role in his not being invited to speak, but purely for the sake of argument let's say that this is just ex post facto rationalization.

It remains rather critical to distinguish between two distinct claims: the argument that Casey (as the Times said yesterday) didn't speak "because he is pro-life" and because "he wanted to give a speech attacking his party's position on reproductive freedom." (Maguire carefully conflates the two by framing this as whether Casey was excluded "because of abortion.") The Myth of Casey relies on dissembling and giving version #1. And this is necessary, because if stated as the much more accurate version #2, the claim that the party did something wrong is transparently ridiculous.

Well, maybe not fully transparent. Maguire, whatever his other sins, does us the favor of reminding us of this remarkable claim from Peter Beinart:

I think one of the great problems in the debates about abortion and gay rights is the perception that liberals are illiberal and nondemocratic. It's remarkable to me how many people still mention the fact that [the anti-abortion Pennsylvania governor] Bob Casey was denied the right to speak at the 1992 Democratic convention. That was an illiberal thing the party did. And there is an important debate for liberals to have about the role of the courts in pushing social change.

So "liberalism" requires that a political party give a speaking slot at its nominating convention to anyone who wants to give a speech attacking a party's core values? Is this guy for real? What would the idea of a political party even mean if this was true? I think we can see why Beinart thought that running Joe Lieberman in 2004 was a peachy idea.

And as dumb as this idea is in the abstract, it's even worse in context:

• Casey's support of using state power to compel (poor) women to bring pregnancies to term came in the context of a recently argued Supreme Court case seeking to overturn Roe v. Wade.
• It was Casey's government that was not only defending the abortion regulations at issue in the case but that filed a brief urging that Roe be overruled.
• Although this now seems less threatening, it's also important to remember that at the time the overruling of Roe seemed to be nearly certain. The most recent Court pronouncement on the subject has only three clear votes for re-affirming Roe, ad two of those justices had just been replaced. Kennedy joined Rehnquist's majority, not O'Connor's more moderate concurrence. Even assuming the O'Connor wouldn't vote to explicitly overrule and not counting on the unknown views of Souter, Thomas and Kennedy seemed to give the clearly anti-Roe Rehnquist, Scalia and White a majority negating a woman's right to choose an abortion.

So Casey Sr. was not some random pro-lifer. He was not a nominal pro-lifer who wasn't actively trying to criminalize abortion in the manner of Harry Reid. He was at the epicenter of a movement to take away a cherished constitutional right from American women, and moreover a movement that seemed at the brink of succeeding in forcing poor women to the black market if they wanted to control their reproductive destinies. And he wanted to broadcast his views -- both unpopular and contrary to core party principles -- at the party's convention.

Of course he wasn't permitted to do this, and even if had been the sole reason for his exclusion the party's decision would have been indisputably correct. The only "illberal" or "intolerant" actions here were the actions of Casey. Are the Republicans obligated to give speaking spots to people who support single-payer health care and Denmark's tax policies? If John Lindsay wasn't permitted to give a speech at the nominating convention in 1984 attacking Reaganonmics despite his demands would we still be hearing about how the "intolerant" Republicans had "treated him shabbily" decades later? I think these questions answer themselves.

--Scott Lemieux

In the true spirit of the evils of euphemism -- and creating some synergy with Spencer's piece from yesterday -- today we learn how to describe air quality in China:

On the long-awaited day that these Olympics officially opened, the sky was smoggy and the local air quality rating was 94, well above the limits in the United States. Still, anything below a 101 qualifies as a “Blue Sky Day” here, according to the standards set to monitor air quality for the Olympics.

Which makes the air conditions "acceptable" but "some pollutants there may be a moderate health concern for a very small number of people." So, I guess the appropriate response is ... USA! USA! USA!

--Tim Fernholz

The recently released Democratic Party platform places "fatherhood" among its priorities. But a closer look indicates that the party may be willing to move forward on the problem of more than two million Americans in prison, and even more who have just left or are on their way back. (emphasis mine).

Children who grow up without a father are five times more likely to live in poverty and are more likely to commit crime, drop out of school, abuse drugs and end up in prison. We need more fathers to realize that responsibility does not end at conception. We need them to understand that what makes a man is not the ability to have a child-it's the courage to raise one. We will support fathers by providing transitional training to get jobs, removing tax penalties on married families, and expanding maternity and paternity leave.

Now obviously there are some other important points here, particularly on maternity leave, but I find it interesting that the Party chose to present its support for "transitional training," -- programs for men who are transitioning out of prison into public life -- as part of its family policy. The Reentry Policy Council estimates half of those one million adults in prison are parents. Children with an incarcerated parent are in considerably more danger of incarceration upon reaching adulthood than others, at least partially because, in many neighborhoods, it isn't simply one or two fathers or mothers that are missing -- it's most fathers (not always because of incarceration).

With the growing prison population, many of these children end up with a mother in prison as well -- a situation that can end in the termination of parental rights for both parents. The idea behind transitional programs is that they can help reform parents by giving them the kind of economic and social skills that they either didn't receive or may have lost in prison -- in order to provide for their family, and be better parents. The programs are also meant to reduce the recidivism rat -- currently 2/3 of the people who go to prison end up back in within three years.

Reforming the criminal justice system and, especially, pushing for investment in ex-felons, isn't usually very popular. But by framing it as a family issue, the Democratic Party may be indicating it's an issue they're interested in fighting for, and it's certainly a sign of Barack Obama's influence in crafting the party message.

-- A. Serwer

CNN is reporting that Russian armor is moving on South Ossetia. Reports of Russian bombing of Georgia continue; the Russians are complaining that Georgia is firing on Russian aircraft.

--Robert Farley

Georgian forces are moving on the capitol of the breakaway region of South Ossetia:

Georgia pounded the capital of its breakaway South Ossetia province with heavy weapons on Thursday after a ceasefire broke down within hours and separatists said they were under siege.

"Georgian troops are storming Tskhinvali (the capital). They are bombing the city," South Ossetia's separatist leader, Eduard Kokoity, told Russian news agencies. A Reuters reporter saw intense fire from heavy weapons at different locations skirting Tskhinvali. The reporter heard heavy fighting coming from the direction of the city.

The night sky was lit up blue and red by explosions and Georgian forces appeared to be firing Katyusha rockets.

This gives a clue as to Georgian intentions:

The commander of Georgian peacekeepers in South Ossetia, Mamuka Kurashvili, told Georgian television: "We are forced to restore constitutional order in the whole region."

Which indicates that South Ossetia may soon cease to be a breakaway region. There are conflicting claims as to Russia's response to the Georgian offensive, including some reports that Russian troops are moving into the region, and an accusation by Georgian President Mikhail Saakasvili that Russian aircraft have bombed Georgian towns. None of this, as far as I know, has been confirmed; Russia's response to the reoccupation might (rightly or wrongly) be taken by the Georgians as a signal of Russian intentions and resolve regarding Abkhazia, the other breakaway region of Georgia.

--Robert Farley

• A front-page Washington Post story on Dems nervous about Obama's ability to hit back against John McCain doesn't deter David Broder from phoning in another of his patented "both sides are slinging mud, but mostly Democrats" columns. It seems to me that Obama is executing a long-term strategy for getting elected, and that if he goes negative against McCain, it won't be until the timing is better; i.e. the closing weeks of the contest, when the remaining undecideds make up their minds.
• A new McCain web ad uses clips from leading Democrats to praise McCain's bipartisan credentials, including Hillary Clinton's unfortunate, "I know Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience he will bring to the White House. And Senator Obama has a speech he gave in 2002." The DNC has posted a YouTube response here.
• Ezra remarks on news that the McCain campaign is providing incentives for supporters to spam web sites, message boards, blogs, etc. with McCain campaign talking points. I have to wonder, though, given the, uh, colorfulness of anonymous comments on the internet, whether this tactic will really reach all that many undecided voters, rather than already thoroughly settled partisans.
• Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has been hanging out with his Republican proteges during their political stunt over oil drilling, and now we learn that he's working with them on another government shutdown -- much like the one they pulled a decade ago. I have to agree that paralyzing government action is definitely what Republicans do best. Meanwhile, Jim Manzi has a novel reason for drilling in ANWAR: "We should do it for the money." Bold!
• CQ Politics has a comprehensive magazine cover story on the some of the perils of modern polling. See also Nate Silver's thorough discussion of the problem(s) with Gallup's likely voter model.
• Speaking of polling, the above-mentioned Gallup daily tracker has "stabilized," as they put it, into a three-point Obama lead. A CBS News/NY Times poll, however, has Obama up six points -- virtually unchanged since the same poll was taken last month, suggesting a more stable, less dynamic race. In Oregon, Survey USA has Obama up over McCain by only three points, 48-45, and Democratic challenger Jeff Merkley behind incumbent Republican Senator Gordon Smith by 12 points, 49-37. I can personally attest to the saturation of Smith ads on the local airwaves here, and while both sides' ads are pretty weak tea, Merkley's hardly make him a distinctive alternative to the status quo.
• Karl Rove posits in his Wall Street Journal column that "Mr. McCain offers little biography, while Mr. Obama is nothing but." So I guess we all just imagined that "Biography Tour" McCain put on a few months ago, right Karl? And if that wasn't enough jujitsu for you, try Gary Bauer's "think piece" in the Politico where he argues that "the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee resembles none of these past presidents as much as he does the one man who stands between him and the presidency: John McCain." Aspirin, anyone?
• And Finally, a heckler at an Obama rally demands at the top of his lungs that the Pledge of Allegiance be recited, which Obama defuses by simply reciting the Pledge. The video contains a rant by the guy at the end, who apparently is an Bloomberg photographer. I'd like to take the unusual step of associating myself with the libertarian comments of Matt Welch on this matter.

--Mori Dinauer

Over at Politico, one of Ben Smith's readers is skeptical of recent VP boomlets:

Obama's campaign is doing a hell of a job setting expectations of an imminent veep pick in different swing states. He got three huge days of stories in VA, and now three huge days of stories in IN. If Schweitzer or McCaskill names 'leak' next, I won't be surprised.

There's another point to be made there. Indiana and Virginia are swing states, and the speculation over the possibility of an Obama-Bayh or Obama-Kaine ticket has undoubtedly increased the impact of his recent visits. Like the reader, I wouldn't be surprised if this was part of the campaign's strategy in planning the trips; David Axelrod and Robert Gibbs, Obama's media strategists, are notoriously good at shaping press coverage.

But even if the intent of the Bayh and Kaine floats was to garner attention for the campaign swings, the coverage wasn't as Obama-centric as past visits have been; it focused as much, if not more, on Bayh and Kaine. Obama, essentially, tricked the media into vetting his possible running-mates for him. With Kaine, that meant hearing tales of his unpopularity among progressives both nationally and in Virginia, as well as mentions of his retrograde social views. With Bayh, the response has been more mixed, with progressive both criticizing and defending him, and trail reporters filing fawning pool reports. In either case, it allowed the Obama campaign to gauge the reaction and take it into consideration when making their final pick.

This kind of ploy won't win Obama the election; running mate choices are almost never determinative in presidential contests. But it should at the very least protect against disastrous picks, à la Thomas Eagleton or Dan Quayle.

--Dylan Matthews

With the Olympics kicking off tomorrow, Michael Scherer wonders whether President Bush will make any statements about China's complicity with, and indeed support of, the genocide in Sudan. Here's his chance: Earlier this week, the Chinese government revoked the visa of Joey Cheek, a speedskater and the U.S. Olympic Committee's 2006 sportsman of the year.

Cheek is the head of Team Darfur, a group of Olympic athletes dedicated to ending the genocide in Darfur -- one member, Lopez Lamong, will carry the U.S. flag in the opening ceremony. Even Mitt Romney, who headed the Salt Lake Olympics effort in 2002, had harsh words for the regime. As Scherer points out, Bush has promised to advocate on behalf of those suffering in Darfur -- now's his chance for him to put his money where his mouth is. And it wouldn't hurt to hear from presidential candidates, either...

--Tim Fernholz

Gershom Gorenberg explains why a much-discussed new Israeli film is so important:

By seeking his own memory, Folman assaults national forgetfulness -- about the war, the massacre, and Ariel Sharon, the man who planned the invasion and let the massacre take place. As in the best stories, the specifics point to the universal: This is what happens when old leaders, overconfident and reckless, send young people to war. (Given that message, it's a shame that Waltz will open in the United States only in December, rather than well before Nov. 4.)

Sebastian Jones goes undercover at the annual summit of John Hagee's Christians United for Israel and finds his followers as radical as ever:

That afternoon, right-wing darling former Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania laid the situation out clearly: We are not at war with terror, he said, we are at war with Islamism -- a significant though small portion of the Islamic world. "Secular relativistic" liberals, he explained, "don't believe, and if you don't believe, you can't understand." To my left, a middle-aged woman with ginger-blondcolored hair dutifully scribbled in her notebook. "Eliminate Iran," she wrote.

And Daniel Strauss interviews the co-chairs of the new Office of Congressional Ethics:

Strauss: To an extent, the OCE seems like a response to the failures of the House Ethics Committee. How is this office going to be different from the HEC?

Goss: I think in that debate we've had some people from outside of Congress saying, "There needs to be a way for us to file complaints, bring things to people's attention; there needs to be sort of a public window we can go up to in the House of Representatives and say, 'we think you ought to look at this' or 'this is serious and we want to file a complaint,' so against that you've got to balance the constitutional requirements of the conduct of Congress, which means you've got speech and debate and the other protections that no one other than presumably the members are supposed to deal with the conduct of members.

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

--The Editors

A great fracas is evolving because a labor union successfully represented the interests of its members in negotiations with a major corporation. That doesn't seem like it would be a big deal except that those members are Muslims and the corporation's concession is letting them have the important Muslim holiday, Eid Al-Fitr, as a paid day off instead of Labor Day.

The hate mail the union is now receiving -- “You are a union that is proud of achieving a Muslim holiday and prayer room? A union in the U.S.A., a country based on Christianity. You call yourselves Americans? Have you forgotten 9/11?” -- is so depressing because this is a case where the system worked! This is exactly how new communities should be integrating into American institutions, with give and take on both sides. Instead, what seems like a good faith effort by all parties involved is being attacked. Even more ironic: The Union has worked the last 23 labor days -- it's not usually taken as a holiday but employees received extra compensation.

--Tim Fernholz

You would think that the latest defeat of Phil Kline would (unless you think the median national voter is more reactionary than the median voter in Kansas Republican primaries) give some pause to people who believe that appeasing radical Catholic anti-choicers should be a key criterion in choosing a running mate. Instead, alas, we get more of this:

Sixteen years ago, the Democratic Party refused to allow Robert P. Casey Sr., then the governor of Pennsylvania, to speak at its national convention because his anti-abortion views, stemming from his Roman Catholic faith, clashed with the party’s platform and powerful constituencies. Many Catholics, once a reliable Democratic voting bloc, never forgot what they considered a slight.

The first sentence, as usual, completely ignores the fact that Saint Casey refused to endorse the Democratic ticket. No evidence is provided for the assertion that "[m]any Catholics, once a reliable Democratic voting bloc, never forgot what they considered a slight," but what's remarkable is that the data provided in the story show the Democratic margin among Catholics increasing in '92 and '96 versus 1988.

The rest of the article has all of the usual problems with arguments implying that shifting towards the minority position (already embraced by Republicans) on abortion will be electoral gold for Democrats: focusing on one particular subgroup, overstating that subgroup's opposition to abortion rights, being completely vague about how exactly Democrats could attract abortion opponents, and most importantly ignoring any costs that might come from diluting the party's popular position on reproductive freedom.

Can you imagine a Times thinkpiece about how John McCain's position that abortion should be illegal (if possible, accomplished by a constitutional amendment that would make performing an abortion first degree murder in all 50 states) may "divide" suburban women in swing states? Me neither.

[Edited to correct date typo.]

--Scott Lemieux

Ezra's take on Obama's drilling compromise is smart. Two thoughts come to mind: Remember when Obama was being taken to task for his lack of "courageous" bipartisan action? At the time, I wrote that Obama was very good at co-opting conservatives into supporting liberal ideas -- in this case accepting drilling in exchange for a big step forward on energy policy. Predictably, though the deal essentially gives the GOP what they want, it seems like McCain is going to turn it down because, at the end of the day, his policy advisers know that drilling won't affect domestic oil prices for at least five to ten years, and barely affect them at all even then. This is just a political issue for them.

Which brings up the second point: I spoke recently with a well-connected Republican operative who stressed that conservatives see energy, and drilling in particular, as their big advantage over the Democrats in this cycle -- the only thing that let them stand out from the crowd. If McCain was to accept this the Senate compromise, or even if Obama succeeds in taking the issue off the table by accepting it, then it becomes that much harder for Republicans to gain traction in the campaign.

--Tim Fernholz

Following up on my post from yesterday, McCain bundler Harry Sargeant III just keeps getting more interesting. According to The New York Times, Sargeant raised a great deal of money from contributors who appear to be giving beyond their means. In some cases, donors seem either apolitical or utterly opposed to McCain as a candidate, but so far all of them have said the donations came from them and they were not reimbursed.

The donations were raised through a Mr. Mustafa Abu Naba’a, a business partner of Sargeant's. Erik Kleefield at TPM notes that Naba'a and Sargeant are currently being sued by a third business partner, Mohammed Al-Saleh, a relative of King Abdullah of Jordan, who alleges that he was defrauded out of profits from their joint venture. Sargeant's company, the International Oil Trading Company, was able to secure a 913 million dollar U.S. contract shipping fuel to Iraq through Jordan, despite not offering the lowest bid.

According to an MSNBC article Kleefield points to, Al-Saleh claims that he was the sole reason that IOTC was able to secure the letter of authorization, due to his "connections" in the Jordanian government. The Pentagon says none of the other companies bidding met the requirements for the contract, one of which was a nod from the Jordanian government, but the NBC report says the lawsuit contains the minutes of a company meeting in which Sargeant expresses his intention to "exclude all rivals from the Pentagon contract" as well as "maximizing profits by getting all the contracts and not leaving hope for the competitors." 

In response to the NBC story, which was reported in July, Rep. Henry Waxman, chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform sent letters to Sargeant and Defense Secretary Robert Gates seeking information on the contracts given to IOTC.

Kleefield concludes:

In other words, Sargeant and Naba'a are being sued on the grounds that they've defrauded their business partner out of his take on a deal that is in turn defrauding the U.S. taxpayer.

I don't know if I'd go that far yet, but there are definitely more questions to be asked about Mr. Sargeant.

--A. Serwer

In the course of refusing to exclude evidence obtained through an illegal no-knock search in Hudson v. Michigan, Justice Scalia claimed that the rule was obsolete:

Another development over the past half-century that deters civil-rights violations is the increasing professionalism of police forces, including a new emphasis on internal police discipline.

The logic of this argument (like much of Scalia's opinion) is dubious. If police forces increased their professionalism in the wake of the requirements established by the Warren Court, including the application of the exclusionary rule to the states, this doesn't strike me as a good reason to get rid of said requirements.

At any rate, Radley Balko finds an example of the professionalism that allegedly allows the Court to get rid of negative disincentives:

Last week, police stormed Calvo’s home without knocking, shot and killed his two black labs, and questioned him and his mother-in-law at gunpoint over a delivered package of marijuana that police now concede may have been intended for someone else.

The Washington Post reports that the police didn’t even bother to get a no-knock warrant, which means the tactics they used were illegal.

It's good that the Supreme Court has encouraged this kind of sterling police work!

To add an additional point, it is true (as its critics will point out) that after the fact the exclusionary rule does not provide a remedy in cases where evidence isn't found. But that doesn't mean that the innocent derive no benefits from the rule. If the state knows that it can't use illegally obtained evidence, it has a strong disincentive not to break the law in the first place.

--Scott Lemieux

• The Washington Post profiles Harry Sargeant III, a Florida bundler who apparently possesses an affinity for getting apolitical and cash-solvent donors to cough up large campaign contributions for John McCain. McCain isn't the only presidential candidate who relies on Bundlers, of course, as this New York Times piece explores.
• Ben Smith reports that Barack Obama is lawyering up in the event of any voter disenfranchisement occurring at the polls in November, what the campaign calls its "Voter Protection Program."
• The NY Times' Opinionator blog has the lowdown on #dontgo, an astroturf Twitter group being used to organize the GOP as it protests in the House over Congressional action on domestic oil drilling.
• James Vega has a comprehensive post at the Democratic Strategist on "How to Attack John McCain" -- Karl Rove-style.
• Jonathan Cohn documents the latest wingnut viral attack -- courtesy of the RNC, no less -- on Obama's alleged support of a $845 billion (that's billion, mind you) subsidy for foreign development, spread out over ten years. There's just one problem -- the actual cost of the policy proposal is, to quote the Congressional Budget Office, less than one $1 million per year. Can't blame them for trying, I guess.
• Politico jumps on the "why isn't Obama winning in a landslide" bandwagon in an article today, including the immortal headline, "Obama stalls in public polling." Funny, I don't see any articles talking about McCain consistently hitting his 44 percent ceiling in the Gallup daily tracker (or for that matter, any poll of registered voters since the end of June) or why Obama's five-point lead in a new Time poll is sign of "trouble" for his campaign. But don't worry, Public Policy Polling [PDF] has McCain up three points in Florida, 47-44, which confirms Survey USA's results from yesterday.
• John McCain has a new "celebrity" ad out, but I think I like Paris Hilton's rebuttal better. Also, Steve Benen asks, "why is that Paris Hilton’s fake ad includes more substantive talk about energy policy than John McCain’s real ad?" and "why is it that a 27-year-old heiress/reality-show star can read a teleprompter better than the presumptive Republican presidential nominee?"
• The Wall St. Journal observes that ABC personnel are conspicuously missing from the list of presidential debate moderators announced yesterday and speculates that Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos' atrocious performance in the last Democratic debate might be the reason for ABC's omission. Considering that debate was little better than a show trial, I'm willing to be persuaded by the Journal's reasoning.
• And Finally, McCain calls for an "economic surge." This comes on the heels of his call for surges in Afghanistan and to fight crime in uban centers. I'm with Nick Beaudrot on this one: it's time to retire this term from the political lexicon until further notice.

--Mori Dinauer

Over at Feministing, Jessica Valenti catches the New York Times Magazine in an embarrassing omission: In a Matt Bai feature on Obama and black politicians that will run Sunday, there are no women included among the black elected leaders to watch.

I am generally a big fan of Bai's work. But what women could've he highlighted in this piece? How about Atlanta Mayor Shirley Franklin? Maryland Congresswoman Donna Edwards, the darling of the Netroots? Speaker of the California Assembly Karen Bass, the first black woman to hold that job? Who else?

--Dana Goldstein

I think it's good that the Times is hitting Obama on raising millions from businesses with political interests while his campaign touts the small contributions that nevertheless make most up half of the money. It's important for reporters to carefully scrutinize how politicians raise money, and from whom. But the story seems a little weak, mostly because none of the claims made by the campaign are wrong or misleading.

That said, as long as we're talking about bundlers from large industries and how they could potentially influence presidential candidates, The Washington Post has an interesting article on McCain's fundraising efforts. It focuses on an influx of money bundled by oil trading company owner Harry Sargeant III, (who also raised money for Giuliani and Clinton) on behalf people who would seem not to have an interest in the election, or who are donating more money than you would think they could afford. In some cases, the donors aren't even registered to vote. When asked, some of the donors were pretty cagey about the nature of their contributions, such as the Rite Aid manager who initially denied having made one, and then said he "didn't want to talk about" the $4,600 donations to Clinton and Giuliani made in he and his wife's name.

All in all, you might conclude that what gets a Democrat on the front page of a newspaper for his fundraising practices is considerably different from what a Republican merits.

The entire article is a must-read, but this paragraph caught my eye. (Emphasis mine).

In January, Norman Hsu, a top Clinton bundler, was indicted in part on charges of circumventing legal giving limits by routing contributions though "straw donors." Earlier this week, McCain drew questions about more than $60,000 in donations that were made this year to the Republican National Committee and his campaign by an office manager with the Hess oil company and her husband, an Amtrak track foreman. In that case, the couple said they used their own money.

Yes, the McCain campaign "drew questions." From where? Who knows? You'd think that by now the Washington Post would be able to acknowledge TPM's existence. I know, Josh Marshall, Eric Kleefield and Greg Sargent aren't serious bloggers like Michelle Malkin, but still.

Also, it seems like this Sargeant fellow may yet have more skeletons in his closet.

--A. Serwer

I just got off the phone with the folks from the progressive standard-bearers Campaign for America's Future. Robert Borosage, Celinda Lake (it's definitely Celinda Lake Day at TAPPED), and Drew Westen announced a new economic policy war room that will be doing progressive messaging for the rest of the election.

Lake's polls show that the economy is the number one issue among a majority of voters, and it is particularly resonant with Independent voters, blue collar voters and women. 47 percent of voters say the economy is not being talked about enough. 75 percent said the economy is in a recession -- Lake joked that "every single demographic group except Presidential economic advisers" thinks this is the case. Obama has big leads over McCain on most economic issues -- jobs, healthcare, taxes, etc., and voters most focused on the economy support him by 16 points. A majority of Americans agree that "the economy is in recession and Washington is doing nothing."

Of course, CAF has an agenda, which is to make left-leaning candidates into populists -- see Borosage's article from our March issue. Lake tested three messages on the economy -- a conservative free-market message, a Democratic message, and a "Populist message with solutions." Unsurprisingly, the last option won by 26 points, although I'm skeptical of whether Lake's Democratic message, which she described as a series of critiques with no solutions, has any real world analogues. But this gave Westen a chance to make the point that progressives need to offer substantive alternatives, create emotional connections when discussing policies, and bring their values to the fore.

To the extent that Democrats aren't doing this, CAF's advice rings true, and I shared Noam's wince when Obama said "experts" during his otherwise excellent response to McCain's tire pressure criticisms. When McCain started criticizing him for saying this (he's since flip-flopped), it occured to me that Obama's advice was so good because it adopted the kind of tough-love, responsiblity rhetoric that could resonate among moderates -- this is the kind of common-sense advice Dads give! -- and he missed an opportunity to chide McCain on that front.

One the other hand, however, the Democrat who comes to mind when I think of communicating economic issues effectively is Bill Clinton, and say what you will about his economic policies as president, they are hardly what CAF is gunning for. More worrisome was the message that tested strongest in CAF's research: "I want to see the words 'Made in America' again." While that might be popular and populist, it's also xenophobic and the wrong answer to the problems presented by international trade.

--Tim Fernholz

Three months ago, Robert Kaplan and (to a lesser extent) George Packer decided to try to use Burmese cyclone victims as props in Humanitarian Intervention III: Objective Burma! The argument was that SLORC, the junta that controls Burma, was so inept and mendacious that a military assault to save disaster victims was both justified and possible. The argument disintegrated under casual scrutiny, with the idea that the international community could both destroy the regime and replace its bureaucratic structure within the time frame dictated by the crisis looking particularly silly. Yglesias hit the nail on the head when he pointed out that an invasion of Burma would never actually happen, but that the hypothetical invasion of Burma would go swimmingly; since the invasion would never turn out to be a disaster, it could always be used to justify the next intervention.

Via Mark Goldberg, John Holmes (UN Undersecretary for Humanitarian Affairs) has a Washington Post op-ed updating the situation in Burma. International relief did reach disaster victims, if later than and in lower amounts that would have been optimal. The Burmese state is working international organizations to facilitate relief and ameliorate the crisis. Agricultural and economic activity have returned to the areas afflicted by the cyclone. In the final analysis, SLORC did a (predictably) terrible job of disaster management, but there is no reason to think that an invasion of Burma would have improved the situation. Holmes:

From the first, the aid operation in Myanmar -- as is true everywhere we work -- had to be about helping vulnerable people in need, not about politics. In this post-Iraq age, I am concerned that humanitarians are often pressured to choose between the hammer of forced intervention and the anvil of perceived inaction. Was there a realistic alternative to the approach of persistent negotiation and dialogue that we pursued? I do not believe so. Nor have I met anyone engaged in the operations who believes that a different approach would have brought more aid to more people more quickly.

--Robert Farley

Spencer Ackerman decodes the Orwellian language that's often used to talk about Iraq:

OMENS OF PROSPERITY

Here's something that might count as a breaking euphemism. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki last week ordered 50,000 Iraqi troops to conduct raids throughout Diyala province, which U.S. officials boasted of being increasingly pacified in 2007. The operation is called "Omens Of Prosperity." Because nothing says "prosperity" like 50,000 troops kicking down doors and arresting people. Oh, and the Iraqi government refused to allow any Sons of Iraq to participate in the operation. Talk about your Bottom-Up Reconciliation!

And Kathryn Joyce fills in for Sarah Posner, giving us her take on this week's news about the religious right:

An 18th child was born on July 22 to Canadian parents Alexandru and Livia Ionce, Romanian immigrants to British Columbia. In the ensuing media flurry, few reporters bothered to look deeper at their motivations than reprinting the Ionce's stated position on family planning and children: "We just let God guide our lives, you know, because we strongly believe life comes from God and that's the reason we did not stop the life. We let life come." The Ionces' view is similar to that of Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar, whose family is approaching a similar size, due to their "Quiverfull" conviction that has led them to have 17 children (an 18th is expected this January). Nonetheless, few media outlets covering the story caught the religious significance of the Ionces' approach to family size, which is rooted in the new, pronatalist "family theology" spreading across Christian denominations and growing rapidly among Reformed churches and the homeschooling community.

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

--The Editors

Obama's lead, or lack thereof, has been a topic of concern in the blogosphere of late: Given the favorable environment for Democrats, why isn't he leading by more than single digits in the polls? Marc Ambinder's take seems pretty spot on to me, especially his last point about people paying attention: Despite all the hype about Obama and McCain, it's still relatively early in the election season. Congressional primaries are only beginning to happen around the country, but you'll see more attention to the Presidential races when local and state-wide races pick up.

When September and October roll around, after the conventions and into the debate season, we'll have a much more accurate assessment of where the race stands as more people start to tune in to politics in general. One error that I do see in Ambinder's post: He says Obama isn't much of a counterpuncher. What? Say what you will about conventional wisdom, the popular view that Obama is better reacting than attacking seems true. Finally, Ambinder forgets that much of Obama's resources are invested in efforts who'se payoffs we won't know 'till November. His field program isn't likely to show up in today's polling, but is probably worth 2-3 percent on election day in targeted states. Obama partisans shouldn't freak out yet.

UPDATE: Commenter Sniflheim wonders about McCain's ground operation. Josh Marshall's source here says it doesn't exist.

--Tim Fernholz

A new powersharing agreement may be approved soon in Zimbabwe. The plan gives Morgan Tsvangirai most of the control over the government as Prime Minister while allowing Robert Mugabe to serve in an honorary role. The deal includes amnesty for Mugabe, whose rule has seen numerous human rights abuses in past years, most recently in the deployment of violent intimidation to force Tsvangirai out of the last election. But the international community doesn't recognize the new government and has pressured the two leaders toward this agreement, facilitated by South African President Thabo Mbeki.

The hardest to swallow part of the agreement is the general amnesty given to Mugabe and his supporters who committed war crimes and human rights violations during his rule. It's not a great precedent to give authoritarian leaders and their lackeys a free pass on their crimes, but on the other hand it may be the only way to see peace and progress in Zimbabwe without further violence -- South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation Committees being the obvious precedent. Still, the agreement is far from final, so we'll have to wait and see how the ending shakes out. This may be one of those terrible realpolitik situations that requires the placating of monsters to provide hope for the future.

--Tim Fernholz

Via Ben Smith, after days of the RNC snorting chocolate milk out of their noses with laughter, McCain reverses himself on tire gauges.

"Obama said a couple of days ago says we all should inflate our tires. I don’t disagree with that. The American Automobile Association strongly recommends it..."

This isn't a real flip-flop though. McCain's tire gauge policy is based entirely on conditions on the ground.

-- A. Serwer