Ok, as it would appear somewhat necessary, I'm going to pull the "grab a former post from CalPundit's comment archives trick, regarding one (minute)man's lonely quest to build a case for the defense in the Plame affair.

Although I'm usually not that critical of the Minuteman (except for the reflexive Krugman bashing), I somewhat think that Tom Maguire's trying to cover for Bush.

When I first mentioned the story he was quick to attack Wilson's credibility on a story about his own wife's safety, the fact that the CIA apparently confirmed it (leaving aside the question of whether the administration officials did it or not) and whether or not she really was an agent (focusing on Wilson's refusal to "out" her himself as proof of this, despite his other attacks on Wilson's credibility).

Now that her job is confirmed, he's hairsplitting over "administration" vs. "governmental" which, while accurate, may not have been as carefully thought out in the other pieces on the subject (including Novak's.) He claims that there was a careful distinction made, but look at this paragraph from the Time story:

Government officials are not only privately disputing the genesis of Wilson's trip, but publicly contesting what he found. Last week Bush Administration officials said that Wilson's report reinforced the president's claim that Iraq had sought uranium from Africa. They say that when Wilson returned from Africa in Feb. 2002... The Administration claims Wilson reported that the former Nigerien official interpreted the overture as an attempt to discuss uranium sales.

The topic sentence of this paragraph mentions "government officials", and the paragraph itself continually refers to "administration officials". Yes, there is a later section where they use the term "government officials" to refer to Tenet, but the damage is already done. Sorry, but either the Time people think that administration=governmental, or they're far, far too lazy to rigorously make that distinction. Either way, any argument of Tom's based on that article is riddled with holes.

Okay, original content again. The big problem here is that Maguire is assuming that journalists are going to be incredibly careful about what most people would consider a hairsplitting difference. Even a quick interview with anybody involved in these sorts of issues knows that journalists aren't that careful, and the original Novak piece can be interpreted in more ways than Tom seems to think. Besides, Novak remains a supporter of the administration in most respects, and almost certainly did not intend for this to blow up into a huge scandal. He may not be a big war backer, but I doubt that he's going to want to be instrumental in the downfall of the Bush administration. That would probably have an, um, somewhat noticeable effect on his career.

For all that I don't agree with him (and think that the Krugman bashing is Quixotic) I'm actually relatively fond of Tom's work and his blog. Plus, he likes Jon Stewart. I would almost prefer that his interpretation be correct as well, because if the allegations are true this goes far beyond misleading speechmaking, naughty Oval Office cigar games, or breaking into hotel rooms. Still, I don't think either is the case... I don't see the reason why the CIA would out its own agent, and intra-CIA conflict pales compared to the hatred the Agency now has for the Bushies.

Oh, and one more thing: since Time wasn't making the distinction properly, Tom, Krugman was right. It's fine, I don't need the apology, but I'm sure the good Professor would be fine with an apologetic email.

(Or perhaps a nice fruitcake? Lots of those going around right now.)

Oh, the tragedy of a fallen star.

Despite he and I having a long "history", and despite my having commented on Uday and Qusay in a fashion that clearly should have prompted a reaction, I was not included in Steven Den Beste's carefully contrived attack on those who were insufficiently joyous over the Hussein brothers' deaths.

I weep. Doesn't he care anymore? Don't I get a role in what Hesiod (who did get mentioned) aptly dubbed Den Beste's "neo-McCarthyist" attack on what Den Beste snidely calls "the loyal opposition"? What happened to the Clancy-loving conspiracy-mongering Bush-backing El Capitano that less than a year ago used to write incredibly long screeds about my fervent desire to, apparently, conquer the world?

I feel so unappreciated.

Still, I will contribute this: Steven should probably avoid saying things like this:

I think it says an awful lot about him that he thinks someone who liked to watch when men were fed feet-first into a shredding machine, so he could listen to their screams as they died, is a "lesser evil" than our current President.

...when at least one of the United States' "coalition allies" has a disturbing tendency to boil people alive. I imagine that they scream a lot too. After all, Steven wouldn't want to be seen as "objectively pro-boiling" now, would he?

Edit: Well, Steven did provide a link saying "Demosthenes comments". It's not lengthy, but it does make me feel like part of the team, and that's something. Not sure what it's "objectively pro-", but it's definitely something. As for the rest of Steven's writings, I find it extraordinarily interesting that he condones both misleading the American people and completely ignores the negative ramifications of American actions. Instead of saying "these negative things may happen, but these positive things outweigh them", he's claiming that each and every consequence of the war in Iraq is going to be unreservedly positive. (He mentions a "trickle of casualties", but places it within the context of demonstrating American resolve.)

This is, in a word, impossible. The real world doesn't work like this, and real analysis doesn't work like this. Propaganda, however, usually does; it's deeply ironic that Steven accuses Hesiod of "living in a dream world".

As a believer in pseudonymous commentary, I'm really interested in this new blogging service called invisiblog, which takes privacy and anonymity to the point of collecting no information about the bloggers in question and sending all the information through PGP and an anonymous remailer in order to keep one's identity secret. They believe they have good reasons to provide this service, and provide numerous examples:

q: Who needs that much anonymity?

a: Here are some examples of bloggers and web publishers whose life or liberty has been threatened, or could be endangered in the future:

* Salam Pax, a pseudonymous blogger claiming to be from Iraq, who posted a diary during the recent war. He has not posted since March 24; some suspect he was captured by Iraqi secret police before US forces reached Baghdad. Journalist Paul Boutin was able to trace Salam's emails to an ISP in Lebanon.

* Iranian blogger and journalist Sina Motallebi was arrested on April 19, and faces charges over the content of his weblog and interviews given to foreign media groups.

* Tunisian web journalist Zouhair Yahyaoui was arrested and imprisoned for publishing political commentary on his web site. Authorities allegedly used torture to force Yahyaoui to reveal his access passwords.

* Cuba recently imprisoned 75 dissidents and democracy activists, including a number of online journalists, for writing articles critical of the government. Many of them were turned in by informers amongst colleagues and even family. Some of their associates continue to publish on the web.

right now the whole thing is relatively primitive, but I'm very hopeful that they eventually create something whose services can (at least) rival Blogger. Here's hoping: although I like Blogger's minimal invasion of the privacy of users, they simply aren't set up for bottom-to-top privacy protection. Invisiblog is, and I'm looking forward to see what they come up with.

(There are already blogs on the site, but most are either tests or fairly banal. No matter. If the service is worth it, people will come.)

As noted by Atrios and others, questions are being raised about the operation that took down the Hussein brothers:

Certainly only a few diehards mourned the passing of Uday and Qusay Hussein; the regime’s Caligula and its Heir Apparent were if anything despised and feared even more than their dad. But as details became clearer of the raid that eliminated what the U.S. military calls High Value Targets (HVTs) Nos. 2 and 3, a lot of people in the intelligence community were left wondering: why weren’t they just taken alive?

At a news briefing today, Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, squirmed his way past that question repeatedly. It was, he said, the decision of the commander on the ground based on the circumstances and his judgment—”and it was the right decision.”

But was it? Who beside the sons might have better information about the one HVT that really matters, Saddam? “The whole operation was a cockup,” said a British intelligence officer. “There was no need to go after four lightly armed men with such overwhelming firepower. They would have been much more useful alive.”

But Sanchez insisted it wasn’t overkill. “Absolutely not. Our mission is to find, kill or capture high-value targets. We had an enemy that was barricaded and we had to take measures to neutralize the target.

“Bollocks,” said one former Special Forces soldier. “A SWAT team could have taken them. It didn’t need a company.”

No idea whether this will have any traction... to be honest, I hadn't even thought of the "why did they kill them" angle until it began showing up in Blogovia and, apparently, the mainstream press. I had just somewhat assumed that the standing orders were that Hussein and his sons were not to be taken alive, and who would challenge that? Uday was insane and Qusay was as bad as his father, if not worse. I was (and remain) somewhat uncomfortable at the idea that leaders are fair game- too much opportunity for "payback"- but I harboured no illusions about the attitude that the American (and Iraqi) public would have upon hearing this news. If they had had the opportunity, the Iraqis would have probably done something much, much worse to mad Uday and "the Snake".

Still, considering the 9/11 report and its revealing of more Bush duplicity, and considering the possible ramifications of the "Wilson's wife" story, this particular question is likely to remain somewhat academic. The real question, as I mentioned earlier, is what it means to the political scene in Iraq and in the United States. It may seem trite to bring everything back to Bush and domestic politics, but the president isn't called "the leader of the free world" because of his oratorial skill... it's because he wields more power than any other single human being on earth. Given the nature of the man that power has been entrusted to, I'd say that the 2004 election matters a great deal no matter who you are or where you live.

Ok, what the hell was with Jon Stewart tonight? He had Dick Morris on, and let Morris walk all over him, pushing Fox-style anti-Clinton spin on 9/11 without letting Jon get a word in edgewise.

The constant parade of Wurlitzer operatives on the Daily Show is, frankly, getting a little tiring anyway. What's prompting this? Is Comedy Central afraid of the "liberal" in their midst? Is Jon's producer unhappy with the direction of the show? Is it Jon himself? I'd sure like to know, because one thing that television doesn't need is yet another outlet for wingers to shout down opposition.

A quick scan of Google News has revealed that although the Wilson's wife story hasn't really broke out in the U.S., yet, it's very likely to- there have been stories about it in both the Canadian press, an Indian newspaper and, predictably enough, the Guardian. Oddly enough, however, the latter source is being quite circumspect, burying it in another story and saying only that:

There have been attempts this week, allegedly by Bush administration officials, to undermine the status of Joseph Wilson, the former ambassador who was sent to Niger by the CIA to check up on the claims. He went public with his findings and has since been the subject of leaks by the administration.

Very, very evasive... not saying what the leaks were about nor why they're important. Odd that they'd be so circumspect when the Canadian syndicate ran the story straight:

Efforts by White House officials to intimidate those who questioned intelligence used to justify invading Iraq could be illegal and must be investigated, U.S. Senator Dick Durbin said Tuesday.

Durbin demanded a Senate committee find out whether the U.S. administration illegally revealed the wife of former U.S. ambassador to Iraq Joseph Wilson works as a CIA operative. Wilson, who disputed claims Iraq was trying to buy nuclear material from Africa, said angry officials made public his wife's name and occupation.

That's much more forthright, although they're still couching it in partisan terms and highlighting "whether" things had gone this way... as if it weren't utterly obvious what had actually happened.

The most important issue for me right now is whether or not this story gets traction in the U.S. media. If anything is to be done about this crime (if indeed a crime has been committed, although it seems very likely at this point), it will have to be supported by the U.S. media, because it seems extraordinarily unlikely that Democrats like Mr. Durbin will be able to break through Republican stonewalling without the prospect of a big nasty media stink to help move things along. Krugman's column helped, as has this international coverage, but this is fundamentally a domestic matter and as such must be ultimately brought to light by the domestic media.

By the way, listen to McClellan's denial:

White House spokesman Scott McClellan denied the assertion about Wilson and his wife.

"That is not the way that this president or this White House operates and I've seen no evidence to suggest there's any truth to it."

Notice how weaselly this is- it never denies that it's possible that it happened, only that it "is not the way this president operates" and that "he's seen no evidence". Perhaps Scott wants to make sure that it isn't his ass nailed to the wall if this thing gets pursued? Perhaps he simply doesn't know Bush well enough? Whatever the case is, this is a surprisingly weak denial. Maybe they're hoping it'll go away.

A suggestion to the good Senator from Illinois- don't let that happen.

As most readers are no doubt aware, American forces were able to track down and kill Hussein's two sons, Uday and Qusay. I doubt they'll be missed too much by either the Iraqis or the Americans, and it may well provide a boost for the President's flagging credibility, as he can show that he actually has accomplished something that both the administration and the American people believed was a key goal of the war.

The real story, though, is what happens in the days ahead. There are multiple interpretations of the nature of the guerilla war being waged against the American occupying forces, but one of the most popular right now is that Saddam and his former friends and allies are behind the attacks.

If that is true, then it would stand to reason that the attacks will change dramatically in intensity and numerousness in the days ahead- either they'll dwindle due to the perception that Saddam's regime is well and truly over and the Americans are there to stay (and due to messed up C&C), or increase due to anger among Saddam sympathizers that the Americans had killed the two most important Ba'athists after Saddam himself, including his protege Qusay.

If there is no real change, however, then this implies that the resistance is not solely Saddamist enterprise, but is much more populist in nature. Whether the Hussein brothers are alive or dead is unimportant except in a symbolic sense, and the possibility exists that while the Iraqis don't want the Americans to remain, they aren't particularly sorry that the brothers are dead. Sort of a "pox on both their houses" reaction.

While I doubt that this particular analysis will be a part of the public debate on this, I think it will be indirectly understood depending on what happens. If the American public sees that attacks continue despite the Hussein brothers deaths, then they'll start wondering what exactly will calm things down. If they believe the answer is "nothing", then support for the war, and for Bush, will likely continue to drop. If the attacks do relent, then it's likely that the public will get back onside with the Bush administration.

In the meantime, though, I'd expect a spike in approval ratings.

CalPundit has verified that someone in the Bush administration did something very, very bad:

A few days ago I blogged about a David Corn column in The Nation in which he suggested that the White House had exposed Joseph Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, as a CIA operative in order to discredit Wilson himself. But Corn's column was hedged and it was unclear exactly who exposed Plame and exactly what Plame's role at the CIA was. Today, Wilson provides some additional information:

In an NBC News exclusive, Wilson says his family is the subject of a smear campaign. Wilson tells NBC News the White House deliberately leaked his wife’s identity as a covert CIA operative, damaging her future career and compromising past missions after he criticized the administration on “Meet the Press” and in the New York Times.

So according to Wilson, his wife was a covert operative, and it was White House officials who outed her.

Ugly, very ugly....

To put it mildly. Whoever did this is in very deep trouble, or should be... and as Calpundit's earlier entry pointed out, the sources are at the very least at the "deputy" level, and would not have leaked without the say-so of one of Bush's cabinet-level appointees?

So it raises the question: who was behind this?

(It wouldn't have been Tenet, obviously)

Was it Rice, who would be in line to go if the 16 words continue?

Was it Cheney, who was very likely the one pushing this thing?

Was it Ridge, although that seems unlikely?

Was it Bush himself?

And the key question: no matter who it is, will the same right-wingers that were all over Clinton's various supposed crimes come out against a person that was responsible for something far, far more serious?

Meet the funniest sentence I've read all week:

So I'll refer you to Andrew Sullivan and James Lileks for more analysis.

That Glenn, he's such a kidder.

Calpundit is justifiably skeptical of Bill Kristol and his claims that Bush's "16 words" are part of a brilliant strategy to trap the democrats. He comments that:

Conservatives are justifiably tired of the "Bush is dumb" meme, but they have a stale and self-serving meme of their own that they really ought to put to bed. It goes something like this: "Bush is unbelievably clever and all his missteps are really just part of a cunning plan to trap Democrats into self immolation.

Isn't it funny? Every time the Democrats actually attack vigorously and seem to be doing some real damage, why, they're completely missing the point! They really ought to be attacking something else! The usual candidates — by some odd coincidence — are things even more hawkish and conservative than George Bush himself is willing to advocate (nuking Mecca, calling for the dismemberment of the UN, increasing the military budget 50%, etc.).

Sad, isn't it, that Democrats are attacking the president for the peccadillo of starting a war against a country that turned out to pose little or no threat to anyone? And sadder still that Democrats can't be an "intelligent, loyal opposition" like the Republicans always were when they were in the minority, isn't it? Sad indeed....

Calpundit is right, but I'll go farther. Actually, there is a grand strategy here, but it's actually pretty stupid not brilliant, and Kristol is a part of it.

(Let's remember, please, that Kristol is not an independent actor here. He is part of the president's rolling re-election squad, and everything he says should be evaluated with that kept in perspective. Grain of salt? We need whole silos. I'll make this clear: Democrats who take their advice from Bill Kristol and the Weekly Standard are going to lose.)

At this point, I'm proposing a rule of thumb ("Demosthenes' Law", maybe, or maybe "Ellis' Law" for the guy that dubbed the term "rolling re-election squad"), a correllary to the Stanfield effect: The more we hear "it's only 16 words" from someone, the more likely it is that they're part of the rolling re-election squad, and the less likely it is that we should believe the speaker.

The strategy here is "if something goes bad, change the subject". It's been around since 2000, and since it worked fairly well then, they've been using it all the time whenever something comes up. After the election, they used it to silence criticism of that. After 9/11, the biggest argument you heard from the Republicans was "the world has changed and we need to stand together" whenever someone actually criticized Bush. When the Iraq war was being argued for, Bush and his sycophants and strategists flailed around trying to find whatever reason they could to convince the U.N. and the American people, and when the Iraq war had started, we endlessly heard "the war has started, we need to support the troops". After the occupation started, it was "war's over, move on". (Which was, of course, the real point of the "mission accomplished" stunt.)

Now that one of the flailings is being examined, what are we seeing? "It's not a real scandal. Move on" from everybody. Tellingly, though, one should look at who it's coming from, which are people, like Kristol, who have a ton to lose if this administration should lose power. Any "helpful advice" they're giving to the Democrats should be dismissed out of hand.

The reason why it's stupid, though, is because of what I've described as the "Stanfield effect". Every time someone like Kristol says "this isn't an issue" about something that so transparently threatens them and their political bosses, people are not going to buy into it; they will only remember "this thing seems to be freaking those guys out". The media will certainly respond, if only because the denial is news, and it will provide the opportunity to repeat the original charge, over and over and over again. That's why this strategy is abundantly stupid... people are going to remember the charge, not the defense, especially if the defense is "this doesn't matter". People (and the media) will decide for themselves whether this matters- the Bush administration and its flunkies can't tell them whether it will or not. With Clinton, they decided that it didn't matter, and with Bush, the media was far too cowed to do anything but report the spin. Times have changed.

So yeah, there's a strategy here, and it's worked (barely) before. Thanks to the occupation going nowhere, however, Bush isn't being seen charitably anymore, and the media ain't going to move on on Kristol's tendentious say so. To continue it is a clearly lame strategy, transparently so. Unfortunately, they may not have anything else. The rolling re-election squad is running out of ammo.

Very nice summary by Tom Tomorrow:

GOP mouthpieces can play down the lie all they want -- as if Bush had plenty of other juicy stuff to convince us that Saddam was about to nuke us all to hell.

Um... no. False. Wrong. What they're saying simply isn't true. So at least they and Bush have something in common.

It was just 16 words, they say, as if the dozens of other lies simply aren't there. And Watergate was just a 'third-rate burglary'...

Bottom line: we know -- we know -- that Bush and his flack claque PNAC had been planning military action in Iraq since long before 9/11.

And there's Bush, finally with his military in position, readying for the attack, the very day before his State Of The Union address... and suddenly (as we only later learn), pretty much everything else the White House has to paint Iraq as an imminent threat quite plainly falls apart, in ways the outside world already knows...

Gosh, what to do, what to do.

We all know what happened next.

This is why this matters- it was the only credible (as far as we knew) bit of evidence that Bush had that Saddam was even trying to develop nuclear weapons, and nuclear weapons are at the center of any argument over WMDs (a term, I might add, that was originally popularized by Rumsfeld). Without it, Bush's case was toast, and he knew it. Those '16 words' were the critical evidence of the critical reason Bush had for going to war.

(No, humanitarianism isn't even on the map there. While Bush brought that up on occasion, the timing of the attack and the necessity of military action were predicated on the concept that Iraq was a threat. Until the WMD threat had already faded, humanitarian intervention was a distant second or third on the list, largely because he knew the U.S. citizenry would never support it.)

It comes down to one question: did Bush believe that information was false when he added it, or not? If he did, then he deceived the American people even if he was "technically correct". If he believed the information was true, then he didn't deceive the American people, but somebody else did. (It wasn't Tenet, because he had already come out against it.)

So, it comes back to that old refrain: "what did he know, and when did he know it"?

There are a lot of lefties who are grinning tonight, because it looks like that "blood for oil" thing may not have been that off the mark

Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption and abuse, said today that documents turned over by the Commerce Department, under court order as a result of Judicial Watch's Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit concerning the activities of the Cheney Energy Task Force, contain a map of Iraqi oilfields, pipelines, refineries and terminals, as well as 2 charts detailing Iraqi oil and gas projects, and Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts.

"So?" One might ask. "So... why would the energy task force have been poring over contracts for Iraqi oil fields when Iraq couldn't sell the stuff? The only way that makes sense is if they knew, way back in March of 2001, that Iraq was going to be able to sell oil again. There's only one way Cheney and Co. would ever have thought that... if the U.S. had removed Saddam from power.

Wonder if the media is going to glom onto this little tidbit too.

I should probably hold off on the quick comments, the Dean thing is more important, but...

When Instapundit claims that "Some of us are trying to help them out[Democrats], but I doubt they'll listen", a little Klaxon goes off in my head.

I honestly doubt that Instapundit (and Mark Steyn, whom he was quoting) are ever, ever "trying to help out" the Democrats. Might as well take advice from Grover Norquist.

Edit: I was going to turn this into a comments entry, but should probably put it where everyone can see it.

IP readers will have noticed that Glenn is pushing the "this doesn't matter and will come back to haunt the Dems" meme. It's stupid, enormously stupid. The media are the ones pushing this (except for the newly emasculated NYT), and there's little reason to believe this will hurt the Dems. On the contrary- any trial lawyer can tell you that if someone's credibility is damaged on one issue, it'll be damaged for any other, and it's all about perception when it comes to credibility. Trying to stir up backlash on this issue would be the height of stupidity for Bush and his campaigners, even if Blair stands by the intel. At this point, the CW is set (Bush wanted to invade, was willing to bend truth to do so) and attempts to assert otherwise are entirely Stanfieldian.

Other right-wing arguments, like "it was only 16 words", "it wasn't about Niger", "Wilson was fibbing", "it was technically accurate", "Blair is still supporting it" (could he possibly do otherwise?), and "Saddam Hussein is an evil, evil man" have either been made useless by conflicting administration stories, irrelevant by new news, or in the latter case can be quickly banished by snorting audibly and showing a clip of Mo Rocca's Magic Saddam Heads.

In any case, the reason liberals are pursuing this is because it shows how poor Bush's credibility really is. This is important; not only does it make a difference for the election and blunt Bush's supposed security advantage, but it sets the stage for the 9/11 report.

(That's the real kicker. Those like Glenn that say "why not pursue 9/11 anyway" miss the point. Rest assured, once that report comes out, it will be. Difference is, now that Bush has lost his halo, the media are going to be going over that thing with a fine toothed comb.)

Ah, there's nothing like a Steven Den Beste entry:

There's at least one indisputable fact about the situation: the mass torture and summary executions in Iraq have stopped.

Um, Steve? There are a number of American soldiers and pro-American Iraqi mayors that would strenuously beg to differ on the "summary execution" part.

Well, if they could.

Edit: Greetings to those coming here from MyDD.com and Dean 2004. I'm glad to see that my comments have provoked interest and, I hope, discussion.

Courtesy of Tapped, I've discovered that Ruy Teixeira agrees with his colleague John Judis' contention that Dean is practically unelectable. It's a long entry, but the meat comes in three related paragraphs, which I'll address here. I'm not a Dean fan, but I think that Teixeira and Judis are missing some things here.

(Aziz is almost certainly going to love this.)

The essence of Judis' argument is that, while Dean can fairly be said to represent the ethos of the country's increasingly influential professional class, which plays a leading role in today's Democratic coalition, his ability to appeal outside that group and other elements of the Democratic base is likely to be poor. His aggressive antiwar stance and liberalism on issues like gay marriage will turn off swing voters, especially white working class and culturally conservative voters, and especially in swing states the Democrats need to win to build an electoral vote majority.

There are several problems with this assessment.

The first problem is his contention that Democrats will have any trouble rallying their base. My answer to that is twofold: Campaign Finance and Dubya. The latter is going to ensure that Democrats will not sit on their hands if they have any inclination to vote at all. Most Democrats are likely aware that the Republicans are going for their throats... and if they aren't now, they will be when campaign season rolls around. The base should not be a problem at all if the campaigners are at all competent, and I've seen little reason to believe that Joe Trippi is anything but brilliant. The former, on the other hand, has meant that soft money is going to be concentrated on one thing: GOTV efforts. High turnout traditionally favors Democrats, and Democrats have (ironically enough) been the biggest victims of the soft money shutoff, so Trippi should be able to draw on both devoted activists and huge soft money flows.

The second problem is the idea that the antiwar stance will hurt him. I don't see it as one, not yet. It would have been, but events have caught up with Dean's position, and Dean backers have been gleefully noting the turnaround of other Democrats. Other Democratic candidates trying to attack Bush on national security will almost certainly have their votes thrown in their faces by Republicans and their lackeys calling them "inconsistent". Dean has no such problem. (Attempts to "triangulate" national security will be, of course, entirely ineffective).

The third problem is that civil unions will hurt him. It might have been- again, not anymore. The Supreme Court has, I think, hoovered up the blame for that particular issue, and Dean's position seems almost conservative now. It may be a weakness, but I doubt it's a dealbreaker, and Judis provided no hard evidence that this will be the case. Civil Unions aren't a sole-issue vote for most people... guns are, but on that issue Dean comes out ahead. (People for guns cast their vote based on that, but people against guns usually do not.)

Ok, next paragraph:

DR is pretty familiar with the EDM thesis and can assure TAPPED and MyDD that there is no contradiction. The key point is that political leadership involves building coalitions that reach outside your base and absorb independent and moderate voters who are leaning your way. Clinton's strength was being able to synthesize the views of professionals with those of older elements of the Democratic coalition and present that synthesis in a way that made enough independent and moderate voters feel it was safe to vote Democratic. That includes the white working class and culturally conservative voters Dean is likely to have the most trouble with.

I like Ruy's EDM thesis, but he's too wedded to it here. If America had high turnout, then I'd agree with him that the most important issue is building coalitions "outside your base" and "absorbing independent and moderate voters leaning your way". America, however, does not have high turnout, and it has noticeably low turnout in exactly the demographics that Dean is aiming for: young, left-leaning, working class, and minorities.

My response is to once again turn to Steven Schier's brilliant By Invitation Only, and draw a distinction between mobilization and activation... the former being the sort of broad based popular coalitions that Ruy refers to, and the latter being the deliberate targeting and political enabling of groups of likely voters that candidates believe will vote for them. Schier points out that the latter has been utterly dominant for at least a decade now, and that it is far less important that you have broad-based support than have supporters that are dedicated, will work for you, will pay for your campaign and will vote for you. Voters outside of these carefully chosen "activated groups" are generally ignored for a very simple reason- they're either almost certainly not going to vote for you, or not going to vote at all. To talk about "coalitions" is misleading: broad is dead and narrow is king.

So how does this relate to Dean? It relates to Dean because he appears to be attempting to "activate" groups that have been traditionally underserved- partially through the "straight talk" bit, partially by relying on Democratic anger, and partially by running a campaign that seems tailor-made to attract younger voters (though meetups and the like). Trippi's focus on activists is no accident. He's fully aware that the best way to activate groups that want to vote for you are activists, as "word of mouth" can sell a candidate as easily as a movie. Yes, this may only mean a 5-10% difference overall, but remember the last election. Even 1% is a win. Even if not quite enough independent and moderate voters move to Dean to give him a win, if they sit on their hands and if Dean can activate groups that hadn't previously voted, it will not matter. This also is the death knell of the "Dean=McGovern" argument, because politics in 1972 did not even remotely resemble politics now in these respects. Parties were stronger, elections weren't so candidate-driven, campaign finance was a completely different story, and "activation" tactics (as well as the incorporation of media) were much weaker. Oh, and there was no Internet. Just ask Jesse Ventura how important the Internet can be to insurgent campaigns.

Besides, Bush has done a great job of polarization, and as people are constantly pointing out, on issues the Dems come out ahead. Moderates that don't want to see Bush take the country even further right will go to the Dems, Dean or no Dean. Civil Unions won't change that.

Ok, final paragraph:

Really, it seems to DR that Dean supporters' main argument has to be that the Dean straight talkin', McCain mojo, aggressive alpha-male thing will obviate any need for the kind of electoral finesse displayed by Clinton. Independents will hear that straight talkin' and they'll rush to sign up, especially as the administration continues to dissemble on Iraq, etc. But DR believes that not all independents are created equal and that Dean's approach and persona is still likely to yield its most success with socially liberal, upscale independents in relatively liberal states.

I'll break this into two sections: the first two sentences and the last one.

The first two sentences, unfortunately, are bog ig'nint, and I'm surprised at Ruy's cavalier attitude here. Dean is clearly trying to position himself as the classic outsider, which is nothing new... but is also trying to tap into the "Perot/McCain/Ventura" group of people who dislike your standard "outsider" politician but are drawn to those who appear to have a "fresh" outlook. (The standard "outsider" is nothing akin to fresh nowadays. Witness Dubya.) It's not quite insurgent and not quite populist, but contains elements of both, and most importantly it activates previous non-voters, which is precisely what is at stake here. This sort of tactic won't win by itself, but any Dem candidate can count on heightened turnout in the face of political strife and uncertainty. Dean stands a good chance of scooping up votes. Still, this very sentence raises a question: Instead of pulling out this kind of nonsense, why hasn't Ruy looked and found out exactly what their argument is?

The flaws of the latter sentence are similar. Yes, not all independents are created equal. And? The assertion that Dean's approach will yield most of its success with "socially liberal, upscale independents in relatively liberal states" is entirely unsupported, and bears a faint whiff of having been pulled out from a very dark and unpleasant place. (The civil union/Iraq issues were already addressed above- it's telling that he ignored guns.) Ruy also seems to forget that the liberal--independent--conservative axis is only one of dozens that factor into voting choices. He's making too much of an near-arbitrary distinction. I will admit that Dean must avoid "running up the vote" in states he's likely to win simply as a Democratic candidate, but the belief that Trippi doesn't know what his candidate is up against is awesome in its arrogance. That ain't Democratic, Ruy. Just like any other candidate, Dean needs to find the proper groups to activate within each state. No, this wouldn't work if everybody voted. (Un?)fortunately, they don't.

The one other argument that wasn't contained in these paragraphs- that southerners won't vote for a northerner- does contain some merit. If that's a problem, though, we'll see it in the primaries, and in polling prior to the primaries. Dean supporters seem to believe that the "honest and angry" approach will bridge the north/south divide. Personally, I will respond with one question: isn't Kerry a northerner too?

Again, this is not to say that I support Dean, although I do believe that his fight for a full-throated, proud, and angry Democratic party is sound and necessary. The arguments presented here, however, are in my opinion weak political science... and the constant "Dean=McGovern" refrains are at times tired, lame, and tendentious. They illustrate the dangers of analysis based solely on historical comparisons- they tend to obfuscate the present through the clouded lens of the past. Sorry Ruy and John, but this time, I think you're all wet.

In an attempt to improve readability, I've switched the background of the "blog" section of the page to straight black. Hopefully that will spare the eyes of some of my older and/or crankier readers.

(No, this isn't the template change I was talking about, just a quick switch. The template change will be to one of the new blogger ones, once I figure out which one I prefer.)

If what Bob Novak, David Corn and Calpundit say is true, it's possible that senior Bush officials (someone on Calpundit points out "deputy level or higher") may have blown the cover of a CIA agent for political purposes. This is terrible news if true. It threatens her life and the lives of others, it ruins her career, and (as Mark Kleiman points out), it's a crime punishable by five years in prison. Kleiman hopes that it's wrong, and that we aren't looking at the possibility that the Bush administration has sunk to a level of political depravity unmatched in American history.

I'm with Kleiman on this:

But this latest -- if true, which we, or at least I, don't know -- would involve a completely different magnitude of villainy. Deliberately outing one of your own spies as an act of political revenge would be a truly unforgivable deed, and one that wouldn't become any more forgivable if tomorrow MI5 produced an invoice for 300 tons of yellowcake with Saddam Hussein's signature and thumbprint on it as the recipient.

Somebody needs to follow this up. This must not be buried.

This was said by Zizka in one of Max Sawicky's comment threads about Jane Galt, but it could just as easily apply to any number of online right-wingers, including good ol' Instapundit:

I get the impression that she's a non-Democrat first and a libertarian second, and that nothing whatever could bring her over. At any given time she'll choose the most plausible possible reason for opposing the Democrats, shifting positions as necessary as the Republican position deteriorates, while always hanging on to some figleaf of libertarian independence.

I honestly can't think of anything I have to add to that.

Edit: It would appear that this is a hoax- Dave from the commentary threads linked to a snopes entry that debunks the hoax. I'll leave the entry up, and just say that I'm nothing but pleased that it turned out to be untrue.


This is pathetic:

MONTREAL-- Metallica are taking legal action against independant Canadian rock band Unfaith over what they feel is unsanctioned usage of two chords the band has been using since 1982 : E and F.

'People are going to get on our case again for this, but try to see it from our point of view just once,' stated Metallica's Lars Ulrich. 'We're not saying we own those two chords, individually - that would be ridiculous. We're just saying that in that specific order, people have grown to associate E, F with our music.'

Metallica filed a trademark infringement suit against the indie group at the US district court for central California on Monday. According to the drummer, the continued use of the two chords causes 'confusion, deception and mistake in the minds of the public'.

Ulrich states that he's not trying to prevent Unfaith from using the two chords, only that he feels Metallica should be credited for them whenever used, and is calling for 50% of all revenue generated from any song using them.

"It's nothing personal against them," he added. "We intend to enforce our rights with any band intending to use Metallica-branded chords in the future."

Words cannot describe how much contempt I have for Lars Ulrich and this nonsense suit. It is an insult to the professions of songwriting and performing, it renders farcical the entire concept of trademark and copyright, it sullies the reputation of metal/hard rock/whatever during a period where, frankly, musicians within that genre have enough trouble getting respected, and it makes Metallica look like a group of whiny children who are so afraid of irrelevance and their own lack of creativity and artistic skill that they have to launch a suit over a pair of guitar chords.

And all this in a day and age where sampling is not only tolerated, but understood as a way in which one type of music or kind of song can be manipulated and reinvigorated to become something entirely new and fresh. (It can also be tripe, of course, but that's the case with anything.) Napster was one thing, but this is quite another.

Metallica is beneath contempt.

Someone needs to let Frank Gaffney know that pulling out the "objectively pro-Saddam" trick isn't going to work anymore. Not that he hasn't given it a try:

Somewhere, probably in Iraq, Saddam Hussein is gloating. He can only be gratified by the feeding frenzy of recriminations, second-guessing and political power-plays that are currently assailing his nemeses: U.S. President George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair.

The hysteria surrounding charges that faulty British intelligence about one aspect of Saddam's nuclear weapons program -- and a Bush 2003 State of the Union allusion thereto -- may even be emboldening Saddam to believe the unimaginable: He might yet survive (physically and perhaps politically) the current pair of U.S. and British leaders, just as he did their predecessors in the wake of Operation Desert Storm.

It is hard to believe that Americans of any political persuasion would actually want to gladden the heart of so vile a tyrant as Saddam Hussein, let alone to encourage those who seek his return to power. This is particularly true in light of the evidence of his regime's odious predations that have come to light since Iraq's liberation.

The rest of the article is garden variety pro-Bush spin, worth neither your time nor mine. (For the curious, it attacks Democrats, misinterprets "learned", asserts the existence of WMDs to the consternation of a desperately begging question, blames the CIA, and assumes that since "everybody else did it" it must be ok.. despite the fact that "everybody else" didn't invade and conquer Iraq.) What grabbed me is how poorly this sort of attack on the loyalty of critics seems to fare these days- it may be present on a few of the blogs, but most of the president's supporters aren't brave (or stupid) enough to try to paint critics as "objectively pro-Saddam". Largely, this makes sense- Saddam is indeed no threat now, and the question is now whether he ever was and whether what exists in Iraq now is a worse threat. Cries of "treason!" fall on deaf ears. There are also huge problems in attacking the patriotism of those who are consciously moving to a position of advocating honesty and forthrightness, and even more in criticizing those whose questions are supported by soldiers and their families. It is more proof, however, that the media's position is shifting. Quickly.

Well, most of the media. The fact that the National Post is backing Bush isn't surprising, as it has been been a tireless champion of the neo-conservative project since its founding. What makes this Op/Ed newsworthy in-and-of itself is that it's so laughably ineffective and transparent that it's almost jarring. Yes, the National Post is in a steep decline that is on the verge of a death spiral (as the other Canadian national, the Globe and Mail, gleefully details whenever possible), and it always has had a problem with being less a purveyor of news than spin. It should be no surprise that weak and vaguely pathetic editorials would appear in its pages.

Still, it says something when your Op/Ed pieces would be an embarassment to a fifth-rate blogger.