The important thing about Pastor Rick Warren's Saddleback showdown between Barack Obama and John McCain is not what was said. The important thing about it is that it happened.

That's important to point out, because it didn't figure into the start of the CNN analysis that is still going on right now, as I type this. I started to watch it, but by time the first commercial came up it was clear that "the political experts" weren't going to talk about the geologic shift Saddleback represents in American politics. (Instead they were going to do their usual horserace, who's ahead/who's behind, did this help/hurt Obama/McCain.

The most important thing about Saddleback wasn't even up for discussion. (continued)

In a July 21, 2008 article for the National Review Online, Rep. Michele Bachmann (MN-06) makes several statements about the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) and the environmental impact of drilling for oil.

Bachmann claimed that "it was simply not true" that drilling in Alaska "would hurt the abundant wildlife and natural resources there." She claimed that "Energy exploration would be limited to a small 2,000-acre lot with in ANWR," and the proposed drilling area was "comparable to a postage stamp sitting on a football field." She stated that "visiting ANWR...revealed that almost no wildlife exists in the 2,000 acre area," and that it was "flat arctic tundra with absolutely no trees in view." She also told readers that "caribou and wildlife were nowhere near the possible drilling sites." (continued)

So here's the link to the AP story about how Obama's issued a "rebuttal" to Jerome Corsi's pack of lies about him.

Now that's good, to get that rebuttal out fast, and "fight the smears." But it's not enough. I think that smears will weaken Obama's poll position, as they've worked to weaken the position of Dem candidates in past elections.

It's a fact--as opposed to campaigning on substantive issues that really matter, a smear campaign works--not every time, but too much of the time. Even if--as with Corsi's book and McCain's recent ads--the smears are patently false, transparent, juvenile, or hypocritical. (continued)

Interesting take on why, in a piece by Juan Cole in Salon. The article is entitled "Putin's war enablers: Bush and Cheney." Here's what Cole argues:

Well, my congressional representative is at it again. Freshman GOP legislator Michele Bachmann (MN-06) is up for re-election and she's seeking to establish her street cred with the evangelical right. So she gave an interview to a "biblical worldview" news website and had this to say about Nancy Pelosi, global warming, and Jesus Christ:

I don’t know who you get to see at the White House if you’re a Bush administration ally whose country is being destroyed by Russia. But one thing I am sure of: if you find yourself holding the sh*tty end of that particular stick, the flaks in the White House are not going to let you anywhere near the top man (Cheney) or his second banana (Bush.) If you’re in that much trouble, they just don’t want their picture taken with you—"Ally, schm-ally," they tell the guards at the front gate, "Send ‘em over to talk to that bozo we got at the State Department, just get rid of ‘em, we’re watching the Olympics like everybody else."

So the Georgian emergency ambassador extraordinary has to hail a taxi from the White House, and find his way around town to see the irrelevant Bush "strictly political, his dad raised a lot of money for us in Texas" goofball that they put in the job that nobody else wanted: the State Department’s "Office of Dealing With Allies Who We Really Rather Not Help, At This Particular Point In Time."
(continued)

Very funny letter to the editor in this week's issue of the Economist. I'm gonna reprint it below, and you're going to start reading it, and you'll say to yourself--"This isn't funny, this is just--sad, kind of pathetic." And then you will read the last line, and you will "get it," because the address on the letter is kind of "the punchline," you know?

Actually, the title's kind of misleading. The piece, by Newsweek staffer Fareed Zakaria, is largely a reiteration of what Bush got wrong.

I'm not going to quote that at length here, because most of us already know it by heart. But you should read the article anyway, it's a pretty good summary of the unprecedented Bush/Cheney foreign policy disasters.

So why the title? What did Bush/Cheney "get right?"
(continued)

By now everyone conversant with America knows that our electorate has been seduced by the appearance of a charismatic, attractive "new face" on the political scene. An articulate, bright, comparatively youthful candidate who’s promising to bring bold new solutions to longstanding and complex problems—we live in a time when America is so desperate for meaningful change that it will embrace a candidate with a very short political resume, with comparatively little foreign or domestic policy experience. Despite this, millions of Americans are ready to listen, and perhaps to follow.

But is Paris Hilton really ready to lead? If we are to judge by the content and not the form of her latest campaign ad, the answer is no—emphatically no.

A couple of days back I did an "I’m concerned" diary about an AP story that showed that the negative/character assassination stuff might be paying off for John McCain in the polling. As is all too common when I write a diary on "some bad news for our side," I got a few comments hinting that I might be a "concern troll." (Which I’m not; if you look at what I’ve written here over the past year or so and look at my other blogs, you’ll probably conclude the truth: I’m a liberal who occasionally, not often, writes about the bad news for our side, or some problem I see on our side.)
(continued)

It's the classic problem for Democrats since the 1980s, at least. The GOP and the conservatives go negative. It's what they do; it produces results for them and to a certain extent, they're proud of it. The reason that going negative doesn't work for Democrats is: conservatives thrive on hate and anger--you give them someone to hate or fear, they turn out. Liberals and progressives don't respond to that kind of attack as a substitute for a discussion of policy or leaders; you speak to them in the language of hate and anger and you're just as likely to alienate them as to co-opt their support.

And that's the classic problem in modern U.S. politics: go negative as a conservative, you dispense with the issues and destroy the candidate's reputation. Tonight the AP reports that the strategy is working for McCain.
(continued)

Eric Cantor wasn't one of the prominent names in the MSM's McCain veep sweepstakes. The pundits focused on people like Mitt Romney, Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty, Louisiana's Bobby Jindal--you know, the usual suspects.

But tonight we read that McCain is vetting Virginia congressman Eric Cantor. Cantor's been mentioned before, parenthetically, but now they're getting serious. Which raises two questions: 1) Why now? 2) Who the hell is Eric Cantor, anyway?

(cont'd)

Well, so much for "dignity" coming with "old age."

McCain camp compares Obama to Spears, Hilton

By BETH FOUHY, Associated Press Writer 1 hour, 29 minutes ago

AURORA, Colo. - John McCain's presidential campaign on Wednesday released a withering television ad comparing Barack Obama to Britney Spears and Paris Hilton, suggesting the Democratic contender is little more than a vapid but widely recognized media concoction. (continued)

Ted Stevens, Ted Stevens--who cares?

I do, that's who. The standards for turning corrupt in Alaska politics are notoriously low, and apparently getting lower all the time. This guy is--apparently--the most senior "corrupt bastard" in a state chock full of corrupt bastards, and he sells himself out for a lousy few hundred grand in gifts (not cash, even):
(continued)

underachievement

Twenty years? It seems like longer than that.

But here's an article that appears in the conservative journal Human Events.
Apparently it's some kind of special "Rush Limbaugh Week" over there. So you're likely to find more of this kind of stuff:

Maybe so, maybe so. This article describes the oil spill and hurricane down South as being 'just another example of John McCain's bad luck.'
(continued)

It’s kind of a funny question to ask, but if America has a culture—does it deserve one?

The reason I’m asking this tonight is that I’m looking over the reviews for the new Batman movie, and they’re simultaneously so breathless and breathy that you’d think a new epoch in cinema had just begun. Look at this stuff:

...but not to negotiate. This is weird. I mean, I understand it--the White House and Dana Perino can't call this negotiation with a member of the "axis of evil" a negotiation, because the White House has always assured its conservative base that it does not negotiate with terrorists.

But--if they're not going to negotiate, why did the White House ask for a meeting with "Tehran's nuclear negotiator?" Let's look at the story and try to figure this out: