THE MEDIA'S NEW STORYLINE: REPUBLICANS SUCK

This is fun.

When the Republicans were riding high, they could do nothing wrong. At least not in the eyes of the mainstream media. Even when the Democrats scored political points, the media stayed on message. No matter what happened—whether it was good or bad for the GOP—the outcome was invariably a good thing for the Republicans. There was always a silver lining for them. That was the storyline at the time.

Needness to say, it is tough to be on the negative side of a storyline. Once perceptions are chiseled in granite, it seems every story leads to the same biased conclusion.

It has been three years since Bush went on his Social Security barnstorming tour. If I had to pick a turning-point moment, that would be the one. The more Bush talked about his plan to gut the program, the less people liked the idea. Later in 2005, Hurricane Katrina underscored the Republican article of faith, articulated by Ronald Reagan himself, that "Government is not the solution to our problem. Government is the problem." After seven years of Bush and Cheney, we know what Reagan meant by that comment.

It looks like we finally have a new storyline. I am not a big fan of storylines. However, given all that has happened since December 2000 when five activist judges on the Supreme Court stopped the Florida recount, I'll take it.

The Republicans and their allies in the media are now talking about the decline of the Republican "brand" as if this turn of events is similar to the problems Johnson & Johnson had in 1982 with the Tylenol murders or Jack in the Box had in 1993 when it was serving up E. coli burgers. But this is more than a public relations problem.

Corrupt corporations go for the quick fix. They use PR spin to explain away their problems. That is what the Republican Party is doing now. It won't work. To restore the Republican brand, the Republicans need to start turning out a better product. Americans are wise to tax cuts, deregulation, voodoo economics, privatization, and corporate welfare—to say nothing of conducting diplomacy through the barrel of a gun. Public opinion polls going back to the early days of Bush's second term demonstrate an ever-increasing contempt for the Republican brand. No less than 82 percent of Americans believe the Bush White House is leading the nation in the wrong direction.

To the Republicans, I say: Enjoy your new storyline. It's going to be with you for a while.

ORGANIZING THE POST-BUSH AMERICAN COMMUNITY

For Clinton and Obama, a Common Ideological Touchstone by Peter Slevin (Washington Post); Portrait of a pragmatist by Bob Secter and John McCormick (Chicago Tribune); Obama’s Community Roots by David Moberg (The Nation); and On the Streets of Chicago, a Candidate Comes of Age by Kenneth T. Walsh (U.S. News & World Report)

Community organizing is a process by which people are brought together to act in common self-interest. While organizing describes any activity involving people interacting with one another in a formal manner, much community organizing is in the pursuit of a common agenda. Many groups seek populist goals and the ideal of participatory democracy. Community organizers create social movements by building a base of concerned people, mobilizing these community members to act, and developing leadership from and relationships among the people involved…

Organized community groups seek accountability from elected officials, corporations and institutions as well as increased direct representation within decision-making bodies and social reform. Where negotiations fail, these organizations seek to inform others outside of the organization of the issues being addressed and expose or pressure the decision-makers through a variety of means, including picketing, boycotting, sit-ins, petitioning, and electoral politics…

Community organizing is usually focused on more than just resolving specific issues. Organizing is empowering all community members, often with the end goal of distributing power equally throughout the community. [emphasis mine]

Community organizing, Wikipedia

In their earlier years, both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton had an interest in community organizing. As I wrote back in February, Clinton's 1969 senior thesis at Wellesley College was about Saul Alinsky, the famed community organizer from Chicago. Obama spent three years of his life (1985-87) working as a community organizer on Alinsky's old turf in south Chicago.

When I wrote that piece, I relied solely on two primary sources: Clinton's Wellesley thesis titled "THERE IS ONLY THE FIGHT..." An Analysis of the Alinsky Model," [PDF required] and Obama's book, Dreams from My Father. At the time, I was not interested in secondary sources.

Now that Obama appears to have the Democratic nomination in hand, I have done a little more digging and found these four articles. I urge you to read them all, but if you only have time to read one, read "Portrait of a pragmatist" by Bob Secter and John McCormick of the Chicago Tribune. The Tribune article explains with a little bit more clarity how Obama's pragmatic community-organizer approach to problem solving will empower the powerless who have been systematically excluded from the national conversation by the Haves and Have-Mores who have been running the country under Bush.

Community-organizer Obama will base his presidency on these four principles:

• Obama believes every person in the American community is entitled to a fair deal
• Obama will listen to all the people in the American community, not just members of the power elite
• Once he and the American community come to an understanding about what America needs to move forward, Obama will provide the community with the tools that will enable the community to pursue pragmatic, non-ideological solutions
• When the American community solves problems successfully, Obama will give credit where it belongs—to the American community, and not so much to himself

Pushing for a fair deal for all people. Obama is a liberal. Liberals emphasize individual rights and equality of opportunity. It is Obama's core belief that every person in American society is entitled to live a dignified existence. No decent person should be denied the blessings of liberty. That has been his steadfast position as a community organizer, in the Illinois Senate, and now in the U.S. Senate. It's reflected in his speeches and in his voting record.

Obama's willingness to negotiate with political adversaries has been characterized by some as a sign of weakness. To that point, Sector and McCormick have this to say:

The path to his party's nomination, though, runs through Democratic primary voters still chafing from years of conservative Republican rule. And what the junior senator from Illinois highlights as an eagerness to plow common ground with political opposites may be seen by some voters as a sign that he lacks firm principles or an ability to stake and hold his ground.

Obama firmly rejected that notion. "There are a set of principles that I care about. And there are people I'm fighting for in this campaign," he said in a recent interview. If any Republican, or Democrat for that matter, opposes those principles, Obama vowed to "go after them with everything that I've got."

As we have seen in the campaign, Obama has a remarkable ability to keep his focus on the big issues. Hillary and Bill Clinton, the Republicans, and the media keep trying to knock him off his stride, but he seems to be unflappable.

Listening to the people in the American community. Job One for any community organizer is to listen carefully to the people who need help. Alinsky's approach is grounded in one-on-one conversations. Peter Slevin of the Post says,

The Alinsky method, which Obama taught long afterward, is centered on one-on-one conversations. The organizer's task is to draw out people's stories, listening for their goals and ambitions—"the stuff that makes them tick," one of his teachers told him. There he would find the self-interest that would spark activism.

Ken Walsh of U.S. News notes Obama's ability to make the most of the Alinksy model:

David Kindler, a colleague at the time, said the lanky newcomer with the funny name understood that a community organizer is a combination of educator, confessor-priest, social activist, motivational expert, mediator, and campaign leader. To accomplish his mission, Obama spent hours with Altgeld residents one on one, learning their problems and their dreams, and he resisted taking credit for success, preferring to give it to individuals in the community.

As president, Obama's superb listening skills will be particularly useful. After eight years of Bush's refusal to listen to anyone who does not already share his views, a president who cares enough to listen is just what the nation needs.

There is an important corollary to careful listening. If you listen with a truly open mind, it is impossible to be an ideologue. If you are selling a prefabricated solution, why listen at all? Unlike Bush, Obama will empower the American community to identify its own solutions.

Providing the tools the American community needs to be successful. This is where the rubber meets the road. Because we never had a community-organizer chief executive, this is uncharted territory, and we don't know for sure if Obama can deliver. Can he get the American community to solve its problems using a bottom-up paradigm? It is hard enough to get good results in a place like Altgeld Gardens. Will it work on a macro level in the American community? We don't know.

The capacity is there. Obviously, millions of primary voters and contributors believe Obama is capable of organizing the American community. The voiceless and the powerless in the American community—which means most of us—are ready for participatory democracy. After eight years of top-down direction from the Bush White House, giving voice and power to the people would be a refreshing change. In his article, David Moberg of The Nation quotes the Rev. Alvin Love, a former co-worker of Obama:

Now the Rev. Alvin Love, whom Obama recruited to [the Developing Communities Project], looks at his candidacy and says, "Everything I see reflects that community organizing experience. I see the consensus-building, his connection to people and listening to their needs and trying to find common ground. I think at his heart Barack is a community organizer. I think what he's doing now is that. It's just a larger community to be organized."

Giving credit to the community. Chicagoans who worked with Obama in the 1980s attest to his self-effacing style of leadership. When the community succeeds, Obama gives credit to the community. This is simply good management. The whole point of community organizing is to empower the people in the community. The community organizer merely facilitates their success. Lao-tzu articulated this principle 2,500 years ago when he wrote,

When the Master governs, the people
are hardly aware that he exists.
Next best is a leader who is loved.
Next, one who is feared.
The worst is one who is despised.

If you don't trust the people,
you make them untrustworthy.

The Master doesn't talk, he acts.
When his work is done,
the people say, "Amazing:
we did it, all by ourselves!"

This is a-typical behavior for a politician. But Obama has been doing it for a long time. I see no reason why he won't keep doing it as president.

Secter and McCormick cut to the chase when they talk about power:

To the Alinsky school of organizing, power was a cherished concept. There were two sources of power in the world, organized money and organized people.

Obama is a rare politician. Most politicians are totally wrapped up in the money chase. Money is the alpha and the omega. Money is the mother's milk of politics, and all that. As a former community organizer, however, Obama understands it is possible for people outside the money chase to get positive results. Obama knows how to organize people. He has seen the organized community of Have-Nots attain power and accomplish goals through the exercize of its own collective will.

Can Obama organize the American community of over 300 million citizens? Perhaps he can. He is confident he can mobilize and facilitate the American community to rise up and solve its own problems. That, indeed, would be something new under the sun.

PRIDE GOES BEFORE DESTRUCTION

Who Will Tell the People? by Thomas L. Friedman (New York Times)

Pride goes before destruction, a haughty spirit before a fall. (Proverbs 16:18)

Almost 150 years before President George W. Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq, Great Britain joined forces with France, the Ottoman Empire, and Sardinia to face off against Russia on the Crimean Peninsula. In 1854, the British Empire was at its zenith. Today—in 2008—the American empire is at its zenith. The Crimean War, which ended in 1856, proved the British were not omnipotent. The Iraq War/Occupation (2003-?) is proving we are not omnipotent either.

Though we are separated by a century and a half from our British cousins, and our world today is much different from theirs, we do have one thing in common with the British of the 1850s. As with the Victorian ruling class, our political class tends to be dismissive of the rest of the world. It's not just the Bush gang. Many politicians on both sides of the aisle are convinced America is truly an exceptional nation. As Madeleine Albright put it in the early 1990s,

If we have to use force, it is because we are America. We are the indispensable nation. We stand tall. We see further into the future.

I think Albright is a terrific lady, but she states the exceptionalism case as well as any neocon in the Republican Party. Exceptionalism is as American as apple pie.

At the risk of being overly anthropomorphic, I would say exceptionalism is the most flagrant character flaw in the American personality. We think we are special. We think we can do anything. We think we are entitled to have anything. We as a nation have a "better than you" attitude.

This attitude will be our downfall if we don't rein it in immediately. To illustrate my point, look at the British Empire in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. What happened to the British after the Crimean War? While they continued to dominate the world's sea lanes, the British slipped behind the Americans and the Germans in industrial production. By dominating the sea lanes, the British maintained the appearance of military might right up to the start of the first world war. However, World War I demonstrated that the U.S. and Germany had surpassed Britain in military affairs.

Today, thanks to globalization, we are ceding our industrial supremacy to China. In another 20 years. India and Russia could give us a run for our money. While we still maintain the façade of military might, our vanishing industrial base makes us highly vulnerable. Also, like the British, our empire is too stretched; we have too many global commitments. A lot of our commitments are financed by foreign capital. Our bankers today may be our most feared competitors in the future.

Of course, America still requires a tremendous amount of foreign oil to drive the economy. Jimmy Carter was the last president to show any leadership on that issue. A grateful nation turned Carter out of office.

Why are American politicians and most Americans so cocksure about America's standing in the world? It is a question each of us should be asking.

Between the Crimean War and World War I, the British were extremely arrogant about their place in the world. Look what happened to them. Their pretensions about global supremacy made them stupid. Our pretensions are making us stupid, too.

This is what Tom Friedman is talking about in his column. It is time for us to ask tough questions and demand intelligent answers. We need to stop acting stupid before it is too late. We could easily become a second-rate power in the space of a single generation if we are not careful. It is possible—because of pride and a haughty spirit.

SOMETHING FRIVOLOUS

The last time I wrote about the Democratic primary was February 10th when I made a not-so-fearless prediction: “If Barack Obama wins Ohio, he will be the candidate.” He didn’t (win Ohio) and he’s not (the candidate). That was three weeks before the Ohio election—and 76 days ago! Seventy-six days is a long time to avoid the number one hot topic in the news media and on the progressive blogs, which is the dual to the death between Obama supporters and the supporters of Hillary Clinton.

Why have I avoided this topic? It seems Mrs. O.P. and I have a fundamental disagreement. She is for Clinton and I am for Obama. So I have fallen back on an aphorism I learned from my mother: If you can’t say something nice, don’t say anything at all. Mrs. O.P. and I have been married for 42 years. Our marriage is built on a foundation of mutual respect. This mutual respect is more important than posting a poisonous comment on a blog that few people read anyway. Both of us are waiting for the uncommitted super delegates to come up with the final answer. That day cannot come soon enough.

One thing is certain: Neither of us will ever vote for John McCain. Why any damned fool who claims to be a Democrat would vote for McCain is beyond Mrs. O.P. and me. Such a vote is simply a validation of Bush administration policies. If Bush is the Worst President Ever, what’s to say McCain can’t move the Worst bar even higher?

Democrats need to get a grip. To cede the election to John McCain would be the worst possible outcome. That is all I am going to say about it.

So!

Let’s talk about creative loafing. Yesterday, I wasted a whole day watching the NFL draft. I am a football fan, but I’m not totally into it like a lot of guys. I live in the Pacific Northwest. We have one major-league professional football team—the Seattle Seahawks—and four minor-league professional teams—the Oregon Ducks, the Oregon State Beavers, the Washington Huskies, and the Washington State Cougars. I can’t believe I hung around for 3½ hours before the Seahawks made their first pick, the 28th pick in the first round. Then, in the second round, they drafted a tight end from Notre Dame, a player who has an unfortunate habit of dropping passes in pressure situations. Sweet.

ESPN had no less than eight guys analyzing the draft—five at the main table at Radio City Music Hall and three in the studio. The most amazing fellow is Mel Kiper, Jr. He is a bespectacled, hair-gelled, middle-aged man who never played a down of high school or college football, and perhaps never in his life put on a jock strap, but has been ESPN’s NFL draft expert since 1984. The NFL draft is Kiper’s entire Reason for Being. He has an encyclopedic knowledge of hundreds of college football players. He knows each player’s height, weight, 40-yard time, vertical leap, reps (how many times a player can bench press 225 pounds consecutively—two players did it 37 times this year), and of course each and every football stat in each and every game a player played over a four year college career!

Kiper expresses strong opinions about whether a team made a good pick or not. He doesn’t mince words. His sarcasm is strictly east coast, if you know what I mean. Then we have the Kiperisms. When he says a player has a “high motor” or “very high motor,” he means the player works hard on every single play. Having a motor is a compliment. He talks a lot about “athleticism” (natural talent) and “character” (a good work ethic and no scrapes with the law).

As an aside, I notice Kiper almost never accuses a white player of having too much “athleticism.” Usually the “character” guys are white. Just saying.

I know some of you out there are wondering how I could waste four hours of my life on such trivia. Well, it wasn’t totally wasted. I made some great banana bread. Here is the recipe from Cooking Light. Try it—you’ll like it. Also, I took a three-mile power walk on the treadmill. That counts for something. That’s worth two thin slices of banana bread. Three if you don't put butter on it.

If I could wrap up this rambling piece with a Unifying Thought, it would be this: Creative loafing is critically important to mental and emotional health. Even if you are a political junkie, you should not spend all your discretionary time obsessing about politics—which means endlessly combing through the blogs, worrying about political issues, and watching cable TV. Put down the laptop. Go for a hike. Go for a drive in the mountains. Take a walk on the beach (if you are lucky enough to have an ocean nearby). Spend some quality time with members of your family. Make banana bread. Pick up the phone and talk to an old friend from high school or college. Go to the art museum. Attend a concert.

All this stuff with Obama and Clinton will sort out eventually. Even Mrs. O.P. agrees with me on that. When that day comes, let’s agree to disagree, and then let’s move on as one family to the convention and general election. Great families hang together in hard times. Let’s beat the crap out of McCain and the Republicans. Are you with me?

BAD INTEL

Behind TV Analysts, Pentagon’s Hidden Hand by David Barstow (New York Times)

I wish I could say I am shocked by this latest revelation of Bush administration skullduggery, but I’m not. Not in the least. It only confirms what I have long believed. Should anyone be surprised to learn that most of these retired senior military officers are conservative Republicans? Should anyone be surprised to learn these men have connections to corporations doing business in Iraq and elsewhere in that part of the world? Should anyone be surprised to learn the mainstream media dropped the ball—again—by giving these pro-war shills a soap box? The entire Iraq project is of one seamless piece. The administration, the Pentagon, the corporations, and the media are all complicit in this debacle.

I was going to write about this Times article by David Barstow, but why bother when Glenn Greenwald can do a far better job than I can? Click here for his analysis. Greg Mitchell, the editor of Editor and Publisher, has some additional insight.

I have been a regular consumer of progressive blogs since I began reading Josh Marshall’s Talking Points Memo at the end of 2000. (See my blogroll for other blogs I read every day.) When the Bush administration lost interest in Afghanistan in the spring of 2002 and started to move military and intelligence assets from Central Asia to the Middle East in preparation for the coming invasion of Iraq, I had to go to the progressive blogs and the Guardian (a U.K. paper) to find out what was really happening. The mainstream media in America simply took Bush administration spin and uncritically passed it on to readers and viewers.

Now, five years after the invasion of Iraq, we know the Bush administration, together with its corporate allies and the official D.C. media, was wrong on just about everything. On Iraq, we know the progressive bloggers were correct on just about everything. Credit the hard-working progressive bloggers for their exceptional investigative reporting. They provided an effective counterweight to the Bush administration’s relentless shitstorm of spin. Bloggers can take a much-deserved victory lap.

However, the good times are coming to a end.

I have a feeling this time next year the progressive bloggers will sorely miss the Bush administration. Almost certainly we will have a Democratic president in the White House, and the Democrats will be even stronger in the House and Senate. Congressional investigations into myriad Bush administration offences will continue. There will be indictments, trials, and convictions. Under President Obama or President Clinton, Congress will pass important and long-overdue legislation that will improve the lives of average Americans. Congress will make the foreign-policy course corrections necessary to improve our standing in world affairs. It’s all good.

Some of the most popular progressive blogs are the ones that are very good at channeling our anger and feelings of outrage against the Bush administration. But what happens when the main instigator of anger and outrage—George W. Bush—is no longer on the scene? What will bloggers write about? Will the progressive bloggers still pursue the truth with the same ferocity as they have in the past? Will they still conduct in-depth, brutally-honest investigative reports about stupidity and wrongdoing in high places? Or will the bloggers come in from the cold? Like the corrupt retired military officers on the teevee, will they allow themselves to be played by those in power?

HISTORY CLOSES IN ON BUSH

...I cannot tell you
how beautiful the scene is, and a little terrible, then,
when the crowded fish know they are caught,
and wildly beat from one wall to the other
of their closing destiny the phosphorescent water to a pool of flame,
each beautiful slender body sheeted with flame,
like a live rocket a comet's tail wake of clear yellow flame;
while outside the narrowing floats and cordage of the net
great sea-lions come up to watch, sighing in the dark;
the vast walls of night stand erect to the stars....

from The Purse-Seine by Robinson Jeffers

George W. Bush has a degree in history from Yale University. I am sure Yale’s History department forced him to learn the basics of historical research. At most universities, history majors take a course called historiography. Historiography requires the student to study the processes by which historical knowledge is obtained and transmitted. While history is not a science, historiography is as close as one gets to imposing the scientific method onto the discipline of history.

Historiography is no place for the glib-minded. At the best schools, it is a challenging academic exercise. It separates the earnest history student from the slacker. For a non-serious history student—as Bush certainly was—a course like historiography can be dreadfully dull and a serious impediment to graduation. Of course, it is possible for a slacker to get a passing grade, by fair means or foul. But the question remains: does the slacker actually retain any useful information? Information that might come in handy if said slacker ends up as the leader of the only superpower on earth?

What did Bush learn about history at Yale? Apparently he learned just enough to now understand he is screwed for all eternity. Like the trapped fish in the Jeffers poem, he is beginning to feel the net of history close in on him. Early in his presidency, Bush said very little about his place in history. Scarcely a day passes now when he doesn't make some self-referential comment. One might say Bush has an obsession about his legacy. His discomfort becomes more obvious with each passing month.

Bush has been making some truly bizarre public statements lately about history, and how he thinks his administration will be viewed by historians. For example, his assertions about the benefits of his Iraq adventure are beyond silly. His self-appraisal makes no sense to the average American citizen today; it certainly won't influence professional historians 50 years from now. Other than the writers of the Daily Show and other comedic forums, no one outside the neoconservative community listens to Bush any more. Iraq is the big enchilada for this president. In 50 years, few historians will be writing about the sub-prime lending crisis.

This is the hard truth—Bush is finished. People want Bush and his ugly, expensive war of choice to just go away.

Where did Bush go wrong?

Let's start with Bush's pop-culture view of history. Evidently Bush believes that history is little more than the biographies of great men. The so-called Great Man theory of history popularized by thinkers such as Thomas Carlyle and Friedrich Nietzsche in the 19th century was no longer in vogue in 1968 when Bush took his degree. The theory is in less favor today. Life is too complicated for any one person to govern human events. Even the President of the United States. Nevertheless, Bush clings to this theory as if it were a life preserver.

Who would be the Great Man in our time? Um, that would be Bush himself.

In addition, Bush errs in thinking the historian can start with a conclusion about history and then provide the “research” that will fix selected facts around the conclusion. This approach is anathema to reputable historians. A bad historian starts with an historical theory and selects only the evidence that supports the preconceived theory. He disregards—or suppresses—any evidence that runs counter to the theory. Sound familiar? Good historians do the opposite. Like a competent crime scene investigator, the good historian follows the trail of evidence wherever it goes. He bases his conclusions on the entire body of evidence. Properly taught, historiography teaches the history student the importance of the professional evidence-selection process, and how selection must be as free as possible of personal bias.

Finally, Bush believes truth is subordinate to power. If anything, the proper study of history teaches us this cynical belief is dead wrong. Since the beginning of recorded history, rulers have tried to control the message, and thus control the official version of the truth. In the long run, this never works. Eventually, truth emerges and lies are exposed. The reason is obvious: Absolute power has a finite life cycle. Once the power to corrupt or suppress the truth is eliminated (e.g., death, regime change), truth bubbles to the surface. Then the old dishonest game is over. Bush should have learned this at Yale. But he didn’t.

When it comes to history, Bush is screwed, and he knows it. Why do I say that? Because the wise professors in the Yale History department probably spelled it out for him chapter and verse, but it is only now, as the net closes in on him, that Bush realizes they might have been correct. I am sure more than one professor told him the Great Man theory was a shallow approach to historical research. I am sure more than one professor chided him for slapdash research when he turned in a one-sided paper. I am sure more than one professor explained to young George how dictators tried—and failed repeatedly—to kill the truth. I am sure they did their best to teach him how to apply the scientific method to history, as best as possible. But no, Bush was too much of a wise guy. And he still is.

It is time for the historians to weigh in. As Bush might say, "Bring it on."

WE NEED BETTER DEMOCRATS

Welcome progress in Democrats' plan to end war by Ilan Goldenberg (Seattle Post-Intelligencer)

The 110th Congress failed us. The overwhelming number of Americans who voted for Democratic candidates in November 2006 thought they were taking an important first step to end the American occupation of Iraq. Unfortunately, the Democratic Party did nothing about Iraq in 2007 other than conduct a few investigations. Now that the 2008 campaign is going full throttle, Iraq legislation is off the table. Even the cutoff of war funding at this point would accomplish nothing. The war will continue without a hitch for the rest of this year.

George W. Bush won. The Democrats lost. Bush and Dick Cheney outworked, outmaneuvered, and outsmarted the Democrats at every turn. Now it is too late. We must wait until 2009.

Harry Reid and Dick Durban of the Senate, and Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer of the House were not tough-minded enough to stand up to Bush administration intimidation. If, as expected, the Democratic Party increases its strength in the House and Senate, these individuals need to be replaced. We need better leaders. Also, we need better Democratic Party foot soldiers in the House and Senate.

Better Democrats and a better cadre of Democratic leaders—and hopefully a Democratic president—will move the nation forward on this important issue. Finally.

In today’s Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Ilan Goldenberg talks about a comprehensive and reasonable plan to withdraw from Iraq. Goldenberg refers to “A Responsible Plan to End the War in Iraq.” [Note: PDF required] This 36-page document is the brainchild of Darcy Burner. Burner is the Democratic candidate for the Eighth Congressional District in the state of Washington. The Eighth encompasses the suburbs just east of Seattle.

“Responsible Plan” was released on March 17, 2008, at the Take Back America conference in Washington D.C. It has the support of counterterrorism expert Rand Beers, who served four different presidents, and Zbigniew Brzezinski, the National Security Advisor to President Jimmy Carter. The author of this op-ed piece, Ilan Goldenberg, is the policy director of the National Security Network, a progressive think tank. One prominent Congressional candidate to co-sponsor the “Responsible Plan” is Donna F. Edwards of Maryland’s Fourth Congressional District. Edwards ousted pro-war Democrat Al Wynn in the Democratic primary a few weeks ago.

Burner, Edwards, and several dozen other outside-the-Beltway candidates pose a threat not only to the Republicans and their neoconservative allies who have no plans to end the occupation, but to the do-nothing Democratic leadership and the do-nothing Democratic back-benchers who have cooperated with the Bush White House.

It is time for a real change. For me, January 2009 cannot come too soon.

HOW WOULD JOHN McCAIN BEHAVE AS PRESIDENT?

John McCain has a colorful resume. His life falls into four neat categories. He was a Navy pilot, a prisoner of war, a post-POW naval officer, and a legislator. What is it about these conditions in life that make us believe McCain is prepared to be president? For example, how is McCain’s career in the Navy germane to the presidency? How does his job performance in Congress qualify him to be president? Finally, there is this wildcard issue—how will his experience as a POW affect him in the Oval Office?

While McCain has done a lot of good things for a very long period of time, and despite his longevity and resilience, he has no more of the prerequisite experience to run the world’s only superpower than does Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton. In fact, while McCain has some command experience in the Navy, he has zero top-management experience as a civilian. All three—McCain, Obama, and Clinton—will have a learning curve.

The Individual Contributor as President

John McCain has a long history of federal public service. McCain entered the Naval Academy in the fall of 1954 and retired as a Captain in April 1981. He was elected to the House of Representatives in 1982. After two terms in the House, he was elected to the Senate where he continues to serve today. Altogether, McCain has been on the federal payroll for 53 years. For 50 of those years, he did not have any significant command responsibilities. With the exception of a three-year Navy command in the mid-1970s, McCain never really managed anything beyond himself and his immediate staff. John McCain has been an individual contributor and colleague of other professionals almost his entire career.

Here is his professional work history summarized from Wikipedia (actual chief executive experience in bold):

• U.S. Naval Academy, 1954-58 (graduated 894 out of 899 midshipmen)
• Navy pilot training at Pensacola, FL, 1958-60 (earned his wings as a pilot of naval attack aircraft)
• A-1 Skyraider pilot, 1960-66 (stationed onboard the USS Intrepid and USS Enterprise)
• A-4 Skyhawk pilot, 1966-67 (stationed onboard the USS Forrestal until he was shot down over Hanoi on July 29, 1967)
• Prisoner of War in Hanoi, 1967-73
• National War College at Ft. McNair near Washington D.C., 1973-74
• Regained flight status, 1974
• Executive officer and then commanding officer of naval carrier pilots, Cecil Field, Jacksonville, FL, 1974-77 (according to Wikipedia, “He turned around a mediocre unit and won the squadron its first Meritorious Unit Commendation.”)
• Senate liaison officer for the Chief of Naval Operations, 1977-81 (lobbyist for the Navy)
• Vice president of public relations, Anheuser-Busch, 1981-82
• Congressman from Arizona’s First District, 1983-87
• Senator from Arizona, 1987-present

The Navy Bomber Pilot as President

I served on the USS Princeton from early 1966 to late 1967. My ship was a helicopter bird farm for the Marine Corps. During that time, I got to know quite a few Navy and Marine Corps pilots. My cousin Simeon is a retired Navy pilot and I know he reads this blog, so I will try to be diplomatic about Navy pilots. The truth is most Navy pilots will tell you a person needs to have a screw loose to volunteer for Navy pilot training. It is a very dangerous profession, not unlike auto racing, skydiving, or mountain climbing. What could be more dangerous than landing a six-ton aircraft (the weight of the A-4 Skyhawk) on a tiny postage stamp in the middle of the Pacific Ocean?

As a rule, Navy pilots are a wild and crazy bunch. They are hell raisers. They tend to drink a lot when they are on liberty. They live in a frat-boy, locker-room universe. When one reads McCain's bio, it sounds like he was a perfect fit for that environment.

God love them: pilots do great things for the Navy and for America. But to be honest, the attributes of a good Navy pilot and the attributes of a good POTUS could not be more different.

The Torture Victim as President

John McCain returned from North Vietnam in 1973. Like every American, I admire him for pulling himself together and moving on with his life. His story is truly an inspiration.

It is hard to believe that 6 1/2 years of torture and abuse in a POW camp has not damaged McCain in some way. He can be a very belligerent man. His volcanic temper is well documented. He can be extremely impatient. He can be vindictive. Given his background, we might be sympathetic. Still, are we prepared to replace one anti-social president for another? Personally, I'll take the unflappable Obama or the rock-solid Clinton any day.

Is McCain More of the Same?

How would John McCain behave as president? McCain's personal and professional strengths would not be that useful in the Oval Office. Most of his experience, while commendable, is not that relevant to the presidency. Even at his age, he would have lots to learn on the job. But the thing that sinks his prospects, in my view, is his temperament. Like Bush, he is far too temperamental, far too much of a risk taker. America needs a steadier hand on the rudder.

THE MEDIA’S NEXT BIG STORYLINE: HILLARY NEEDS TO STEP ASIDE

In politics, the mainstream media likes to control a campaign storyline. Until now, the campaign storyline about the race for the White House between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton was that it was too close to call. However, as far back as late February, this storyline did not really jibe with the facts. Obama had a formidable delegate lead of well over 100 delegates. Obama acquired dozens of new superdelegate commitments; Clinton, a mere handful. Obama had a clear lead in primaries won, caucuses won, states won, and popular votes won. By any objective measurement, Obama was winning, but the press was reluctant to say so. After all, hyping the horse race sells print newspapers and magazines, and it generates clicks on Web sites.

Clinton got a lot of good press for her performance on March 4th. She picked up 188 delegates from the elections in Ohio, Rhode Island, Texas, and Vermont. Still, Obama was a close second with 182 delegates that day. Since March 4th, Obama picked up 51 delegates in Wyoming, Mississippi, and Iowa, while Clinton got 33.

In the days ahead, you should see MSM pundits opine endlessly that there is no way Clinton can overtake Obama, even if she wins Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Kentucky by substantial margins, which she probably will. Since the allocation of delegates is proportional, Obama won’t be far behind. Meanwhile, Obama is expected to do well in other states outside the old rust belt. No doubt he will pull even farther ahead when everything is added up.

The media is about the chuck the old storyline and promulgate a new one. The new storyline is this: the race is over, and if Clinton wants to preserve her good name, she should bow out gracefully at the appropriate time. While Obama has had The Math ever since Super Tuesday (February 5th), expect the media to now start harping on that point relentlessly. Once the mainstream media, with self-congratulatory fanfare, makes smooth the path for Clinton’s exit, it should then be safe for large numbers of superdelegates to side with Obama. Most of the uncommitted superdelegates are risk-averse. But with the new storyline—Hillary is finished—many of these remaining superdelegates will have the good sense to join the winning team.

Update: It's Tuesday, March 25th, and here is David Brooks with his version of the new storyline.

THE WORST WASHINGTON POST EDITORIAL EVER

Fantasies on Iraq—Washington Post Editorial

On the fifth anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, it is clear the Washington Post Editorial Board—meaning Fred Hiatt—learned nothing from this ugly experience. Today’s editorial focuses on small-bore issues such as the so-called success of the surge, and some iffy promises by the Democratic candidates for president. Essentially the Post is quibbling about battlefield tactics. The editorial ignores big-picture issues such as the moral, legal, economic, political, and strategic reasons for engaging in this conflict in the first place.

If the rationale for the war/occupation is fundamentally flawed from the very beginning, and remains flawed even now in 2008, any discussion of tactics is academic. To use the tautological reasoning of George W. Bush, the best way to correct a mistake is to go ahead and correct the mistake. The best way to correct the mistake of Iraq is to scrap the old plan, and design and execute a thoughtful new plan to disengage U.S. troops as soon as possible. This is what Clinton and Obama are trying to do.

The reason the Post studiously ignores the big-picture issues, I suspect, is because the Post, which tirelessly cheered on the Bush administration, is on the wrong side of history, and cannot admit its error. Instead of pouting and throwing stones at those who are on the right side of history, the Post should finally acknowledge the will of the people—who loathe Bush and his vanity war—and support a rational, bipartisan effort to clean up this foreign policy disaster.