I predict we'll be seeing a post like this from AL, come the middle of October 2008:

I'm voting for Bush

He can probably recycle most of that, just find & replace "Bush" with "McCain," "Kerry with "Obama," and a little editing.

This will follow many postings claiming to support Obama, but propagating whatever right-wing attack is du jour.

metrico, why in the world would I bother? I mean, seriously? See my response to Kevin below. And great pickup on the point of the post - you made it for me about as well as I could have asked. The $5 is in the mail...

A.L.

Do a search of "Obama" on this site, and you can find a few posts authored by AL which can fairly be described as saying I support Obama, but he really sucks. E.g. the one on the speech this week.

Start judging Obama on what he says and does and honestly engage his positions, rather than speculating based on 1975 science fiction stories or nitpicking on minor omissions in his speeches and your credibility will rise, AL.

AL will end up endorsing McCain.

"metrico, why in the world would I bother? I mean, seriously? See my response to Kevin below."

Why does any concern troll bother? (In essence, that's what metrico is suggesting - that you pose as a wavering Obama supporter but in fact your only interest is in highlighting his weaknesses.) Concern trolls bother simply because they are trolls and trolls want attention.

Now I recognise that accusing you of flying false colours is unfair because there is no way you or anyone else can mount a satisfactory defence. At every turn you will be met with the Mandy Rice-Davies counter: "He would say that, wouldn't he?" But you see, that's exactly what you are doing to Obama. You don't actually explore his account of his own beliefs. Instead you suggest that every account he gives is self-serving, as he tailors his message to the audience and the needs of the moment.

At the risk of being rude I may as well be frank and say that I think metrico has hit the nail on the head. But for the sake of arguments let's suppose that metrico is wrong and consider the following demand as a good-faith request:

"So when I toss out the idea that Obama should make a more solid explanation of how he combines his 'radical roots' and his moderate expressions, it's intended to help him win."

I don't see the problem. Why shouldn't a moderate have radical roots? John Maynard Keynes had some very radical friends, who considered that he had sold out when he joined HM Treasury. The Ireland I grew up in was ruled by people who were gunmen in their youth. Edmund Burke's family were mostly Roman Catholics at a time when that was grounds for suspecting a man of treasonable inclinations.

But perhaps Keynes, DeValera and Burke are all leftist nutters in your book. If so then I suspect Obama is a little too exotic for you.

Ah but Camberlain's foreign policy didn't stand up to reality either. There are severe consequences for delusions and fantasies. And the bill will be paid by the armed services rather than those who foist such delusions on the rest of the nation. Perhaps you remember being told that Latin America would love us if only we gave up the Panama Canal?

I wonder if Obama and his pals at state believe the Middle East will also love us if only we establish a caliphate.

Kevin, you hit it on the head with the "concern troll" idea.

AL's Obama last post basically read like "I like Obama, but I am concerned that he might be like these occulted left-wing radicals conspiring to take over the country in this 1975 sci-fi story."

Now that is not only not supporting Obama, but attempts to grow an altogether new right-wing theme - Obama is the leader of a secret cabal of radicals. Based on what?

A suspicious mind would link it to a theme circulated on some right-wing talk shows and websites - Obama is a "radical" because of his admiration for Saul Alinsky. This is from people who know nothing about Alinsky other than that his book was titled "Rules for Radicals."

Example of the genre here.

Guys, I think that "concern troll" is one of the most ludicrous concepts that has been floated in the last decade; it reminds me of nothing more than the old Stalinist "anti-Soviet elements" which mean exactly what the Politburo decides it means.

I embrace the concept.

A.L.

Now I've had running battles on the blog for years with liberal voters who state, simply, that I'm a party of one, and that there's no 'voter cohort' that thinks like me, and so on. I'll suggest that if that were the case, both Hillary and Obama would be 10 - 15 points up on McCain at this point in the game. Hint: they aren't.

Except you said the same thing (link) about the 2006 elections... about how the Democrats were gonna blow it for sure, and how they needed to work on getting guys like you to vote for them if they wanted to win.

Obviously, it wasn't an issue then, and I doubt guys like you are the issue now.

As for why people aren't trying to woo you over, it's because you've repeatedly demonstrated that you're not just some "wobbly Obama voter" - you've got a consistent record of trashing Democrats on this site for about half a decade now, bending over backwards to misread them or paint their statements in the worst light possible, while largely turning a blind eye to whatever crap the Republicans are pulling.

In fact they aren't interested in that: they are interested in feeling smug and high-fiving each other over how wondeful and righteous they are. If they do it at my expense, I'm pretty much indifferent (although if bored, I might swipe back). But when they do that, they are carrying on a long trend in US left politics, which has resulted in - among other things, an effective electoral tie with a geriatric standard-bearer for a party that ought to be on it's last legs for the next eight years.

I think they're mostly just pissed off that a so-called "liberal" is out here, day-in, day-out, trashing their party and their candidates, and effectively promoting the same GOP crap we've been saddled with for most of the past decade. It's a legitimate concern.

But that said, let's cut to the chase: you were wrong about 2006, and you never really publicly came to terms with how much that election undercut almost everything you were saying after Kerry's defeat. Now you're shoveling more of the same in 2008. My simple question to you, AL, is this: if Obama does wipe the floor with McCain in November, as I suspect he will, are you gonna cut this crap out and admit that, gosh, maybe those darned Democrats were right all along?

Or will you keep pursuing the crank's errand of insisting - no matter what they do, no matter how big their victories - that they really need to listen to you to win, and that anything else is pure foolishness?

[Links formatting corrected to conform to WoC guidelines. --NM]

"Troll" is vague and way overused, but "concern troll," as I understand it, has a more specific meaning.

It refers to writers whose real opinion is opposed to their ostensible opinion. The ostensible opinion is endlessly qualified by "concerns," so as to sow doubts about the validity of the ostensible opinion.

For example, in 2006 a top staffer for then-Congressman Charlie Bass (R-NH) was caught posing as a "concerned" supporter of Bass's opponent, Democrat, Paul Hodes on several liberal New Hampshire blogs, using the pseudonyms "IndieNH" or "IndyNH." "IndyNH" expressed concern that Democrats might just be wasting their time or money on Hodes, because Bass was unbeatable.¹¹ Bass ended up losing the election.

And, AL, the essence of concern trolling is disingenuousness, not being honest with your arguments.

I think after years of it, people are calling you on your BS. As Chris notes, there are many examples.

When you have a record of promoting right-wing themes, attacks on Democrats, the "MSM," academia, etc., that come from the Limbaugh/ Malkin/ Reynolds, etc. maw, people notice.

AL your assumptions are that DEMS are like you. They are not. Dems wanted a "true believer" mentality. "Typical White person" is racist, Black racism conspiracy idiocy OK, warmed over marxism as policy, etc. Face reality, Dem politics is Moveon, Code Pink, ANSWER. That's who is the party mainstream and deciders. It's where the money and the votes in the party reside.

Dems won in 2006 on Bush incompetence and fatigue, "Blue Dog" Dems who posed as gun friendly, culturally conservative, American patriots. Democratic politics as a whole is opposed to all of that. Obama in particular wants to take all your guns away. Leaving you just a liberal.

Obama in a recent speech said "the proletariat must control the means of production." He is a warmed over Marxist. Which would describe the entire Dem Party.

If anything McCain is a Democrat circa 1964. Which is why Republicans don't like him but find him preferable to Hillary or Obamamessiah, who resemble a watered down Fidel Castro.

Very likely we will find out that the country as a whole is far more culturally conservative, patriotic (not ashamed of being American), and desirous of victory not defeat by AQ, at least compared to Dems.

Gosh, metrico - I called one election right and one wrong and suddenly it's BS? And the issues I talk about should be suppressed within the liberal side so that we have unanimity? I love what you're hoping to do with the party the drapes almost cover the bars on the windows.

And I love the idea that you can't and don;t engage any of the issues; the simple fact that Malkin or one of the right blogs discusses it must mean it isn't true. Of course.

I stated a long time ago that my primary interest in blogging is figuring out a new kind of liberalism and trying to chivvy the Democratic Party into taking positions that were more likely to lead to success. I'm not interested in reciting MyDD's talking points; there's a large left-wing echo chamber that does that quite well. You're obviously home there; sorry you don;t enjoy it here so much.

So for grins, how about deconstructing some of those horrible positions I take instead of trying to handwave them away?

Let's have a real discussion of the issues; it'd be a refreshing change in dealing with you guys...

A.L.

AL,

I did deconstruct one of your positions - the ludicrousness of your cancellation of your subscription to The Atlantic. (link)

My analysis of your post in that case was that it was entirely derivative of a Michael Goldfarb rant via Instapundit. You had a knee-jerk reaction from a right-wing stimulus, ultimately unsupportable, which is why you ended up not explaining it at all.

Just as above, I deconstructed your SciFi/ Spinrad-derived post about Obama by stating that it may have been related to recent attacks on Obama as being inspired by the "radical" Alinsky and therefore dangerous. A variation on a theme.

You didn't engage on that argument, either.

Both The Atlantic post and the Norman Spinrad post appear to be derived from ideas broadcast from the right-wing universe, but ultimately false.

[Link format corrected. --NM]

metrico, I think your claim that I inherited this from Goldfarb was also hammered - and I'm happy to make it clear that I read the Atlantic post directly on the Atlantic site - a place where I've spent a lot of time...as my history of pasts shows.

My point re Obama was a little more subtle than you give me credit for; it was that things like those cited make him look like a he's bluntly lying; it ought to be easy for him to make it clear that he's not - but he hasn't. He should, because people less attached to his policies than I am will fall away if he can't close the sale on what he's offered - a way past the stupid divisions of the past.

So - deconstructed? Not so much. Want to try again?

A.L.

Here's McCain on ForeignPolicy

Here's Obama

Really, AL?

You never explained how you interpreted the overwhelming majority of U.S. military personnel aren't sociopaths, as meaning the opposite, or whatever else you found so objectionable about the Atlantic article. Just looks like another right-wing attack to me.

As far as the Spinrad post goes, both statements attributed to Obama are of questionable veracity. You accept them without question. I question whether they were said at all, or said in the way the self-interested interlocutors quoted them.

If you cherry-pick hearsay from obscure sources to make it look like Obama's dishonest, rather than sticking to the huge mass of his recorded statements, do I have to accept your factual foundations?

Am I the only one who got a chuckle out of hearing "the huge mass of his recorded statements" in reference to the notoriously lightweight Obama?

(And please, please, PLEASE do not refer me to his website or govote again. I've been there. I've read them. My snark stands, and I'll forgo the usual explanation of substance vs quantity.)

metrico, you're killing me...that notoriously obscure source, the NY Times...dude, if you're going to be an old-fashioned troll, be an interesting and attentive one, OK?

A.L.

metrico,

There is a vast thing called the "middle" in this country. Some in the middle lean left, others lean right. These people -- and AL is one of them -- are influenced to some extent by the left and the right. That's why they're "the middle."

Everything you're saying to and about AL appears to be based on the assumption that the middle does not exist.

Get a grip.

..I'm anxious about his foreign policy, but not as anxious as I am about McCain's because I'm confident that it won't survive contact with reality..

I also have anxieties about his foreign policy. My fear is that his execution of foreign policy as he has stated he will do, will put our country in danger of not surviving Obama's execution of his foreign policy.I consider it rather reality oriented to take Obama at his word.

Gosh, metrico - I called one election right and one wrong and suddenly it's BS? And the issues I talk about should be suppressed within the liberal side so that we have unanimity?

AL, it's not merely the case that you "called one election wrong" - you staked your credibility on the idea that the Democrats could not win without following your advice. That's not "lost a friendly bet who but who cares in the long run" territory, that's "our broker told us to stick everything in tech stocks in mid-2000" territory.

As for the issues you talk about, mostly I think they're getting dismissed by real liberals as generally bogus to begin with. And in the remaining cases what you're saying can't easily be divorced from the fact that it's you saying it. If Kevin Drum made some of the points you have, a lot of liberals would probably give some serious thought to those posts... but nobody doubts Kevin's liberal bona fides. He's made clear that he cares about the issues that most liberals do, and he talks primarily to other liberals. You, on the other hand, do almost nothing but trash liberals on a largely conservative-leaning blog. Most liberals would have to be naive as hell not to be a little suspicious of that setup... and years of the same, repeated behaviors haven't done much to help matters.

(And, for the record, spare me the "I'm part of the Euston Manifesto group." The EM blog hasn't even updated in a month, the group has had minimal influence on liberalism aside from the initial publicity splash the Manifesto itself generated, and I don't see that you've done much more than sign the Manifesto.)

Thanks for catching that missing tag, NM.

One NYT story and electronicintifada? Yeah, obscure. All of your Obama quotes were hearsay. Your reliance on questionable sources to raise "concerns" about Obama through the lens of some 1975 sci/fi story about conspiring radicals signals your biases, AL. If your really support someone, you don't repeat quotes of questionable veracity from self-interested declarants to attack them. It's not even credible.

Totten, who's going to be the "middle" candidate between McCain and Obama?

AL's whole schtick is playing the "liberal" or "moderate" who just always happens to come down on the right-wing side of things after months of concern trolling.

Still waiting for that longer piece on The Atlantic explaining why you canceled your subscription. . .

metrico -

Your reliance on questionable sources to raise "concerns" about Obama through the lens of some 1975 sci/fi story ...

I know I should just stay out of this, but this is the third time you've complained about the Norman Spinrad analogy. Do you understand that it is merely for purposes of illustration, and that A.L. was not claiming that there is some literal connection between Obama and the story? If you do understand that, could you stop pretending like you don't?

Furthermore, I suspect you of speaking disrespectfully of Norman Spinrad's work. I myself would hesitate to elect Spinrad president of the United States, but I assure you that Spinrad will be remembered when your Mr. Obama is as forgotten as the fourth Earl of Leicester - whoever the hell that was.

Try to avoid hitting innocent parties while you're hip-shooting your blunderbuss, please.

The good thing about having the poster's name at the top of the post is you can move right on by the true believers.

"Start judging Obama on what he says and does"

A most appropriate statement from an Obamist.

That's why he is in trouble.

I don't think Barack Obama needs to reassure anyone of anything. He's likely to be the nominee, and then he'll have the mainstream media back in the tank for him as well as a crushing money advantage in a country that's ready to go all-Democrat anyway.

If anything, leaving open the hope that he'll be a truly radical president might smooth his path to the Oval Office by energizing the billionaire revolutionaries, thus maximizing his money advantage.

metrico - if words like 'obscure' mean what you say they do, I have Alice's chance in any discussion with you. Why should I play?

And what you call concern trolling, I call thoughtful debate; I know we're not supposed to do that, and that we're only supposed to debate The Enemy. But I've done that that style of politics for twenty years, and all it has given us is a steady string of conservative Republican victories.

So forgive me if I think it's time to change the plan.

A.L.

Chris, you make a valid point about 06; I've got a hypothesis I've been working out that proved to be correct in 04, was arguably wrong in 06 (the only argument on my side is that most of the D pickups were Blue Dogs - a thin reed, I'll admit), has been largely correct since then (the D's inability to stand up to Bush until v. recently), and seems to be holding up today (McCain's competitiveness w/both Obama and Hillary - in the face of much of the conservative vote sitting on their hands right now, which I'll suggest they won;t do in the general).

The hypothesis is based on both an instrumental case - we'd do better in elections - and on a moral one - we'd govern better (better in this case is defined as more in the interests of the working people of the country, as opposed to the administrative classes, media classes, and dpenedent classes). I don't see a lot to argue about on the moral side, so the issue is really about what will win elections better.

And yes, I'm a one-note kinda blogger, but I have a finite timeslice to spend on this (work, kids, life - you know the drill) and I made a choice a long time ago that this would be the crux of what I blog about. No regrets on my part about that decision.

A.L.

Based on the comments I see in this thread and those in the original "Paging Norman Spinrad" post, I realize there was a major omission in my attempt [Spinrad comment #5] to characterize a problem with polarized philosophical/political views. The blind faith of the polarized Right, which attempts to 'deify' their candidate/saviour, is easily matched by the polarized Left. In both cases, this often takes the form of straw man arguments highlighting the imperfect nature of their opponents. By reducing the presidential role to the mere mortal status of CEO, I think a more useful discussion of candidates' talents or lack of them would ensue.

metrico: Totten, who's going to be the "middle" candidate between McCain and Obama?

Hillary Clinton?

Anyway, McCain is obviously closer to the middle of the electorate than Obama. The wilderness-wing of the GOP hates him. My right-wing father in law says he refuses to vote for McCain because "he's a Democrat," and my liberal wife (who has never once voted Republican) has decided to vote for McCain for basically the same reason. If he's not really a conservative, he's a "safe" alternative to Obama. The likes of Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter are actually boosint the appeal of McCain with non-conservative voters.

I am surprised AL hasn't thrown his support to McCain. But I'm not going to hector him about it like you are, for two reasons. One, AL is my friend and I don't badger my friends about politics. Two, all I need to do is sit back and watch fools like you alienate people like AL even further.

Because I know AL in the real world, and because we have discussed politics privately, I know he is sincere about generally preferring Democrats to Republicans. You can bang on about about his supposed insincerity all you want, but you are not going to win this argument.

The blind faith of the polarized Right, which attempts to 'deify' their candidate/saviour, is easily matched by the polarized Left.

Ian, if you are speaking of the American political scene, I suspect you are viewing it from across a vast expanse of ocean, and getting it all mixed up with the nesting habits of petrels.

Currently, the "polarized right" - as we would understand the term - do not have a candidate, let alone a savior. And despite some ecstatic swooning on the left over Obama, it is not a universal characteristic of American leftists to practice Cult of Personality.

It is in the nature of some people, who find nothing of value in heaven or earth, to expect some charismatic person to come along and supply them with a reason to live. Could be a politician, could be a cult leader, or it could be Michael Jackson.

If anything, I think America has fewer such people than most other nations do - I noticed that when Michael Jackson needed an adoring mob, he had to make do with a lot of New Zealanders, and Princess Diana's left-overs. He finally went overseas, to shorten the supply lines.

I believe the source of the schism is that some liberals understand the strategy goals that the Bush administration chose in reaction to 9/11 have constituted a definitively liberal strategy. As I believe Armed Liberal does, I fall in that group of so-called liberal hawks. I further believe that our nation's liberal leaders, rather than the post-9/11 liberal-converts among conservatives, are the proper champions of the strategic goals chosen by the Bush administration. My disappointment has been that, under the burning political spotlight of actual war, so many of our liberal leaders have adopted a hybrid anti-war position derived from the anti-(American)war radical Left camp and the anti-(this)war right-wing realist camp. Speaking of the 2006 senate elections, my minor contribution to the liberal-hawk cause was traveling up from NYC to spend a cold, wet day standing outside an election site in Connecticut to be a Senator Lieberman volunteer. (The Lamont-Lieberman senate race was the clearest case of liberal hawk versus anti-war liberal in the 2006 election.)

Since 9/11, there's been a real debate in what constitutes a liberal. Is a liberal defined by the liberal hawk views of FDR, Truman and JFK? For example, the excellent military-professional blog Small Wars Journal recently linked to a 1962 JFK speech that, with some tweaks, would be a marvelous explanation of George W Bush's strategy goals in the Long War. On the other hand, I've had discussions with anti-war liberals since 9/11 where they dismiss the principled liberalism of JFK as obsolete and "tolerance" as the core concept of modern liberalism. Is the truth that liberal hawks are just too obtuse to recognize that our 'old-fashioned' liberalism has been reduced to rhetorical lip service only and is considered irrelevant for real-world application by the majority of today's liberals? Could be.

Finally, the best article summing up the liberal debate over the Bush administration's strategy goals that I've read since 9/11 has been Tom Junod's The Case for George W. Bush, i.e., what if he's right? in the August 2004 Esquire.

Me: "... I've had discussions with anti-war liberals since 9/11 where they dismiss the principled liberalism of JFK as obsolete and "tolerance" as the core concept of modern liberalism."

That should read '... and claim "tolerance" is the core concept of modern liberalism.'

Chris, you make a valid point about 06; I've got a hypothesis I've been working out that proved to be correct in 04, was arguably wrong in 06 (the only argument on my side is that most of the D pickups were Blue Dogs - a thin reed, I'll admit), has been largely correct since then (the D's inability to stand up to Bush until v. recently), and seems to be holding up today (McCain's competitiveness w/both Obama and Hillary - in the face of much of the conservative vote sitting on their hands right now, which I'll suggest they won;t do in the general).

AL, the problem is that what you're saying in this paragraph pretty much undermines your post above - liberals aren't dismissing you because they want to feel smug and righteous, they're dismissing you because you've been proven wrong by the results of the '06 election. And insofar as you've chosen to make your desired reforms pretty much the only thing you blog about, then being wrong on your one big issue pretty much negates everything you choose to say.

Now, whether you'll be redeemed by '08 is a separate argument than the one you started making above, but I'll point out that McCain's current popularity is both relatively recent and occurs in the context of a fairly intense nomination process for the Ds - there's no reason to believe his current polling advantage will last straight through November. Also, as David Blue pointed out above, the Ds have a very large money advantage this time around (first time in a long while that's been the case, I believe) and the Republicans are having real trouble even recruiting Congressional candidates, much less winning elections. So in many ways, things are looking even bleaker for you to be proved right in '08 than they were back in '06.

But bringing this back full circle to what you're saying at the top of this post, let me suggest that, rather than liberals trying to reach out to wobbly Obama voters, you yourself would have far better traction in changing the Democratic party if you'd actually, y'know, engage with liberals. Posting attacks on The Atlantic here does little but give the local conservatives a chance to vent. On the other hand, were you to go over to The Atlantic website and engage Matt Yglesias when he points out, that, say, successful Iraqi counterinsurgency may not be possible, not because our soldiers are bad people but because no group of actual, real-world humans could ever be as unfailingly good, competent, and infallible as counterinsurgency doctrine requires us to be.

That would be a huge improvement over what you're doing now, because not only would you be arguing with liberals about liberal behavior, but you'd (presumably) be providing a solid counterpoint to the concrete arguments liberals are currently making about why Iraq is a lost cause... a counterpoint that, from what I can tell, this site has long since given up on making.

Until you do something like that, though, you're not getting anywhere with Democrats, and no amount of whining about how smug and superior they're acting is gonna change that.

Glen #31
I often try to speak in general terms when commenting regardless of the specific instance before us, so the current status of either the American Left or Right candidates is relevant but not central to my point. From Wikipedia: "A cult of personality or personality cult arises when a country's leader uses mass media to create a heroic public image through unquestioning flattery and praise." From the fully scripted and costumed "Mission Accomplished" playlet, to the flag bedraped candidates pitches, I suggest there are subtle and not so subtle attempts to elevate US leaders or prospective leaders to heroic status. Perhaps I also misunderstand the magnitude of the expressed concern over how the MSM might have failed their primary mission in favor of obsequious fawning over sitting presidents, and/or their proposed replacements. If so I apologize.

Since 9/11, there's been a real debate in what constitutes a liberal. Is a liberal defined by the liberal hawk views of FDR, Truman and JFK? For example, the excellent military-professional blog Small Wars Journal recently linked to a 1962 JFK speech that, with some tweaks, would be a marvelous explanation of George W Bush's strategy goals in the Long War. On the other hand, I've had discussions with anti-war liberals since 9/11 where they dismiss the principled liberalism of JFK as obsolete and "tolerance" as the core concept of modern liberalism. Is the truth that liberal hawks are just too obtuse to recognize that our 'old-fashioned' liberalism has been reduced to rhetorical lip service only and is considered irrelevant for real-world application by the majority of today's liberals? Could be.

Eric, I think insofar as there was that kind of debate, it's come and gone. "Liberal hawks" such as yourself and AL would have us believe that the incompetence, the lies, the torture, the American lives lost and billions spent are all worth it in the name of freedom and democracy for Iraq - that these things are par for the course in war, and we just need to stop whining about it. I think the 2006 elections pretty much proved that, not only are mainstream liberals rejecting that notion, but mainstream Americans have as well. (The real battle between Lieberman and Lamont wasn't the general election, where the Republicans pretty much adopted Lieberman as their own and let his incumbent inertia carry the day. It was the nomination fight, where liberals demonstrated that there were some levels of crap that they just wouldn't tolerate any further.)

The two links you've got in your post are thus entirely appropriate - the first, from JFK, a few years before Vietnam really got off the ground, reminds us that turning a blind eye to all other concerns in the name of liberty and democracy in other countries leads us to some terrible places, no matter how noble our intensions. And the date of the article in the second link is far more important than the content: people could legitimately ask what if GWB is right in 2004. The vast majority of the country doesn't need to ask that now.

Ian: It's a commonplace of UK observers that having the head of state be the chief executive leads to a sort of overloading of import for the President of the USA. There might be something to it, humans being what they are.

Chris says:

The vast majority of the country doesn't need to ask that now.

Why? Because he's a lame duck? Or just due to fatigue and disenchantment? Or because, y'know, it's just... impossible, because, y'know, I mean, just look, right?

The vapidity of that last attitude being rather the whole point of the second article.

Why? Because he's a lame duck? Or just due to fatigue and disenchantment? Or because, y'know, it's just... impossible, because, y'know, I mean, just look, right?

The vapidity of that last attitude being rather the whole point of the second article.

No, NM, because regardless of how you personally feel about the war, it is the case that most people have turned against it, and, more specifically, GWB's conduct of it. The fact that you most likely don't agree with the majority of the country on this doesn't make the fact that they do feel that way any less true.

Yes. Well. Not that you asked, but:

Try reading the second article, rather than skimming the title, checking the date, and dismissing it.

How I personally feel about "the" war is that the world-historical aspects, whatever they turn out to be, will take at least a couple more generations to play out. That's forty years or more.

I do expect the majority of people in the US don't think that way, and that tendency also is a major component of the second article to which you gave short shrift.

I think the number of actual missteps and outright failures is impossible to determine up this close to the events. Especially because the preponderance of those events literally can't be known by any individual.

You keep telling me about current public sentiment, though -- I don't expect that to stop. My view is so alien as to be utterly irrelevant, both to you, and the people you claim to speak for.

This is why I don't post more.

Try reading the second article, rather than skimming the title, checking the date, and dismissing it.

I did read the article, NM - every word of it, before Eric ever linked to it. I stand by my assertion that the questions it raises, for most people, have been fairly definitively answered by what's happened over the past three years. The country second-guessing itself over how bad Bush really was lasted just long enough to get him to reelection, but it's long since gone.

How I personally feel about "the" war is that the world-historical aspects, whatever they turn out to be, will take at least a couple more generations to play out. That's forty years or more.

And how convenient for you pro-war folks that you're defining "real" accountability decades in the future!

I do expect the majority of people in the US don't think that way, and that tendency also is a major component of the second article to which you gave short shrift.

Funny, I seem to remember the article suggesting that most people, at least in 2004, would line up behind Bush because of what's "really" important:

The reason he will be difficult to unseat in November—no matter what his approval ratings are in the summer—is that his opponents operate out of the moral certainty that he is the bad guy and needs to be replaced, while he operates out of the moral certainty that terrorists are the bad guys and need to be defeated. The first will always sound merely convenient when compared with the second.

Back to NM:

You keep telling me about current public sentiment, though -- I don't expect that to stop. My view is so alien as to be utterly irrelevant, both to you, and the people you claim to speak for.

Of course. You've already convinced yourself that most people can't take the long view that you have the wisdom to, and from there it's trivial to assume that I couldn't possibly understand the rationale for the pro-war side, much less articulate it. Because we liberals just don't understand anything but our own whining, right?

This is why I don't post more.

And for that I am thankful - if you'd kept up that condescending tone much longer, you probably would have sprained something.

[I]f you'd kept up that condescending tone much longer, you probably would have sprained something.

Pot. Kettle.

Chris - huh?

The basics of my point are that liberals need to play to the middle - which I think they can do without burning down the ideas that make liberalism effective and important. You think that the answer is to play to the base and carve off people like me.

That's the struggle I see in the Democratic Party right now.

And when you talk about 06, the think you haven't answered is why it is that the progblog favorites lost, and why the Blue Dogs won.

And as attractive as it would be to swim in the sewer - as Kevin Drum himself has called his comments - or to play with the Gimp (as I think of Yglesias) - it seems like kind of a waste of time to be a commenter on someone else's blog. Yes, Winds has trended more conservative than me. Know any other liberal bloggers I could bring over to post here? And as much as I've tried to engage sensible folks like Kevin Drum in cross-blog dialog, that hasn't panned out.

A.L.

Chis, if the overwhelming majority really felt that way, we'd have withdrawn by now.

Why do you think is it that Congress with it's vaunted D majority has been unable to force that?

A.L.

Pot. Kettle.

Pffft. When I use a line like "My view is so alien as to be utterly irrelevant" then you can ding me for condescension - until then, you take the prize, NM.

The basics of my point are that liberals need to play to the middle - which I think they can do without burning down the ideas that make liberalism effective and important. You think that the answer is to play to the base and carve off people like me.

Bullshit. I've never said that the way to win is to "play to the base", and I've never said Dems should "carve off people like you " - I've consistently made the points that the middle is coming back to the Ds because of the long-term failure of Bush's policies, and that you've carved yourself from the Democrats, not vice versa.

Which brings us back to you consistently misreading Democrats...

bq, And when you talk about 06, the think you haven't answered is why it is that the progblog favorites lost, and why the Blue Dogs won.

Quite simply because I don't give a rat's ass about your war against the "progblogs"... and, as a native New Orleanian, I have an excellent idea of what "Blue Dog" Democrats actually are, and most of these guys don't look (or vote!) like John Breaux as far as I can tell.

But, again, that's a side show. Look at the link I posted above in comment #21 - at the time you were quite positive that the Dems weren't playing to the middle, and that they'd lose unless they followed your advice to do so. Trying to pretend like the Dems won because they somehow became more friendly to the middle (and thus, to guys like you) is completely ignoring what you've been saying on this site for years.

And as attractive as it would be to swim in the sewer - as Kevin Drum himself has called his comments - or to play with the Gimp (as I think of Yglesias) - it seems like kind of a waste of time to be a commenter on someone else's blog. Yes, Winds has trended more conservative than me. Know any other liberal bloggers I could bring over to post here? And as much as I've tried to engage sensible folks like Kevin Drum in cross-blog dialog, that hasn't panned out.

AL, whether it's a "waste of time" to be a commenter on somebody else's blog depends entirely on your goals. If your goal, for example, is to change the minds of actual liberals then you'll do a far better job of it over at Kevin Drum's place, even if all you're doing is wrestling with the trolls. Or just change your tone to something less reflexively anti-Democratic, and you might build up enough respect get invited somewhere like Obsidian Wings. Worked for Andrew Olmsted, RIP.

If, on the other hand, your main intent is to play the misunderstood, little-appreciated martyr over here, then rock on, man. Just understand that doing so is exactly what's strangling your attempts at creating cross-blog dialog.

Chis, if the overwhelming majority really felt that way, we'd have withdrawn by now. Why do you think is it that Congress with it's vaunted D majority has been unable to force that?

The majority thinks that Bush's policies in Iraq have been a mistake - that doesn't mean that they're unaware that withdrawing could be a huge disaster. Mostly I think people are in agreement that Bush (and his supporters like y'all here, of course) have stuck us in a no-win situation, but there's no consensus on what to do next.

That said, let's not pretend like Congress has much power in this matter - not only can the Republicans block action in the Senate, but the only realistic option Congress has is to cut off funding, something Bush (and, again, you guys here) would demagogue to high heaven.

Michael Totten (#19 and #30) is right on, and is very close to my position. Pre-9/11 you could have counted me as a centrist by averages. I was registered R (my wife and I always register one-each so we get both side's propaganda), but the D's probably got a third of my votes, when there was a race where civil liberties issues seemed to trump economic issues (my being at heart a small-l libertarian mugged by reality).

Going on seven years later, I am now an active R. McCain was not my first choice - I favored Rudi or Fred!? - but I will back McCain and likely contribute in this election cycle, as I did in 2004. It's not so much that the Republicans attracted me, heaven knows, as the Democrats drove me there.

It's the attitudes represented by people like Chris and metrico above, and the actual power holders like Pelosi and Reid that make this necessary. There is no way I will stand neutral or idle and see my country in the hands of the like. That are a lot of problems with the R's, but I'll fight those out within the GOP. The D's will see another vote from me when they lose the defeatism, the identity politics and nannyism, and the co-dependency with tax-eaters.

It would be trite to say I expect that about the time I spot porcine aviators, but I actually expect it to take 40 years to so. That's only coincidentally identical to NM's period for the Long War. It's actually the time it took the D's to degenerate from the party of Harry Truman and Scoop Jackson to the sniveling thing of today. I expect it will take the same to recover from its capture by the Left.

Being as that's likely the remainder of my lifetime, I'm not holding my breath. If A.L. were to take my advice, he'd also chuck the D's as a waste of time and commitment, but he hasn't and that's his choice. Since he is a friend, I can assure the drive-by trolls that he has and continues to struggle with the issue. As it happens, your little Inquisition is doing my work by driving good people like him and Michael away from your party, so carry on.

Chris,

You're a realist, not a liberal, right?

Not speaking for A.L., but one reason I've supported OIF is that we were already in a "no-win" situation in Iraq since 1998 and Operation Desert Fox, probably before. Perhaps one reason there was less debate among military people at the outset of OIF is the unofficial consensus - at least among the soldiers I served with, including many Desert Storm veterans - that we would be going back to Iraq as a matter of 'when', not 'if'. The inevitability was clear to us in the 90s, while the short-term disarmament mission - meant to de-fang Saddam's regime as a regional threat, not eliminate the regime - morphed into an increasingly murky and harmful, and worse, indefinite sanctions and 'containment' mission.

President Clinton claimed when announcing Op Desert Fox - setting the precedent for unilateral American military enforcement/punishment against Iraq which President Bush failed to follow by going to the UN - that "Iraq has abused its final chance". Okay, after bombing Iraq at the end of 1998 - effectively a unilateral act of war - then what? We all knew there was only one more level to go with a continuing non-compliant Iraq. Our politicians, from the outgoing Clinton admin to the incoming Bush admin, continued to talk tough about Iraq but as a practical matter, looked the other way as the status quo in Iraq continued without solution.

After Op Desert Fox, the choices over Iraq were the same faced by Clinton and Bush:

A. Continue indefinitely - and head-lining - the corrupted, provocative, harmful and failing sanctions and 'containment' mission. (See Iraq Sanctions: Were They Worth It? by Sheldon Richman and World Islamic Front Statement - Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders by Osama bin Laden et al)

B. End the US/UN mission and release the Saddam-led Iraq from constraint, in power and victorious (... possibly let by-gones be by-gones and try to work a post-9/11 Musharraf-type deal with Saddam?).

C. Give Saddam a final chance to comply (See Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq), and if he triggered the final enforcement step, move ahead with regime change and help reform the failed state.

After Operation Desert Fox until Operation Iraqi Freedom, the choice by Clinton and then Bush was A. After 9/11, President Bush changed course and chose C. Chris, in the debate over Iraq which you believe has been settled, what has been your preferred choice for US policy re Iraq - A or B?

Over a longer historical view, Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush Sr, Clinton and Bush Jr all have a share of responsibility for where we are today in Iraq. For the current situation, President Bush Sr carries the most blame, for intervening in 1991 on behalf of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, allowing Saddam to stay in power then setting the (ultimately disastrous) post-war policy for Iraq, allowing the Gulf War coalition to fall apart almost immediately upon Iraq's expulsion from Kuwait, then finally not intervening as Saddam massacred the Shia who revolted because they trusted the United States (good-bye trust) - cost-conscious realist decision-making at its finest.

President Clinton can also be blamed for ineffective (though no less ineffective than Bush Sr) enforcement, adding conditions on Iraq until it became impossible for Saddam to comply with the resolutions without committing regime-suicide, then finally setting US policy for Iraq at the inflexible "Iraq Liberation".

Of course, Operation Iraqi Freedom did open the possibility of a 4th option, choice D: end A, avoid B, but then slip away from the costly commitments and long-term responsibilities of C by blaming the [fiasco, catastrophe, disaster] on outgoing President Bush, whose political career is over after his 2nd term, anyway. Blaming one sacrificial President would be a cheap price for abandoning 17 years of dysfunctional relationship with Iraq, no? Heck, Americans are world-famous for our divorces, anyway, right? D would be a heck of a sleight-of-hand trick to play on the world by the nation formally known as 'Leader of the Free World'.

If any Republican or conservative ever hectored me in this manner - to the point of accusing me of being a Democrat, to the eternal shame of my ancestors who fought for Lincoln and Union - I wouldn't be as pleasant in my reply as A.L. has been. To the extent that I acknowledged their ankle-biting at all, no matter how indignantly they demanded a response to every item on their laundry list.

Yet A.L. complains of a local liberal shortage - this is a problem? Seriously, though, I see his point. How about some of the people who've been hounded off Kos by the Red Guards?

Kevin Drum is a waste of time - he's got his own megachurch and Amen Chorus, and he's already preoccupied with ensuring the safety of the crazed bigots who rule Iran.

How about issuing an appeal to liberal bloggers all over the 'sphere, who are currently playing the part of a Nuremberg Jew at other sites, who are yearning to be liberal and speak freely at the same time?

Chris:

And how convenient for you pro-war folks that you're defining "real" accountability decades in the future!

You're misunderstanding me here. Further, evidently my attitude seems condescending to you, but you don't seem to see anything condescending in your #41. Oh, well.

think you haven't answered is why it is that the progblog favorites lost, and why the Blue Dogs won.

I've seen some math that says in general 2006 Democratic winners are further from the center than the Republicans they replaced.

It also seems to be lost on the non-liberal audience that most progressive Democrats (definitely including Great Orange Satan himself) are not bothered by deviation on particular issues (e.g., abortion) as on lack of dedication to the Democratic brand. So Debbie Wasserman Schultz of FL is getting raked over the coals, despite a reliably liberal voting record, because she is recusing herself from campaigning against the South Florida Republicans running for re-election, three of whom are especially targeted as possible turnovers. I know this bipartisanship warms the hearts of certain quasi-Democrats who approve of unilateral disarmament, but only for liberals—but I can't think of a single case of Republicans declaring a similar truce, and I can't imagine Karl Rove would have permitted it for one minute. (Putting a clown GOP candidate on the ballot to help Independent Democrat Benedict Lieberman doesn't count.)

Eric Chen's laundry list left out one excellent possibility: E. Use the return of UN inspections as a way to guarantee that Saddam had abandoned his WMD program, after which his regime might collapse internally from within. But even if it hadn't, there are more Iraqis dead today (not to mention dispossessed and refugees) than would have been true if we had not invaded. We did not invade for the benefit of Iraqis. If we thought that way, we would be planning invasions of Zimbabwe, Burma, and Darfur. We invaded Iraq from some weird combination of geopolitical ideas that can already be adjudicated as failed. We are not seen as liberators, and progress towards a stable, democratic Iraq is inadequate even by the reckoning of General Petraeus. As far as using Iraq as a base against Iran, did you notice the friendly reception Ahmadinejad got in Iraq? Do our leaders get that treatment? I hear they still have to sneak in unannounced.

If you are waiting for the Democratic Party to come around to the idea that Iraq was a brilliant idea well-worth another 100 years of surge, at the time most of its liberal champions are writing mea culpas of one form or another, you have a long wait coming. And a damned good thing too.

Eric-

You're a realist, not a liberal, right?

I am a liberal. As I tried to make clear in my previous comments, I reject the idea that adherence to liberal values means signing up for any and all wars that are carried out in the name of freedom and democracy.

And that's the debate I was referring to as settled. While I definitely think public opinion has shifted against the Iraq war, and is unlikely to shift back (even if we wait 40 years), I really and truly believe that the idea that the Iraq war was fundamentally about liberal, progressive values, as they've been broadly defined for the past three or four decades, is dead. Support the war if you want, but don't claim that you're acting in the spirit of FDR and Harry Truman while you're doing it.

I'll skip quoting your lecture, as I'm already familiar with our history in Iraq. Rather, let me focus on a few issues in particular:

The inevitability [of more combat in Iraq] was clear to us in the 90s, while the short-term disarmament mission - meant to de-fang Saddam's regime as a regional threat, not eliminate the regime - morphed into an increasingly murky and harmful, and worse, indefinite sanctions and 'containment' mission.

Since you emphasized the term "indefinite" above, I'd like to ask you: if you were so bothered by the idea of indefinite containment - utilizing a small portion of our armed forces and a relatively small financial cost - why don't you have similar concerns about the indefinite occupation of Iraq we currently find ourselves in, utilizing almost our whole army and billions of dollars a year?

Your categorization of plans A, B, and C is misleading - while the containment regime was far from perfect, it can't be called "failing" given our current knowledge of where Saddam's weapon programs were at the time of invasion. Furthermore, your idea of C is flawed: Saddam, according to many accounts at the time, and almost all post-mortem examinations, was complying with weapons inspectors at the time of invasion.

All that said, you're basically just asking me what I would have done differently. The short answer is that I would have kept containment going until, ideally, we could have built our military up significantly, post-9/11, and Saddam presented us with a far clearer cause for war. I actually think our domestic and foreign image would have been boosted substantially had we demanded Saddam let weapons inspectors in without moving troops to his border, which would have been a win/win situation for us - either we'd have gotten inspectors in (which we claimed was the most important thing at the time) or we wouldn't have. And in that case, I suspect, given the world's post-9/11 sympathy towards us, we could have then made a pretty convincing argument that Saddam wasn't trustworthy and he needed to be taken out regardless of if whether he let weapons inspectors in. Even if it didn't convince the UN, it would have played far better domestically than what actually happened: "Hey, we'll invade unless you let weapons inspectors in! Well, hell, we'll invade anyway!"

As to what to do now, I recognize there aren't really any good solutions. That said, I do tend to agree that, with our current military presence in Iraq, we don't seem to really be able to stop any of the major trends (ethnic cleansing, increasing Iranian influence, etc.)... just slow them down. And if that's all we're doing, I'd rather bring the as many of the troops home as possible, on the principle that there are better things we could be doing with our blood and money than slowing the inevitable.

In the meantime, you're doing a fine job of talking about responsibility and trying to shame those of us who do want to leave Iraq... but at the end of the day, that "indefinite" thing still comes back to bite you in the ass. Saddam was a bad guy, but getting rid of him wasn't worth the cost we've paid, and are paying, and look to be paying pretty much forever, compared to continuing containment. And as I said earlier, while that might have been hard for Tom Junod to admit three years ago, most of America has no problems saying it today.

It also seems to be lost on the non-liberal audience that most progressive Democrats (definitely including Great Orange Satan himself) are not bothered by deviation on particular issues (e.g., abortion) as on lack of dedication to the Democratic brand. So Debbie Wasserman Schultz of FL is getting raked over the coals, despite a reliably liberal voting record, because she is recusing herself from campaigning against the South Florida Republicans running for re-election, three of whom are especially targeted as possible turnovers. I know this bipartisanship warms the hearts of certain quasi-Democrats who approve of unilateral disarmament, but only for liberals—but I can't think of a single case of Republicans declaring a similar truce, and I can't imagine Karl Rove would have permitted it for one minute. (Putting a clown GOP candidate on the ballot to help Independent Democrat Benedict Lieberman doesn't count.)

Based on your inclusion of yourself as part of the "we" at DailyKos, I'll take it you approve of this behavior. Despite watching this sort of attitude increase around here in DC for the past number of years, it never ceases to baffle me that none of you get how repellent this is to people outside of your in-bred partisan circles.

Despite watching this sort of attitude increase around here in DC for the past number of years, it never ceases to baffle me that none of you get how repellent this is to people outside of your in-bred partisan circles.

Chris, containment could have been sustained indefinitely? Oh, please.

Gathering Storm detailed the impending collapse of the sanctions regime pretty clearly. I'd love to see contemporaneous suggestions that he was wrong.

A.L.

NM -

I hear you. re:

You keep telling me about current public sentiment, though -- I don't expect that to stop. My view is so alien as to be utterly irrelevant, both to you, and the people you claim to speak for.

This is why I don't post more.

Yup, that is why I cannot really join in here much. It seems to be just shouting down a well most of the time.

Michael Totten said:

There is a vast thing called the "middle" in this country. Some in the middle lean left, others lean right. These people -- and AL is one of them -- are influenced to some extent by the left and the right. That's why they're "the middle."

Most of the rabid libs here wouldn't know a reasonable liberal should said liberal bite them on the nether regions. MJT is one of the MOST reasonable liberals I have had the pleasure to read. I suggest metrico and the others go over to MJT's blog and get a real dose of what is really going on in Iraq. MJT has been there and done it. I will ALWAYS listen to his viewpoints. The rest of you, not so much.

Jim Rockford hit it on the head re: Obama with:

"Typical White person" is racist, Black racism conspiracy idiocy OK, warmed over marxism as policy, etc. Face reality, Dem politics is Moveon, Code Pink, ANSWER. That's who is the party mainstream and deciders. It's where the money and the votes in the party reside.

From where I sit, Jim is right on target here. As 'typical white person' I cannot say ANYTHING and not be branded as said racist. Like "Obama is over the top and just as racist as his pastor." AND said pastor should be immediately investigated for sedition. Some other commenter only had to say something like "the irony" to me when I complained about the unlevel playing field.

AND

Obama in a recent speech said "the proletariat must control the means of production." He is a warmed over Marxist. Which would describe the entire Dem Party.

I do not know if that is true but whoever starts bandying about terms like that is a Marxist. I know, I was begat by one of the true believers. Dad was a life long member of the Party. Yeah, that one. Edumacated at Berkeley, no less. IWW organizer way back then AND a teacher at the New School for Social Research in Manhattan in later years.

No way is Obama even good for Illinois much less the US at large. And I doubt that middle America will buy his schtick for much longer.

I am going to look forward to watching the Dems eat their own from now to November. Denver should be a bloodbath.

How's it feel to be a snack, Marc?

/snark off

AL, I think Chris had a pretty good challenge there. How exactly is maintaining an occupation going to be easier than maintaining sanctions? We'd have had amazing containment for $3 trillion and 150,000 troops. Amazing how the sacrifices you'll make for your plan, but not for ours!

Of course, the window of opportunity to have any sort of successful occupation closed long ago (if it ever exited), probably when we allowed rampant looting and lawlessness in Baghdad (except for the Oil Ministry, of course), and certainly by the time we double-crossed the Iraqi Army troops we had encouraged to desert.

"Chris, containment could have been sustained indefinitely? Oh, please."

And of course I seem to recall that the sanctions against Iraq were called crimes against humanity by most of the usual suspects.

The great thing about having no moral compass is you can call any direction "North"...

Andrew, I expect better from you. Sanctions required international cooperation, which was fast breaking down; it required international supervision, which was being bribed off. There is simply no way that sanctions as they existed could have been maintained.

So then what?

A.L.

A.L., the occupation is also breaking down, and at much greater expense.

As I posted above, the first step was for the UN inspections to finish verifying the end of Saddam's WMD program. Where to go from there is hard to say. If the idea was to prevent such programs, then relaxing the sanctions plus continuing inspections would have been a start. Yeah, Saddam would probably still be in power, but compared to the alternative… maybe not so bad.

It also seems to be lost on the non-liberal audience that most progressive Democrats (definitely including Great Orange Satan himself) are not bothered by deviation on particular issues (e.g., abortion) as on lack of dedication to the Democratic brand.

Yes, so says Kos. If his wisdom is lost on some of us, it might be because we watched him lead a lynch mob that threw away a perfectly safe Democratic senate seat in Connecticut.

If it were all about pushing the brand, Clinton would be as good as Obama - better in fact, in that she does marginally better against McCain than Obama does. If current poll trends continue, we should therefore expect good Kossacks to forget Obama as fast as they forgot Edwards.

Even you figure otherwise, and are confident that Obama's setbacks are temporary, it certainly makes no sense to alienate Clintonites, who are somewhat essential to the goal of winning and pushing the brand, etc. Yet this is what Kos is doing, apace.

So the "Democratic brand" is complete nonsense, and lucky for you, because if it were true it would be a completely repellent political doctrine. It's mindless jingoism transferred to a political party, and anybody who believes in such a thing deserves the beating they will take for it.

If you really wanted to sell your party as a brand, you should turn to marketing experts who would tell you what issues you need to sell the brand. In other words, they would tell you what to pretend to believe. They would certainly advise you to disassociate yourself from any idea or person that alienates more voters than it attracts, so a sizable number of "progressives" would have to be let go.

Kos would have to go, too. He should have been fired after that "screw 'em" business, because it's not good for business.

Andrew at 54:

I was reluctant about even posting that comment because it's a bit off-topic from AL's issues. Since you took the time to respond, though, I will clarify my point a bit and then beg off as it's getting late.

There is no "Democratic brand" to me outside of the issues. A Democrat for the sake of being a Democrat holds no appeal to me, as I am not a party apparatchik who gets a staff job from that Democrat, nor is "Democrat" the core of my identity. All I want out of politicians is to pass laws I like. I don't care if they're an ® or a (D). Party loyalty is not a substitute for your real brand which is issues, issues, issues. You (Democrats, not you Andrew personally) just sound like you want office for the sake of having power and don't care about which constituency you'll sell out to get it. I'd spend a couple of paragraphs ripping on Republicans, too, but for the purposes of this comment I'm just pointing out the problems with the purity tests for AL.

This was posted by mistake in your spinrad post.

AL

You are on the right track. As you ponder your decision, ask yourself these questions.

One, if Obama's mother was Jewish he would be considered Jewish under rabbinacal law. His mother is a Casucasian American. Why isn't Obama then considered a white candidate? The reason is in America whenever someone can be diminished because he has African blood.

Two, ask all the people whom dislike Obama because of Rev Wright why do they support McCain and some many other Republicans whom tolerate Rev John Hagee's church? He despises Catholics and the Catholic Church. How large is the Catholic population in America?; 35%?
How racist and AntiAmerican is that? Or how about Jerry Falwell whom said America had it coming on 9/11 because we tolerate gays, feminists and liberals? (see www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/13556 for more) You can't have a double standard because of race

Three, as to being comfortable with a pastor and not all of his beliefs ask any Catholic family that has had an abortion whether or not they have rejected their priest when they sought comfort from the emotional trauma an abortion brings. It is the same issue Obama raises when he gave his speech. We have to recognize our contradictions and come to grips with them.

Four, as to Obama's foreign policy. What you are looking at is where Bush's has been most successful, i.e. he will talk and negotiate with people? Think North Korea. He will end this go it alone policy of reducing everything to soundbites,"the Axis of Evil."
He isn't going to meet willynilly with anyone. For those people whom you object to he will find a military man like Admiral Fallon. This man will walk into countries, meet w/ whom ever the leadership gives him to talk and will be wearing the white gloves of a diplomat. These gloves will cover the mailed fist of the US military. The conversation will be realistic. The rhetoric coming from the White House will reflect the same quiet strength, which attracts you without knowing all of Obama's thoughts, telling them this man speaks for US and how can we ratchet down hostility and talk.

Of course, if we had started
shooting looters, the media would not have labeled it a massacre, specially if they had not been armed. The Iraqi Army wasn't
"officer-friendly," it was a Baathist clique dominated by an extended Tikriti ruling clan; they were shooting us, even before the de-Baathification decrees hit the ground. They lost all their secular scruples, joining with and empowering their supposed Baathist
foes. They also showed their stripes murdering Shia and Kurds in thosr classic military targets,
schools, mosques, hospitals. It was
only after three years of that butchery, that the Shia were finally let loose in 2006; and then it was called a civil war; not
before. The Surge, specially with
the "Awakening" counsels, gives them a chance to reconsider their
previous mistake.

To answer a second point, the inspection regime in 2002, was vastly more restricted than that in 1998; and that was not an accident. Russia's representative, guided in part by old SVR hand Primakov, who was Iraq's man in the Russian foreign ministry, and
the French establishment, represented in part by Charles Pasqua had re-written the policies
that had enabled, Kay, Duelfer, Butler & Ritter, to unearth the weapons stockpiles, post 1991. Securing the Finance Ministry, and
the Oil Ministry, which was at the core of the Oil for Food bribery
scheme, was key. At the time, we
didn't know, and we still wouldn't know except for Col. Bogdanos' unit, that apparatchkiks like Donny George, had secured the lion's share of the Baghdad museum's holdings in bank vaults through out the city.

The fact that Marcos 'Moulitsas' Kos, could get traction after posting that comment, celebrating
the butchery of his former fellow
ex soldiers (Helvenstone, Zobka, et al)is an enigma to me. The fact
that the daily Kos, continues to promulgate the kind of screeds that
Al Jazeera throws out; is one reason why their faction won't prevail in the end. The same nihilism is present in Jeremiah Wright, Rashid Khalidi, Bill Ayers, and other associates of Mr. Barry Dunham Esq.

There is no "Democratic brand" to me outside of the issues.

I suggest that too much time in DC has given you a case of "Broderitis". Outside the Beltway, there is no demand for continual Democratic surrender under the name bipartisanship.

A.L.: "Know any other liberal bloggers I could bring over to post here?"

Whatever became of AMac? I don't know whether he would appreciate being labelled as a liberal, but even when I disagreed strongly with him I found he debated issues in a liberal spirit. That's the main thing, not how you vote.

Andrew - how'd you stand on Lieberman?

A.L.

AL, I supported Lamont over Lieberman. Do the Democrats really need a senator who endorses the Republican candidate for president? Lieberman long, long ago forsook any sort of Democratic agenda for the warm feeling he got as Fox News's officially-approved Democrat.

Let me point out one more thing: in our legislatures, there's a big difference between the majority and minority party. That's another reason it's important to support Democrats in legislative races across the board (I can make an exception for corruption and turpitude), unless, like no small number of Beltway Dems, you don't really mind life in the minority. Wasserman Schultz missed this.

Andrew, I expect better from you. Sanctions required international cooperation, which was fast breaking down; it required international supervision, which was being bribed off. There is simply no way that sanctions as they existed could have been maintained.

In addition to Andrew's generally sterling arguments on this subject above, let me also point out that the vast majority of evidence I've seen on the flaws in the containment program predate 9/11. I'm not at all convinced that we couldn't have used the diplomatic leverage we got from the attacks to significantly shore up the program... especially if such shoring up was presented to other countries as the only alternative to outright war.

That said, I'll note we're stuck right where we usually are when the nominal subject of this post comes up: with me making the unanswered point that liberals simply aren't gonna pay much attention to a nominal "liberal" who mostly just trashes other liberals. Many of the conser... excuse me, "moderates", on this site assure us that AL's their friend, and really, in his heart AL's as liberal as they come.

But one of the great truths of life is that actions generally count far more than intentions. It simply doesn't matter why AL does what he does, or what his supposed reasons are for not talking to other liberals directly - the fact of the matter is that what he's doing isn't and will never impact the mainstream Democratic party, and whining about it isn't gonna change anything. Maybe, after the Democrats kick some major ass in November, this stuff'll finally get through to AL... but I doubt it.

NM-

You're misunderstanding me here. Further, evidently my attitude seems condescending to you, but you don't seem to see anything condescending in your #41. Oh, well.

#41 was mostly sarcasm, not condescension. But, I never said that I wasn't being condescending - just that you were being far more condescending. Say what you will about my comments, but I've never dodged explaining my ideas, or implied that they were somehow beyond my opponents' understanding.

there is value, if you are identified as a Democrat, in electing Democrats, whether it is to South FL congressional seats or state legislatures in red states. Howard Dean and Barack Obama understand this, while Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Hillary Clinton ("Red states I lose don't count") do not.

When are you going to admit that Kos doesn't believe his own transcendental theory of politics? The only truth in it is trivial ("Winning is good") and the rest of it is a nasty little Bolshevik committee that claims to know the difference between Good Democrats and Bad Democrats (aka "Republicans") based on vague rules that they break themselves any time they want to.

All of which made perfect sense to Lenin, who would hound his enemies out of a socialist congress and say "Better a few good Marxists than a lot of bad Marxists" but that's not how you win in any process that involves democracy.

Glen, you may recall that in The Great Bipartisan Era the Dems made no progress towards regaining Congress and continued to lose ground at the state and local level. Is it so strange for a political party to prefer winning to losing? Good Democrats understand that. We aren't suggesting "winning" by some sort of coup, but by finding good candidates, supporting them financially, and getting behind them, even when they run against your personal friends. You may recall that Jim Webb was a Daily Kos darling, so it's not that Prius-driving and latte-drinking is the criterion.

It's very telling that no one has come up with a Republican example of generosity towards Democrats in the spirit of bipartisanship. What the moderates and conservatives call bipartisanship here is what they would call unilateral disarmament, if not surrender, in other contexts.

I am sufficiently tired of the stereotypical use of the adjective 'liberal' that I propose a self administered survey: How many of you who consider yourselves as Republicans/conservatives "..consider individual liberty to be the most important political goal."? If you answered yes to this question you are by definition [see wikipedia] a dreaded LIBERAL! [The nitrate pills are probably in the medicine cabinet]. Liberal/conservative labels imply a false dichotomy when in fact 'liberalism' and 'conservatism' are merely different points on the continuum of cultural/political change. At the logical extremes of change we have stasis and entropy; with neither extreme particularly amenable to human survival. In the former case we have ultra-conservatism, the strict adherence to which would see us still fomenting against such radical new ideas as the use of fire, and in the case of unconstrained liberalism we would approximate anarchy, and would fail to thrive due to the constant throwing out of babies with the bathwater. Liberal and conservative are relative terms with little use out of context, and are certainly not mutually exclusive concepts. Unlike pregnancy you can be a little bit of either or both. This of course is heresy to those self righteous 'ideologically pure' liberals/Democrats and/or conservative/Republicans who will eat their own young to prove they are NOT, have NOT, and will NEVER embrace a word or deed attributed to the OTHER side. And so political discourse (yes, even here) often rapidly devolves into a mutual exchange of standard sound bite putdowns of the other guy's standard sound bite assertions. Its boring, and it aint useful... Shields Up

Why does HRC want to bankrupt mortgage lenders?

"Clinton also has called for a five-year freeze on interest rates for all subprime mortgages, which often go to borrowers with poor credit ratings."

source

Anyone who thinks Clinton has a chance to win this election, nows the time to lock in that 2 year arm, which HRC will make a 7 year arm for you. That can't possible backfire horribly, now can it?

Ian- this is a case where a perfectly good word has taken on a specific connotation because of the actions of the people who espouse it. The irony is that the word has been beaten so far into the ground that even the people that 20 years ago wore it proudly now run from it while maintaining the idealogy that created the stigma (see my above link to Hillary Clintons command economics).

When self described liberals start taking the word back by espousing freedom and liberty instead of big government and nannyism, im sure the word will regain its positive aura.

Andrew #72,

It's very telling that no one has come up with a Republican example of generosity towards Democrats in the spirit of bipartisanship.

McCain/Fiengold, McCain/Kennedy, McCain/Kennedy/Edwards. All of which cost him political capital and almost sunk his nomination. So I'd say not only generosity, but courage. And I say that as someone who is not particularly crazy about those particular pieces of legislation. Whereas, by the way, Obama--from what I've read--has pretty strictly voted the Democrat party-line. If he wants to argue about who is the "unity" candidate, McCain has the much better argument. And while that argument may not appeal to a fanatical Democrat partisan, it probably will to independents and moderate Democrats in November.

Sorry I wasn't more clear, Fred. I didn't mean about legislative acts, although those are few and far between. I meant the electoral generosity exhibited by Wasserman Schultz.

Interesting thread,

Metrico - It's a given here, that Armed Liberal is a neo-con wolf in liberal's clothing. Take it as done.

Every three, four months or so, someone makes the points you do - I've done it myself - replete with links on how he jumps on liberals with various right-wing b.s., masked as "concerns", or "if the democrats want my vote", etc.

But, "commenting is free", as they say, and since both left wingers, liberals, neo-cons, and right wingers post here, it's one of the few places where there is still interaction, like the old "Swords Crossed".

Because this is a small enough place, liberals don't swamp the conservatices here, because not enough liberals notice this place. Other places, such as Swords Crossed, Obsidian Wings, Balloon Juice, etc, the multitude of smart lefties simply drive the conservatives away.

That might not be the case if there wasn't a guy like Bush in office, but since there is, it doesn't give a smart conservative much to work with...

That's mighty bold of you, hypocrisyrules, to not only make the claim that Armed Liberal is completely dishonest about who he is and that every piece he's written is a lie, but that also It's a given here...Take it as done.

I think the prevalence of this sort of ad hominem attack as a substitute for honest discussion from so many "smart lefties" is a pretty big factor in why most people no longer waste their time or energy trying to discuss anything rationally with you.

HR... well, at Balloon Juice, we brainwashed the proprietor! (Not sure lightning will strike twice though.)

Andrew - well if being brainwashed means morphing into something acceptable to hypo, metrico et alia, I guess I'll have to keep my old Dirty Brain (tm Prince)...I'd grin but somehow just don't feel it if you know what I mean.

Honestly, it's frustrating to me that I've got short-sighted, immoral, corrupt fools on the right and short-sighted, corrupt, sanctimonious assholes on the left. But then I'd just get to join a team, get drunk, put on facepaint and hang out in the stands with the rest of the drunken fans.

And I love the idea, hypo, that the "smart lefties" drive out the poor beleaguered conservatives on sites; the reality is - as folks like Skippy are noticing - that the blogfolk commentariat on the left are largely a mob.

But, hey, whatever elevates your self-esteem. I was just looking at Rasmussen and realizing that you dumbasses are about to elect another Republican.

Which is bad domestically, and bad for foreign policy. But it will give you another object for your spittle-flecked rage (see self-esteem, above), and since that's what it's all about...

A.L.

Ah, AL, we didn't literally brainwash John Cole. He just drew different inferences from Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, and the shortfall in our Iraq objectives than you did. As Democrats go, he's conservative. He's also voting for Obama.

Before you get so huffy about 'smart lefties', checked the banning policy at RedState lately?

AL: "Andrew - how'd you stand on Lieberman?"

What was the point of this question? (Andrew answered it.) If we knew why AL asked we might be a bit closer to understanding what's bothering him.

At the moment my impression is that it's all about the war in Iraq. The Democratic concensus is that (1) the invasion was a blunder, (2) withdrawal is the best of the bad options available and (3) the flawed decision-making process which led to the blunder needs to be examined with a view to preventing such blunders in future. AL cannot stomach any of this.

Is that the main issue?

If we knew why AL asked we might be a bit closer to understanding what's bothering him.

I brought up Lieberman in #61, posing the same question rhetorically. It's relevant to Andrew's claim about "the Democratic brand".

You imply that there's some other reason why A.L. asked about Lieberman. Is there something bothering you?

Andrew - serious question: did you read different history books than I did? because sometimes I feel like I'm in a very small minority when I assume that in any war - in any large human enterprise - we'll see evil acts, wrong acts, foolish acts. Abu Ghreib as a 'brand' primarily (AFAIK) a drunken weekend with some brutal and out-of-control jailers. There was also some brutal treatment of prisoners - something that happens daily in jails across the USA. Should we ban them?

To a large extent, we prosecute and punish the perpetrators of those crimes - which we acknowledge as crimes. That's a useful differentiator, don;t you think?

And I'm the guy who said that counterinsurgency takes a decade, and that we ought to check in about Year 6, so forgive me for arguing for patience.

Any war - by it's nature - invites the kind of brutal acts that shade into criminality - it's one reason why wars should be carefully chosen.

Where we disagree is in the choice of the war; there's a legitimate debate to have about that, and as I've noted the war has been a strategic failure - not militarily within Iraq, but largely because we haven't learned the lesson that the military action needed to me matched by political actions led from here; and GWB has shown himself incapable of doing the basic things needed to make that happen.

So I'm not as repulsed by events in Iraq and Afghanistan as you suggest Cole was or you are because I see them as pretty typical of the things that have always happened in war, and because knowledgeable people who I trust tell me we're doing far more to prevent them than we have ever done, and possibly that any army has done.

Re: Lieberman - had he supported a Republican for President before the Lamont election?

A.L.

I just wish AL would be honest about what he really thinks, not appear to operate under a false flag of "liberal," not trash Obama periodically under the guise of supporting him, and finally offer some explanation of why that Gibney article in The Atlantic was so offensive, rather than just appearing to have jumped to the sound of Instapundit's and Michael Goldfarb's right-wing bell.

It's impossible to tell what another person is really thinking, but when all you do is propagate right-wing ideas, people draw the inference you are a stooge of the right-wing.

If you wanted to discuss Obama, for example, here's something of substance, not some conspiracy theory derived from an old sci-fi story:
The Conservative Case for Obama

metrico: there is no substance to that "case". The entire article boils down to "Let's second-guess the OIF decision and elect Obama to publicly apologize for it". The author clearly does not like McCain and feels alienated by the not-so-conservative GOP, but that is hardly a case built for a positive vote for the other side's candidate; the author never makes the case for Obama, just a tirade against the war.

Seems we recently had an election that mirrored this exact logic... John Kerry, call your office and report for duty!

Interesting contrast:
Democrats are kicking their mavericks out of the party while the Republicans nominate their's for president.

metrico, I'll say it again in small words so you can get it. I wrote my post on the Atlantic after reading the post on the Atlantic website - which I read fairly often. (It's on the non-published part of my newsfeed, available at my Bloglines feed).

I get it that you think I dance to Goldberg's or Reynold's bell; you're wrong - but since there is no way to prove the negative (well, I'll note that Glenn links to things I post here, not the other way around), keep on believing.

I'll keep on believing you're a fool. And while you haven't risen to the level of a suspension or a ban, you've sunk to a level below my interest in responding to you any more.

Rock on...

A.L.

AL, you don't respond to arguments and threaten to ban people, what's new about that?

You say you read Gibney's article, but you refused repeated requests by commenters Mark, myself and others to explain what was so offensive about it.

Instead of attacking the article on its own premise, you deliberately misquoted it, distorted its meaning and quacked along with the duckspeak of Goldfarb and Instapundit, basically:

- The MSM (Gibney, The Atlantic) is smearing the troops again

If you could explain how you construed Gibney's words "the overwhelming majority of U.S. military personnel aren't sociopaths" as meaning the opposite, or just admit you made a mistake, you might dispel the thought you are a crypto-rightist propagandist.

Sigh. OK, you're at least asking coherent questions. You make two points: a) you don't see how I arrive at my opinion of the article from the words in the article; and b) that when I wrote my post I "jumped to the sound of Instapundit's and Michael Goldfarb's right-wing bell".

OK, b) simply isn't true, and is highly offensive because it assumes that instead of arriving at my own opinions and publishing what I choose about them, I'm somehow someone's agent.

If you'll acknowledge why that's offensive, and either provide some evidence for your claim or withdraw it, I'll jump to your bell and explain - in small words - why it was offensive.

And I