Israel rejects French truce proposal - I agree with that, and I assume they were prepared for such an initiative from usual parties - signing onto anything right now because of 'international' pressure would not serve their purposes, which as I've said should be to refurbish Israeli 'deterrence' credibility post Lebanon and debase Hamas' 'honest partner for peace' and 'legitimate elected body' credibility - still, issue of proportional response will become problem, which is why I say in order to retain strength of upper hand and optimal leverage Israel should continue air war, with vague threats of invasion, for several more days, and then just unilaterally stop with vows that if Hamas does not agree to renew the cease fire within a certain timeframe, a week sounds good, then miliatary operations will begin again - a return to hostilities will create an impression of pressure to escalate to invasion, but invasion would not be in best interests - unless taken to logical conclusion of complete surrender - keep up pressure as I've stated and Hamas will have no option but to concede if it hopes to remain viable - but timing is important because any ceasefire cannot appear to come at the behest of the 'international community', such would only serve Hamas' interests since Israel would inevitably be cast as the evil aggressor - Israel must either utterly destroy Hamas, which I don't see as feasible within any reasonable limits, or force it to bend to their will by agreeing to renew the ceasefire. Of course Hamas, realising it probably has no good options here if Israel plays it right, may refuse to concede - but as long as Israel is seen to offer an out, which is essentially a return to status quo ante, then I don't see how a refusal to concede will stand them in good stead with the majority of Gazans - but then one cannot discount the irrational tendencies often evidenced in the region rising up to screw over my careful calculations...

"... they say their goal is to stop Hamas firing missiles into Israel... to me that's a mistake to announce such since it's probably impossible to do, unless of course one is prepared to destroy Gaza... which may indeed be a good idea... but unless you're prepared to do that don't make promises that would require it... as well Barak says the operation is just beginning... again, I don't see why you'd want to box yourself into a corner like that... you take away the option of just stopping right now and acting as if all your goals have been met... I mean, Hamas is going to claim victory no matter what happens, but the limited credibility of these claims will be very much compromised if no one really knows what you're ultimate intentions actually were... and certainly destroying Hamas' credibility is a much more practical goal than attempting to destroy Hamas itself... it's no easy thing to root out an ideology, and indeed anything that allows purveyors of an ideology to portray themselves as sympathetic victims lends a false strength to their cause... but preparing the ground for an ideology's slip into irrelevance?... doable..."

Did I confuse Obama with the loathsome liberal base that wildly cheered his ascension? If I did it's because he welcomed, encouraged the confusion. What little of substance his past revealed suggested with as much clarity as was possible that he and the base were of the same mind - and clearly he would not have won the nomination if he had proclaimed to that base that he planned to govern as a more moderate version of Bill Clinton - but be that as it may it would not seem amiss at this point to suggest that Obama apparently distrusts the sympathies of said liberal base as much as I do. Still difficult to draw conclusions as to what this means - not only has the dust not settled I'm not even sure it's been properly stirred up yet. I do find myself leaning to the conclusion that the man is a rather ruthless and cunning - what should I call it - rationalist? Let's face it, the real value of democracy is not that it allows us to vote for our leaders, a vote that is more often than not tainted by ignorance, illusion, delusion, an abiding disinterest and impatience with vexing details, tainted by any number of flaws - no, the real value of democracy is that it allows us to amend those errors of omission, commission and submission in a somewhat orderly and regular fashion - moderation by consensual negation, that's the rub I imagine. If Obama holds a similarly cynical view of the electoral process and therefore was at peace with exploiting it to his advantage by pretending to be one thing in order to be a something else once elected - well, then I can't help but be intrigued by that, regardless of the merits of it.

"... look, we've all been in rooms where the smartest person in the room was not the smartest person in the room... by which I mean... you know, evidently there's some debate as to whether or not Elizabeth was a great leader, but regardless it seems clear that she was at least a very good leader. Still, given that, I don't doubt that, although certainly a woman of rare gifts and keen intelligence, it does not seem misplaced to suggest she probably wasn't the intellectual equal of Burleigh or Walsingham... but would anyone here argue that either of them would have been more effective regents...?"

My response to pundit re Obama's brain:

“… but displayed little interest in refereeing disputes…” - the implication seems to be that Bush wasn’t smart enough to compete against the ambitious big brains around him but because Obama is a bright guy he’ll do better - but it wasn’t just Bush that was out played, Rice was and so was Powell, not exactly simpletons. People put too much emphasis on intelligence - I’ve known plenty of Phds who I wouldn’t trust for a second in a crisis with my life. Savvy, cunning, a certain ruthlessness, the gift of good instincts and the wisdom that comes of hard experience are often more important qualities for a leader to possess. So it is I can look at Obama right now, at his emphatic move to the center in direct contradiction of the rhetoric that brought him to power, and I can say: this is good, he’s a cunning bastard, I want that in a leader; or, this is bad, he’s weak, he’s afraid of power and is relinquishing control to the Clintonites - not that handing some control to the etceteras would be bad in and of itself, but if it comes or came to that because of weakness, well, that could prove problematic - almost certainly would, actually.

Level of intelligence is of course important but after a certain point how smart a person may or may not be does not especially factor in when considering leadership skills. In fact, too much intelligence may impede leadership if the effect of it is to make one shy as regards action and the use of force, primitive devices when measured against an ideal logic.

My consolation, as a person who thought Hillary the best fit for President in these trying times, my consolation so far would appear to be that Obama is giving every indication that he plans to govern as a pragmatic centrist comfortable with the use of military force, which is how I viewed Hillary and why I supported her. Whether this change in him is a ruse, a feint, a delaying tactic, a sign of weakness or a showing of his true colours, I don't know - what is clear though is that for the moment anyway Obama seems to have no enthusiasm for being the President he campaigned to be but apparently some interest in being the President Hillary in theory would've been. Curiouser and curiouser...

Well - Hillary almost certainly in as SecState, an ex-Marine looking set to become the NSA, a good chance Gates staying on as SecDef, a fiscal conservative in at Treasury, refugees from the Clinton administration sucking up White House jobs like candy on Easter - it's pretty clear Obama is moving, has moved to the center. Question is what does it all mean? Is he really a pragmatic centrist? If so, does that mean he's also therefore a cunning rationalist who saw the electoral process for what it is - a farce [recent poll revealed that only 2% of Obama voters actually knew anything about his policy positions before voting] - and did what he had to do to get elected and now being elected will have his way with the beast on his terms? Or has he [happily?] relinquished control of the process to the unstained-by-idealist-fancy Clintonites he's surrounded himself with? If so, would that mean he really has no governing ideology - and if that's true what then will he do with all the uber lefties who spearheaded his election when they grow restive and disillusioned? Or is it simply that the full weight of the burden he has taken on has forced him into a change of posture?

Despite my endless playing of Cassandra to Obama's Troy there was always a chance that the man who ran for President would be significantly different from the man who is President - but even if that's the case here it's still far from clear how real the difference is - and, possibly of more import, what exactly is motivating it.

This curious, a small thing but quite revealing: Sarkozy discussing - defending his 'negotiations' with Russia over Georgia states France [meaning 'he' no doubt] was there to defend the interests of peace and human rights when no one else, and he specifically alludes to Bush here, was willing to. He mentions human rights again when goes on to defend France's meddling in the most recent war in Lebanon. This view of the good people do versus the bad they do, the relationship between the two - well, it's very liberal isn't it? I'd say a lot of the apprehension about Obama centers on this notion of a coming to power in America of a French view of the world, this aura of a 'new enlightenment' that swirls around him. This idea of human rights existing outside of conflict, as if conflict is just this ugly thing which gets in the way of some perfect, pre-existing condition - well it's a very French enlightenment take on things, no? Put simply, your basic conservative, realist, Hobbesian take on things is that everything we might view as good in our society is tied to, was generated by, is rooted in something bad and progress, as we know it in the West anyway, is a result of a delicate and oftentimes paradoxical balance between the two. Seems to me Sarkozy's casual delineation of the Georgian conflict states dramatically the opposing liberal view of human history. It is yet to be revealed if Obama shares that view or if he was just being somewhat Machiavellian in allowing his rabid supporters to believe he does.

"... well, you see, I'd say my whole problem with the... Obama thing... came about when the writer of a military blog I used to frequent came out of the closet as a fervid supporter of the man and started larding his posts with Obama goo... cheesy sloganeering... my god, regularly terminating ostensibly sane and objective discussions with the excruciatingly insipid catch phrase 'Yes We Can!' - exclamation mark included!! It was sad and sickening... one couldn't help wondering that if a military man, a Capitan in the army who'd done a tour in Iraq, if such a man could be reduced to shamelessly regurgitating this gibberish... with giddy punctuation!!... well then, who could know how diminished the empire would be after Obama and his maudlin crew had done gaying it up..."

Seems odd doesn't it that Hillary supposedly being considered for Secretary of Sate post? Not sure what to make of that. I don't see her and Obama being compatible when it comes to foreign policy questions - unless of course he was just playing the part of a super liberal in order to get elected and is actually a hard nosed realist in process of slipping out of sheep's clothing, as it were. Doubt it's simply a rumour that has spun out of control - in which case he either legitimately is considering her or merely wants to appear like he's legitimately considering her, much like the rumour of him retaining Gates as SecDef which I thought may be a ruse designed to give Obama the illusion of bipartisanship, the illusion of being comfortable with tough military stances.

Now, if both Hillary and Gates end up in his cabinet? Would certainly suggest he was playing possum during the election - and probably require me to recalibrate my opinion of him. Likewise, though, if neither shows up in the cabinet that'd be a strong indicator of Obama being exactly who I fear he is.

Actually, there is a third option here: I have speculated that Obama has no real interest in governing, in leading per se - rather, he just wants to be seen as being in the lead - he was only interested in getting elected and would like nothing better now than to delegate to his multitude of advisers while he wanders the world giving pretty speeches. This was just a wild guess on my part based loosely on observations of the guy, how he carries himself, how he speaks and then tying that to his rather flimsy record - in short, I thought that maybe he was just all about the show. I bring that up because I've read that some of his people are pushing hard for Gates and Hillary but he himself remains aloof. If true that could mean several things, one of which certainly being that even if Gates and Hillary end up in the cabinet that would not necessarily mean at all that his governing ideology has been defined - it could simply be a sign of confusion or acquiescence - or of an image conscious man looking for people he can scapegoat later on, possibly for the purposes of appeasing a restive left.

And yet another option which was floated on talk shows this morning: bring Hillary into the cabinet as a way to neutralize her as a rival power. Certainly possible, but weakening her by giving her more power? Don't know about that. Yeah, it worked for Tony Soprano, but for it to work for Obama, Hillary would have to be unaware of his true motives, which quite obviously wouldn't be the case.

status quo - liberals call those who voted in favour of Proposition 8 'intolerant'. Seems obvious, but to reject is not to be intolerant towards even though said rejection insinuates that one finds intolerable certain aspects of the thing rejected. No doubt many who voted in favour did so at least in part because they don't like being told that if they hold a valid opinion in opposition to someone else's possibly valid opinion they are perforce bigots, they no doubt squirm uncomfortably at the notion that there can be only one legitimate view to have on this issue and to not hold that view shames one's soul. The crude equivocations of social activists truly grate: I understand they need people to think about gay marriage in the same ways they do racism and sexism and therefore they have to or feel they have to deploy supercharged language - but the analogies are specious. We talk about equality of the sexes but we would never force men and women to share public toilets, would we? People are too complex to be uniformly categorized under what amounts to an allusive abstraction - concepts lose some or much or sometimes all of their utility at a certain point after exposure to reality. Marriage is not merely a right enabling some lofty concept, it is a vital social artifact whose weighty significance, like burial of the dead, is both practical and metaphorical and deeply rooted in the cultural norms of the Western tradition. Doesn't mean you can't change it - but it does mean if you change it you can't then pretend its meaning remains unchanged. It's not to behave like some ignorant bigot to worry about the consequences of such a change or to wonder if the greater good is not being held hostage by the narrow concerns of a discontented few. In a free and open society we are obligated to hear peoples complaints, render them the respect they are due and then act to address grievances should action be deemed necessary or appropriate - should action be deemed necessary and appropriate - the constitution does not guarantee that one's opinions will be held as self evident truths simply because one holds them.

I must admit to being a bit bewildered by claims of how electing a black president changes the racial dynamics of America. Could be because most [all] intellectuals writing about this in a public forum have little to no real experience dealing with, working with, socializing with normal [ie having modest, low or no education] people of a different race, ethnicity, whatever. If they did they would understand that all races etc fear and feel intolerance towards things that are not like them. People, all people, have a problem with other people who don't look like them because implied in that difference is the threat that the 'others' do not or will not act like them. It's all about culture, cultures that are foreign - and it's an entirely natural human response, natural because people worry about their security and security is about among other things expectations. I've worked with Indians who hate blacks who hate Asians who hate Mexicans who hate etc etc etc. It's not that highly educated people are smarter and therefore above such things it's that education is a great homogenizer - ie anxiety re expectations is mitigated - or, possibly more accurate, hidden.

I suppose a lot of intellectuals are just not comfortable with stating the obvious: Obama has the education of a privileged white kid, the mannerisms of a privileged white kid, the verbal patterns of a privileged white kid, the everything of a privileged white kid - the only thing black about the guy was his wacko preacher and he cut him loose! If you're saying Obama being president changes some racial dynamic involving black people then you either have no legitimate conception of how people think about race or you're implying act like you were raised a privileged white kid and everything will be ok... which, well, seems a bit racist, no? Not to mention you ignore the fact that by and large blacks have spent the last generation defining themselves in opposition to a white ethos - what, they're just suddenly gonna drop that whole black culture thing 'cause the half brother with the Harvard education is president? Don't think so. Fact is people - well, educated people - working scum have absolutely no problem expressing themselves on this issue - people are not comfortable talking in real terms about race because to do so honestly would be to admit to an ugly truth - and thus this rather inane offering up of the lie of Obama, that somehow things are now changed...

I will admit to some agreement with the whole white guilt thing, Obama being restitution for the sin of slavery etc etc - but I'd tend to put it more ironically and say it's payback: we're at war and we elect an uber liberal whose sentiments, whose predisposition, whose philosophical wherewithals are probably not in keeping with the demands of war - whose whole career was based on seeking out the support of anti-war types and whose opposition to the present war was fundamentally flawed, illogical and in the narrowest of ways, self serving. Yeah, looks like payback to me...

"What... are you saying racism is nothing more than completely rational human behaviour?"
"Ah... sure. Why not. But in an entirely irrational way of course."
"But..."
"Ok, maybe I don't know what I'm talking about. Or maybe I just think I know what I'm talking about..."
"How is that a difference?"
"Look... look... people feel fear, right? Everything they think about other people is based on that. That's all I'm saying. You can no more get rid of racism, or any other nonsense one man might do to another, than you can get rid of fear - lofty speeches to the contrary not withstanding."
"Sounds to me like you're trying to make excuses for your own shortcomings."
"Yeah? Well, why don't you go fuck yourself. How 'bout that?"

"Why do you have to be such a downer, such a party pooper, such a curmudgeon, such a god damned stick in the mud?" she asked. "You can't allow that people feel good about electing the black guy, that people look forward to change, that they tend to prefer hope over despair?" she continued, and with some sincerity I think, as if she wouldn't mind an answer but felt in all honesty that the question obviated the need for one.

"I'm quite content to indulge people their little fantasies," I evenly replied. "After all, it's not like one has a choice, really: you can tell a dog to stop behaving like a dog and it may comply in some way - but it's still a dog. No, I don't mean any harm... it's just that I'm the type who, when I first meet someone, as I'm shaking their hand I'm thinking all the time 'so what's this one's problem'... I'm a 'what's wrong with this picture' kind of guy... and the more people I see standing around admiring the picture, the more suspicious I become."

She looked at me with just enough pity that it could have been mistaken for kindness if she didn't find me so pitiful. "You're a sad, sad creature," she said.

"Yeah," I said, turning away as if to contemplate something at a great distance. "Doesn't mean I'm not right..."

so, it's E day - guess Obama will win. Ah... ya think? Hell, he better - a loss would probably amount to the greatest electoral shock ever and send liberals into such a bitter despond that academia will needs shut down, Hollywood starlets will wander out of their compounds sans rouge, teased hair, Kabbalah quick reference guide, crack whores will stop swapping food stamps for easy hits, too sour on life to continue their remorseless destruction of it - end times will be at hand.

Simon in Politico today referred to McCain's run for President as probably the worst ever mounted. Can't argue with that. His refusal to reference Wright and the incoherence viz Palin will go into the blunderers' hall of fame. Still, have to give Obama and his staff their due - ran two smart and efficient campaigns - albeit aided and abetted by two dim and inefficient opposing campaigns.

guess I should feel vindicated - I have been talking about an Obama presidency [in entirely negative terms of course] for almost four years now.

it is fascinating though to hear how many are referring to this election as 'history in the making' and 'most important ever' - don't need to be a genius to read subtext there. Thank god media bias is just a phantom of GOP paranoia.

afterthought - seeing how soundly he's been defeated, I wonder if McCain's refusal to bring up Wright was because, knowing he had no chance, he didn't want to be seen or remembered in defeat as 'that kind of politician'? Possible. But the time to bring up Wright was at the beginning, when victory was imaginable, as part of a strategy to define Obama as too liberal - so that excuse really doesn't wash. But, hell, would it have mattered anyway? Didn't the republicans need to lose? They literally are the Grand old Party - a good rethink is definitely called for - because even if Obama fuck's up as badly as I imagine he will and the GOP finds itself back on top four years from now it still seems like the ground has shifted, the dynamics have changed - I don't see how this constant hectoring on god, guns and abortion gets you very far on the road that lies ahead, especially with the way immigration is disturbing the demographics. America will remain a fundamentally conservative country - conservatism is in the DNA of all empires, is probably a requirement of empire - but will it be a conservatism that todays Republican base recognizes or can feel comfortable with? I tend to think probably not.

Then again, if Obama governs as his past suggests he might, as an uber liberal, then who knows what twists await.

"You'd actually be comfortable with that bitch Palin being only a heartbeat away?" she asked, the anger rising in her eyes, which got me to thinking that it's too bad I dislike her so because, god damn it, I could really like this girl.

"No, not particularly," I answered. "But neither would I be comfortable with that blowhard Biden being only a heartbeat away and I'm definitely not comfortable with Obama being no heartbeats away at all."

"He's the better choice," she replied with a defiance that made it clear that words for her at this moment were a poor substitute for spit. My heart raced. "A fool could see that."
"You mean of course it would take a fool to see that."
"You're an asshole."

"Hmmn. It's possible. What's not possible is, given the options, to make a good choice here. Although one very much so can make a bad choice..."

"... one could say, could contend, that the whole point... crux of this election... is the potentiality of a coming to power of a political ideology that distrusts... or outright dislikes... hates the erstwhile American way... hell, the way of empires in general... and believes that a new age is dawning where raw power, expressed most practically in military and economic terms, but also more figuratively as a cultural ethos defined, amongst other things, by its relation to certain aspects of the nation state, that such is of diminishing relevance and thus prone to having its place in world affairs usurped by... reason... cooperation... a sympathy for others most commonly made manifest by a joyous communion with amorphous internationalism. In short, the whole point of this election is that if Obama represents the coming to fruition of such a thing... and there's nothing in his past to suggest that at the very least his most ardent supporters don't view him as such... then what emerges darkly from this shadowy confluence of events and conditions is a scenario where America will both appear to be weak and in fact be weak ... a disquieting combination for us but a rather welcome realignment for those that wish us ill... assuming of course that said zealotry of the young ideologues is misguided... which I for one most certainly believe it is..."

"... leadership... what does it mean to lead... when Caesar, as a young man, was taken hostage by pirates and held for a ransom, and he, possibly with what would seem unwise intemperance, swore to his captors that once released he would hunt them down and crucify them all... and then, when released, did exactly that... well... how do we know the roots of great leadership are not to be found there? Sure as hell can't see Obama doing such a thing... and I say that only half in jest..."

As the election winds down and an Obama victory practically assured I think it useful to remind that although the economy dominates now it is with foreign policy that Presidential decisions are most dramatically felt. Sure, republicans and democrats have different approaches to economic issues and those differences matter; and sure, there's a strong likelihood that Obama will have a super majority to work with in Congress and that could skew expected outcomes - but the economy in general, especially given the global nature of it now, tends to have a mind of its own and rises and falls independent of political meddling - and even if one is generous in factoring in meddling the President's role there is a little hit and miss, somewhat superficial. Yes, monetary policy by the Fed and bits of legislation enacted by Congress played significant roles in current economic meltdown, but would any of that not have been the case had there been a different President? I don't see it. Economics is such a specialized discipline that most Presidents are entirely dependent on the specialists in their cabinet - and with those specialists then being pretty much dependent on the views of the business community... well, you see, I tend to believe a President's impact on the economy is limited - although all bets are off if Obama gets his super majority.

No, it's with foreign policy that a President's legacy is largely made and his effect on the well being of the country, both present and future, most strongly felt - that is, when we're talking about great countries, super powers, empires - and that of course is what we're talking about here. And so it is that an Obama presidency troubles me deeply - or, maybe more accurately, that the near delusional enthusiasm lavished on such a prospect by his acolytes troubles me: they've convinced themselves, without any corroborating evidence, that he is ready to lead - but to lead properly he's going to have to disappoint them, possibly bitterly disappoint, because their idealized enthusiasm is too far to the left to meet effectively the hard realities that necessarily will present themselves - and so, what will Obama do then? Lead or cave? Be decisive or equivocate? Will he seek to protect his popularity or make the tough decisions that imperil it? Will he reveal himself to be an enlightened moderate comfortable with the sometimes cruel dictates of realism or a benighted ideologue serving the naive idealism of a left wing agenda? These are the questions people should be asking - these are the questions that could come back to haunt.

"... records show that backbone of Obama's huge money advantage is comprised mainly of large donations coming from California... which pretty much validates and reaffirms my dislike... dislike possibly too harsh... distrust of the man and the insufferable mob following after him... insufferable... yes, well, apparently dislike not too harsh after all... "

Then again, the Ayers attack does in essence become a smear if you don't frame the argument properly - and having just watched McCain on Letterman it is clear McCain doesn't have the ability to frame the argument properly - it's becoming clear that McCain lacks the skill of coherent, nuanced, well reasoned verbal argumentation. Without this skill you're never gonna break down the Obama facade. I believe Hillary definitely had the ability, but she was constrained by the limitations of the Democratic primary, ie to break down Obama's bullshit she would have had to attack the too liberal sentiments which define the extreme left of the party and that of course would have cooked her chances. For example on the war, she was constantly being forced into a position of essentially apologizing for her vote; she resisted, because she knew the yes vote was the right thing to do and Obama's opposition was self serving, shallow and not especially logical - but she couldn't make this argument because it would have doomed her.

That McCain, operating without such restraints, can't make the argument is revealing - and that's why he's losing. The Ayers attack is a perfect example of his flawed approach - you have to frame the argument as being about Obama's associations with, not Ayers in particular, but the extremes of liberalism in general, and it's an argument that cannot be made without referencing Wright, because you have to demonstrate a pattern to Obama's associations, and that then allows you to break down the Obama facade - because once you've established a pattern there are only three plausible explanations of it: Obama's association with these groups had nothing to do with ideology - a specious claim; Obama sympathized with their ideology, which would be bad; Obama used them to promote his political career - which would be fine, but also of course completely contrary to his message.

But McCain refuses to discuss Wright. That's stupid - absolutely no point talking about Ayers if you're not gonna talk about Wright.

... yes, of course - press reports polls indicate public doesn't like 'attack' ads and 'negative' campaigning, such doing McCain more harm than good etc etc. Of course - just by reporting such you emphasize, lend credence to the real point of the story - you essentially affirm and give distinction to a dubious public perception that McCain is bad, bad because he's losing and desperate, bad because it'd be wrong to criticize Obama because Obama's... winning, he's good, because we want him to win - don't make us think bad thoughts about the thing we want...

I don't wanna defend McCain against this nonsense - he's run a horrible campaign, he's done virtually nothing to make me think he'd be a good president - but regardless this stuff is nonsense. The media wants Obama, their cheerleading is barely disguised at this point - to run a story on how polls suggest people don't like 'negative campaigning' and point a finger at McCain without asking why people may feel that way or what negative actually means in this context, if indeed it means anything at all, is scurrilously prejudiced reporting - it's not far removed from running the headline, in bold print, 'Obama good, McCain bad. Debate over'.

Again, this bothers me not because I'm a McCain supporter - it bothers me because I find it quite disturbing how many people have so completely bought into Obama, a man of meager achievements [relative to the job], potential 'character' issues [which we're not allowed to talk about because that would be negative and possibly even racist], no leadership experience and no convincing plan for the future. Like I've said before, he may turn out to be quite good - but the huge gap between his slim resume and the enthusiasm his candidacy has engendered is flat out disturbing --

If I may be allowed to express my skepticism by referencing football [oh, c'mon]: it'd be like a troubled franchise drafting a quarterback number one, with all kinds of fanfare, because, even though he had only one really good game in college, gosh darn it he looks good and sounds nice - he seems to be everything a savior quarterback is supposed to be - in short, he's Tom Brady and will eventually date super models. Now, sure, it's possible the guy may turn out to be another Tom Brady and eventually bag his fair share of super models - but history shows probably not - and remember, Brady was drafted in the fifth round [6th even?], with no fanfare, no hallelujahs trumpeting the salvation of the franchise. There's a lesson in there somewhere, no?

True, most seem to be conceding election to Obama and certainly I'm not going to disagree with that; and true, I no longer have a preference [did I ever? besides Hillary of course] even if preceding statement were not the case since it seems McCain was like to prove as bad a president as I believe Obama will be, if only judging by the near incoherence of his campaign. But - that being said and all - why is it the press is acting as if it's a received truth that McCain bringing up Ayers is a smear? Obama has ties to the guy and, more importantly, to that specific community [what for fairness sake we will yclept the left's version of the wingnut right] he is representative of - how is it a smear to ask what that means? I'm trying not to believe that the press is playing favourites - but they seem to be deliberately confusing the issue by insinuating that it's all and only about Obama's links to Ayers [which, if too tenuous, may indeed verge on smearing] when the true salient point to be made is really all about the radical communities which Ayers and his possibly more significant adjunct Rev Wright [who is no longer mentioned by anyone - you see how well Obama has played the race card?] are members in 'good' standing and passionate advocates of and, by way of logical inquiry consequent to etc etc, what that says about Obama's politics - etc etc. That is not to smear, that's to ask a pertinent question. Obama is a largely unknown quantity and, more over, what little we do know of him lends one to believe he's quite liberal; the country presently cohabits with and will certainly in the near future be in full rut upon what we shall call for the nonce with no doubt abounding understatement troubling times; he'll likely have a Democratic majority to work with in Congress, an emboldened Democratic congress flush with the belief that it is and will be utterly right in everything it does because the country apparently believes that Bush was so utterly wrong in everything he did, in short their world view will have the appearance of being entirely validated - given such it's not a smear to try and figure out what the fuck it all may mean, nor is it a smear to ask the public to pause and consider what the fuck it all may mean before pulling a lever or checking a box or closing fucking eyes and tossing a dart.

quite shocking how many, including spot polls, are declaring Obama the winner of the debate - the thing was a fucking travesty! To attempt to name either a winner is to trample common sense, hell, common decency, underfoot.

Having said that, my dislike for Obama has forced me into a position of trying to convince myself that McCain would be a worthy enough alternate to my preferred choice, Hillary. Can give up that illusion now. McCain was awful - he's supposed to be a risk taker - he needed to take one last night and instead he fumbled around incoherently - if in the middle of that travesty he'd stood up and said what any sane person was thinking, that the debate was anything but a debate and so for the sake of the country's best interests he suggests they toss the format, kick that moron Brokaw off the stage, and have a real discussion about the issues - well, that would have been a game changer. What were his people thinking even agreeing to a format that was so obviously flawed?

Makes you realize that, sure, a candidate needs to be appealing, but elections are won by the managers, the game planners. The one good thing I can say about Obama is that his staff seems to have a clue. Hillary lost to him because her staff dropped the ball - and it's now clear that McCain's staff ain't up to the job of stopping him either.

So, I guess time to sit back and see if my predictions concerning what a disaster an Obama presidency would be are accurate. If how I'm doing in my football pool is a reflection of my sooth saying abilities, I guess that's a good thing for the world. On the other hand, when it comes to judging people, I fancy myself having something of a knack for that...

Finally got a chance to see a debate for myself and so don't have to rely this time on some third party observer, whose sympathies may not be particularly pure, to pass judgment for me - and I have one word for what I witnessed: gibberish. Using the debate as the sole evidence by which to judge them one can only conclude that they're both idiots, spewing simplistic and yet even then still barely coherent ideas which amount in the end to shabby packages of nonsense shamefully proffered as policy. Not surprisingly Obama's the better speaker but what he says is gibberish nonetheless - he's smooth, and I guess measured against McCain's stumbling, scatter shot approach one can then in some meaninglessly provisional way pronounce him victor - but to call either of these guys a winner is to abuse the term utterly. To look forward to either as President would be like being lost and turning to a group of blind men and asking if the least blind among them would be kind enough to show you the way home. It's quite sad, really.

"... the economy? Hell, I don't know nothin' about the economy. Well, I know this: couple of years ago friend of mine was thinking of selling his home since its appraised value had shot through the roof and I said to him 'if you're gonna do it better do it now cause trouble is brewing in the housing market... could see valuations decline by 20, 30 percent... economy reeling in the wake...'. I said that, I knew that, just by being somewhat well read, and all I can say is if I knew it the pros obviously knew it and with much more insight and nuance than I could ever hope to muster. So why'd it happen? Why'd they let things get so bad? Cause that's what people do..."

ok - wait - now this is interesting, well sort of interesting - but I read that after McCain was ridiculed by Obama and his lapdog press corps for suggesting that he'd fire the SEC chairman when it ain't in the presidential toolbox to do such a thing - oh, what a senile fuss bucket that McCain is, don't even know the laws - I read now that the President does in fact have the authority to whack yee SEC chairman? And not one newspaper et al has bothered to correct themselves? That blithering idiot Olberman over at Obama central ie MSNBC essentially spent two days on the supposed blunder, stopping just short of calling McCain an enfeebled quack. I mean, what the fuck? What's going on here?

Now, like I've said, I don't really think the press, in general at least, is actually in the tank for Obama - on the other hand it is quite clear that many people have fallen into the habit of believing, to the point of taking for granted, that two truths or givens are at play here: one, that Bush's decision to go into Iraq was the worst, most ill advised presidential act ever [which is entirely the wrong way to look at the war] and that therefore Bush is the worst president ever and has infected the nation with evil spirits; and two, that an erstwhile junior law professor with a decidedly left wing palette, an otherwise thin resume, no significant leadership experience, no public service record of any particular merit, a seemingly unhealthy obsession with himself and the arrogance to see that obsession as perfectly justifiable - that this shaman is going to rid the country of said evil spirits simply, it seems, just by showing up and all because, ya know, well, he's black but talks like a really nice white guy who maybe went to Harvard or something grand like that, and heck, that's change we can believe in. Can I get a hallelujah.

That seems clear to me.

Not that I'm a McCain fan, enfeebled quack. [now, c'mon - you think he'd be better than BO - sure, maybe, who the fuck knows at this point - it's just that whole Sarah thing - not that I don't like the girl at least a bit - theoretically of course, as a curiosity to be considered - but ya get distinct impression that whatever good she has brought to the campaign is the result of serendipity - you get the impression that the vetting process involved some guy saying to McCain, hey there's this cute but feisty chick up Alaska way that looks like she might be fun, why don't we invite her to the party and McCain said sure, why the hell not - one gets that impression].

Hell, does it matter anyway? With economy most verily toilet bound Obama would have to commit a serious misstep to lose this thing. McCain is gonna have to get very negative and I just don't see that working in current environment [although, to hedge bets, there are some seriously ugly skeletons in Obama's closet - if McCain goes there who knows how people will react. I'm just pissed off that McCain seems unable to coherently demonstrate how Obama's opposition to the war is/was illogical, full of holes - I don't understand why he can't seem to make that point - and that he can't make that point leaves me thinking one of two things: his political skills and possibly the skills of his campaign staff are not up to the task of defeating Obama; I'm wrong in my estimation of the war - not likely it's the latter I should think... no, not at all...].

well, there's a shock- left leaning media outlets declare Obama winner of debate [generally with appeal to rationalization that in event of a tie advantage goes to him - which seems to me an argument that undermines their claim that Obama's reputed 'good judgment' is qualification enough for the job of Commander in Chief, ie it's an admission of weakness] and right leaning outlets declare McCain the winner. It's gotten to the point where commentary is so tainted by bias now that there seems little reason to pay attention. I do still read Politico.com though, my feeling is their coverage is pretty evenhanded - they seem to think McCain won the day so I'll go with that. Not that it matters much I imagine: if Sarah bombs next week the race is over. Conventional wisdom would hold otherwise, noting no one votes for the VP, which is true - but she's gotten so much attention and is such an object of curiosity that I think you can toss conventional wisdom out the window: if she doesn't do well it will reflect badly on McCain and that'll be the ball game. Their trying to shield her from the press is a bad sign - although I hold out hope that it's part of a cunning scheme to lay a trap for Biden, get him thinking she'll be a pushover and then out she comes, guns a blazin'. Not very likely, sure, but what the hell - I mean, when you think about it, keeping her locked away has to indicate either that she's in way over her head and they're panicked or that they're setting a trap - can't be that they're trying to lower expectations in order to eke out some kind of moral victory, they'd want to increase exposure in that case, no?

I don't know why the hell McCain went to Washington to get all hands on with the Wall Street bailout - theatre, deft strategic move, desperation, who knows at this point - but one motive I think we can pretty much rule out was to avoid a debate with Obama on a subject, foreign policy, which represents McCain's only clear advantage. So why are so many lefties insinuating or outright suggesting that's the reason? Two things: either they're entirely brainwashed at this point and actually believe this silliness; or they worry that it indeed may prove out to have been a cunning move and they're trying to regain control over the economy narrative.

Exactly why is it I'm noticing so much liberal bias in media these days? Has my dislike for Obama revealed unto me this long obscured truth? Or have I bought hook, line and sinker this cherished conservative mantra? There are shows I no longer watch, blogs I no longer read and newspapers I now merely lightly skim through because I find the bias in them so irksome - and yet I have no clear idea if this new found awareness of the putative bias is real or not. I mean, I accept that coverage is going to be slanted one way or the other regardless - people have ingrained sympathies and it would be foolhardy to think they can completely suppress them no matter their intentions: but I wonder if what's happening is that left leaning types are so troubled by Bush - offended better word - and consequently, in a directly proportional way, so invested in the idealism of Obama that an abiding although possibly until now largely muted or one might say reasonable liberal bias has completely come unglued - lost its head as it were. I get the distinct impression that if Obama loses this election the entire left wing of the country is gonna throw a gigantic hissy fit.

"We need to be extraordinarily cautious. First, I don't see how anybody who is not directly involved in these presidential campaigns can treat them with anything other than contempt. You have two very good candidates trapped in a theatre of the absurd where they have to constantly posture and attack each other politically and issue sound bites as if they were plans and policies. Any adult who can take that seriously is either mentally defective or emotionally disturbed. And this is particularly true in the case of Iraq. I would hope that everyone realizes that whoever becomes president next January is going to have to start coping with reality rather than slogans. None of us knows what is going to take place in the course of the next year."

That from Tony Cordesman, fairly clued-in foreign policy analyst. Smotes nail most verily - although I may take issue with his assurance that "we have two very good candidates": I obviously don't much like Obama, but as well my estimation of McCain is in serious decline. One takes a few steps back and left wondering what the charade is about, how does one make sense of it, and what exactly does it mean to be qualified for the job? It's as if one can only say a candidate is qualified for the process of getting the job - but for the job itself? Who knows.

Which beings me to Palin's big[?] interview. I tend to agree with one reviewer that people will think what they are predisposed by political affiliation to think about it. Then again, what I was really looking for was evidence of a supple, subtle mind behind the celebrity. Didn't see it. The fuss over her hesitation vis the 'Bush doctrine' is only half fair: there are several separate but related elements to the so called doctrine so her asking for clarification is not unwarranted; that being said she quite obviously went deer in headlights over question - although, on plus side, did not panic, kept her cool, which is something. Her answer to the NATO/Georgia question, which also is being criticized, was essentially I think on the mark although not well nuanced, so the left's jumping on her comments as if she were engaging in war mongering is entirely misplaced. That being said, her comments lacked substance and sounded like they had been memorized. It wasn't a disastrous performance, but neither was it impressive. Bereft of her rote answers I have trouble believing she would have had anything thoughtful to say - unfortunately, one could probably say that about a lot of politicians. I was left with the impression that she doesn't yet know how to sound like she knows something when she in fact doesn't: she's gotten where she has on the force of her personality and good ol' American styled gumption - but in venues that were not, policy wise, very demanding relative to the national stage, and therefore venues that were much more manageable. Completely different game at the top and saw nothing in interview to suggest she's especially up for it - except, as mentioned before, you definitely do get the feeling she's cool under pressure and a rather fierce competitor, which suggests you may see a marked improvement in her next interview.

In short, the clouds threatening to overwhelm her still somewhat sunny nomination linger unabated.

Tend not to make much of liberal media bias stuff - of course it's true - media is biased by its very nature - could one really expect anything else? But when it's explicit and therefore at very least seems politically motivated - what then? And so when I read that McCain's bounce from the convention has vaulted him ahead of Obama, which is very big news and has got to have some liberals wiping tears from eyes, and yet no mention of this on home pages of both NY Times or Washington Post this morning, what's one to make of that?

"... Palin... what do I think of Palin... ahh... interesting and risky choice - if it pans out she'll win the election for McCain is my guess... appeals strongly to the middle of the road blue collar demographic that is Obama's biggest vulnerability... with much irony she's a right wing version of Obama: very light on relevant experience but great performer at podium with seeming innate knack for identity politics... and also apparently quite ambitious... but surrounded by serious question marks that could prove to be her's and therefore McCain's undoing over the coming weeks... is reportedly a staunch social conservative but that so far kept firmly under wraps and for good reason: any appearance of fanaticism on social issues would undercut her appeal. Not at all clear that McCain actually wanted her as his choice. A fascinating creature but, should something happen to McCain, does not appear to be at all qualified for the most difficult job in the world... but then neither does Obama... which leaves one to wonder on the nature and state of democracy in the 21st century. Possible she scares me as much as if not more than Obama does... but enjoy idea that if she proves capable Democrats will be getting their just desserts: they picked a demagogue over a much more qualified Hillary - now a demagogue of a different sort may be rising from the mists to piss on their dreams. Has potential... assuming possesses the brains to compete... no one has a clue about that yet... but potential to become a very dangerous sort of populist. If democrats under estimate her because she seems light weight get the feeling she'll crush them, and enjoy doing it... this woman's life and 'can do' attitude and natural, unaffected, down home way of speaking - if matched with a high intelligence - could take her a long way fast... already has of course... but her lack of intellectual bonafides and her possible doctrinaire social conservatism and what that may say about her view of the world gives one much pause. She's been hunting moose since she was a school girl and yet was runner up in a beauty contest - have no idea what I'm supposed to make of something like that. You look at her education and immediately you think no fucking way she can be president - and yet there she is. Possible she's quintessentially American and voters will recognise that in her and such a thing could invest her with much power - but for better or worse? Who knows... possibly McCain does and cunningly sees her for what maybe she really is: an appealing woman who will enjoy a brief period of political celebrity - just long enough to get him elected... "

well - guess other shoe has most decidedly fallen: apparently there's a video out there of Palin telling the troops they've been sent to Iraq to do God's work, specifically to do God's work. That's wonderful. Guess I don't have a horse in this race now. Will it matter? - think this proves she wasn't properly vetted, which makes McCain look weak and foolish - I mean, the base is gonna love this god shit but will be hard to convince independents to hold their noses over such nonsense - so have to believe McCain is toast.

Why are conservatives not picking up on reality that if it is revealed or becomes manifest that Palin was not properly vetted by McCain, no matter how 'good' a politician Palin turns out to be, McCain will look weak? What am I missing?

Is it true she supports teaching creationism in schools? How did I get to point of supporting someone like that? I hate Obama that much? No - I distrust immensely his 'base' - and I fear that in him the far left sees the coming to fruition of all its dreams - but is it possible Palin represents the same thing to the far right? Fuck. None of this would be a problem if Hillary was the candidate. So do you blame Bush for fucking up the war or the lefties for exploiting so expertly that fucking up? Both I guess. I mean, if Bush had been successful we'd have a right wing autocracy now, but because Bush failed we may end up with a left wing autocracy [autocracy? really? well...]. What happened to the middle? Democracy is supposed to be all about the middle, about mitigating extremes, not creating them for fuck sake!

So if you get to the point of believing no matter who wins the result will be negative what positive thing then comes out of it? Moderation? If Obama loses the far left will try to blame it on racism [high profile articles have already been written preemptively making that case] - but the reality will be that because of animus against the war the left wing of the Democratic party was allowed to dictate terms to the the candidates which made opposition to the war the de facto litmus test - ergo Obama. Forgotten now, but remember how Hillary was raked over the coals for refusing to apologize for her vote? If the dems lose when victory should have been all but guaranteed you can start with that.

But if McCain loses when it is clear many voters just don't trust Obama to lead the country? The GOP isn't expected to win so would a loss really inspire any kind of authentic self reflection? Dubious - they've played this shell game with their wacko base for a while now - Reagan was very good at it, Bush wanted to replicate but failed badly - but, really, how long can they continue to go to that well? They way the social conservatives seem to love Palin starts to look like the way the far left loves Obama - that can't be good, right? It's as if Americans need moral extremes. Is it possible - was it ever possible - to have leaders who are not beholden to specific agendas? It seems impossible to imagine right now a leader who is a moderate on social and domestic issues but something of a hawk, a hard-nosed realist on foreign policy ones - it seems to me to run counter to the whole idea of democracy that one has trouble imagining such a thing.

So - Palin already toast? Her 17 year old daughter is 5 months pregnant, and you can point a finger right at Palin's social conservatism somehow convincing advocates that abstinence equals birth control [which makes me think these religious fanatics love teenage pregnancy because it binds youth to the church - try being 17 and raising a baby without some significant support group] - abstinence is not birth control, it's a denial of reality that ends up producing more pregnancies than it inhibits - common sense and statistics both indicate such. Hey, if it's Palin's personal choice to raise her kids that way, fine, I have no problem with that - but if she believes her personal beliefs can or should be imposed as a universal conviction - well, no fucking way. As stated, she can be a big help to McCain amongst undecided, blue collar, middle of the road voters - but not if she's a social conservative ideologue.

But beside this drawing attention to my belief that the repressive ideologies that control the bases in both parties are bankrupting the political process and destroying the country - big question becomes: is this evidence that McCain did not properly vet Palin? Liberals say yes of course, but they're working hard to sell story line that McCain really wanted Ridge or Lieberman but, in a forced sellout to the base, went with Palin at the last moment. McCain camp denies this and say they knew about the baby etc - but fact is if they didn't do their homework it will become very obvious in coming weeks and then both McCain and Palin will be toast.

I'm struck by hard line conservative response to it, as if this is actually a good thing, that it embosses her social conservative credentials etc. That may be true, but anything that helps the base weakens independents and I don't see Rove's strategy of using wedge issues to pry independents over to the right working this year - the GOP brand is too sullied. Not to mention that it now occurs to me that social conservatives welcome unwanted pregnancies because it creates desperate people and desperation leads people to god - I doubt the ignorant rank and file think in these terms, but the suits who control the agenda? Very disturbing - can't believe it took me so long to figure this out.

seconds thoughts on Palin: not intended I think to go after women voters - liberals all in a snit about this ie insulting to women to think they'll just vote for a woman because she's a woman [even though Obama's key constituency are blacks voting for him simply because he's black] - Palin reminding disaffected dems that Obama snubbed Hillary is a bonus but believe they see her mainly as appealing to blue collar voters, the very voters Obama had so much trouble appealing to in later primaries; her lack of relevant experience troubles me but possibly less or at least not more so than Obama's lack of experience, and she's just running for VP - so that remains a problem but probably is a wash that slightly favours McCain - Obama can't really bring up the experience complaint, even in response to McCain attack, without reminding people that he himself is light viz experience - in fact they may have calculated that Palin's inexperience will keep the issue always at the forefront to the detriment of Obama; her social conservatism will motivate base but if she is or is perceived to be a doctrinaire zealot viz social issues this will alienate the middle of the road voters they want to go after - I see this as a bigger problem than her lack of experience - she's an interesting question waiting to be answered but her social conservatism reminds me that the person I thought best qualified to be President was Hillary; they have in effect, by choosing an unknown with an appealing back story and pleasant looks, created another political celebrity not to rival but at least in part to counter Obama's celebrity - the interesting dynamic is that his persona is idealistically highbrow and appeals to Hollywood starlets, left wing professors and wild youth, her's more down to earth, appealing to soccer moms and NASCAR dads - curious to see how that plays out.

McCain picks Sarah Palin - interesting but very risky. Conservatives are gonna love her: pro-life, long time member of NRA, as a school girl used to go out moose hunting with her father, son in the military etc etc. Also has good reformer credentials, reform and cleaning up government basically forming the backbone of her brief career - this obviously counters nicely Obama's claim to doing things a new way, especially since Obama has virtually no achievements in reforming anything - Palin at least has done something relevant there. Also obviously appeals to wounded Hillary supporters and, possibly just as important, draws attention to the way Obama snubbed Hillary - the MSM is essentially turning a blind eye to that snub so if this brings attention to it that's a plus.

The quite apparent huge downside is the issue of 'ready to lead' - her resume is thiner than Obama's when it comes to the big questions and since that is where you want to attack Obama picking her creates a disconnect with the message. She does have chief executive experience, which is good - but Alaska? That could be a very hard sell. My guess is it will all depend on what she's like on the stump and how she comes across on TV - if she's engaging, appealing, and appears at least that she's not in over her head - well, who knows? Real gamble on McCain's part.

Certainly does divert attention from Obama's big speech - but, nice as that is, will quite obviously be a bad pick if that's all it does. She's gonna need to perform, to sell a message, to evince an attitude and a point of view that resonates.

Then again, no one votes for the Vice President.

[sidebar: Obama camp saying this takes experience off the table as an issue - ah, sorry, but that contradicts the point of his own VP pick which was that experience matters - interesting to see how that plays out]

[so, just watched her acceptance speech - not bad, definitely something there to work with. She exudes a down to earth, confident, can do attitude. I think I'm somewhat impressed]

In the "if you don't know what you're talking about, shut up" way of things I must point out that access to the Black Sea by military vessels is restricted by convention and large vessels are a complete no no and so my whole send in an aircraft carrier viz Georgia was rather foolish [foolish one assumes for many reasons]. True, Turkey, which controls the Bosporus, could have ok'd such a breach of the rules - but not bloody likely and so my whole glorious plan was nothing but nonsense.

Not that it was meant seriously - well, it was meant seriously but only in a theoretical way. Certainly, with China just recently condemning the action and Russia's stock market down 5-10% since the action the benefits accruing to Russia from the misadventure are seeming a bit dubious. Still, NATO has been exposed [yet again] as weak and it's implied promises to the aspiring democracies of the former Soviet Union somewhat empty - and such a result may have been Putin's main objective in the first place. And Russian nationalism has been stoked, whetted if you will, by this aggressive policy, which both serves Putin's autocratic ambitions well and degrades the West's interests further. The whole point of my contention for calling Putin's bluff with a strong and immediate show of force was to forestall such a thing, believing it a dynamic which could lead to escalation down the road. With a weak NATO America looks isolated and therefore vulnerable - the Chinese choosing to play nice counters that a bit - but still, vulnerability tends to invite potentially dangerous ambitions against it.

"... well, you can call me racist - hell, you're an Obama supporter so you're gonna label me racist eventually no matter what - but regardless, you don't think it's odd that he's referred to constantly as an African American when in fact he's half white and it's the white half of his parentage that played the dominant role in his upbringing? Isn't that in a way kind of racist, when you're in effect giving him credit for being black because he's actually white? Strikes me as odd, but maybe that's just a reflection of my abysmal lack of sophistication in these matters..."

Well - seems no one agrees with my belief we we should go to war with Russia over Georgia - didn't actually say go to war with 'em, more just move an aircraft carrier into the Black sea, make some threats, issue ultimatums, sound like you're willing to be fair and accommodating, within the bounds of reason, but do so with a squadron of F18 Super Hornets at your back - that sort of thing. Since it happened, there's been slew of theories and explanations re who's to blame? who was provoked? who was where and did what to whom? did the US drop the ball? is Europe weak and hopelessly compromised? is it legitimate push back by Putin? or Russian nationalism with its delusions of grandeur raising its ugly head? So on, so forth. The beauty of my plan - war - was that it clarified everything in one fell swoop [most fell, I imagine]: Putin was making a statement but at the heart of that statement was a bluff - risk of a wider war - that he knew would deter timorous Europeans and leave the US somewhat isolated and vulnerable and therefore lead to a weak NATO response which would conveniently have the effect of making the message he was sending, to Ukraine et al, that much more daunting. By the US immediately calling the bluff you'd get two things: force the Euros to be proactive, to get in line - you up Putin's ante to them, and since they can't very well side with Putin they're forced into a proper supporting role; secondly, you expose audacity of Putin's bluff, based as it is on a false strength - his forces in Georgia are mere show and would be routed by the States in a matter of days, leaving him humilated and his power gone if he didn't back down.

Of course humiliation, if he didn't back down, can lead to some awful scenarios - but then that's why they call it gambling - and I'm not pretending it wouldn't be risky. But what do you have now having failed to call Putin's bluff? The only alternative for the States to immediate, strong actions was to play the waiting game and hope to undermine Putin's strategy in the long term - the problem with that, which my solution nicely obviated, is that you need the Europeans support to make that work and they are already starting to go soft about making Russia pay for the aggression - my solution essentially agrees with Putin: you can't trust Europe. This was the whole basis to Putin's bluff - and the States got played badly it seems.

My solution risked a military confrontation - but isn't it possible to argue that failure to take that risk has made confrontation a greater likelihood? Certainly Russia is now emboldened and we are left with the weak hand of hoping Putin's intentions are not as treacherous as they appear.

[yes, it's clear now Europe has no stomach for confronting Russia having just released a timid-may-be-too-kind-a-word rebuke. Is this the beginning of the end of NATO? And is maybe that a good thing? It's obviously what Putin wants - although, if one reasons that the States can't be without a strong alliance of some sort, of democracies etc, and therefore in lieu of a NATO would have to forge something new and no doubt more vigorous, then what Putin really wants is an enfeebled NATO - I don't think the States can let him have that]

[is Georgia really worth this? Is this a 'pick your battles wisely' situation? That's the key question. One could draw several feasible and widely divergent scenarios out of what has happened. Hmmn. Thus conscience does make cowards of us all?]

"... Russia provoked? Wha' d'ya mean provoked? Excuse the no doubt crude analogy, but you lock a goat in a pen with a hungry bear and that goat's gonna get eaten: the fact that at some point prior to being eaten the goat may lunge threateningly at the bear thus provoking an attack that is otherwise inevitable is quite obviously beside the point. Now, you may want to argue that the goat's fate is none of our business or that we shouldn't have put the goat in the pen in the first place but, to step outside this increasingly silly sounding analogy, that would be to argue that having won the cold war we should now concede defeat..."

"... I noticed how many women want to write books explaining the psychology of the teenage male to what I guess they see as their beleaguered female cohorts burdened with teenage sons and realized such amounted to a preemptive attack on maleness in general... explication here acting as a form of castration..."

What I notice concerning liberal response to Georgian crisis, what becomes clear to me in the way they leap to the contention that Putin was provoked into an invasion by Western [ie Bush] aggression as concerns Kosovo and NATO expansionism etc - what one realises is that they would see the electing of Obama as a way of apologising to the world for all the bad things America has done over the last few years. Sounds like a juvenile absurdity, I know, but you boil down their response to the crisis and what I find are hurt liberal sensibilities looking for a cathartic purge of angst - in short, if Obama were president the world would apparently all of a sudden become much more reasonable. Some of this has to do with Obama being somewhat black and therefore well suited to their 'one world' utopianism [I tend to think racism stigmata less a factor in this regard, but could be wrong]; but much of it also has to do with the way Obama speaks their language, that is, softly reasonable, benignly scorning harsh judgments with faux complexities or supposed mystical interpretations of the world, high-minded and flushed by an idealism ultimately vague and self-servingly inclusive - as long of course as you buy in , rather petulant if you don't - something like a middling Parisian intellectual from the 50's after having sipped a bit too much white wine at a young communists soirée [reaching there a bit, no?]

ah - see McCain taking my advice of turning Obama's celebrity and inclinations towards the grandiose into manifestations of a character flaw. It's the only way to get at a slick performer such as Obama - change the game. Also helps that it's, as far as I'm concerned, a charge that's true

Related, in classic Obama fashion, in response to above, see his minions are floating meme that calling their master arrogant is a polite way of calling him an uppity negro - in other words: he can't possibly have any charcter flaws because to suggest he has character flaws is to be a racist. They used this strategy against Hillary and, because of the partisan nature of the primaries, she couldn't effectively fight back agaiinst it. One always thought though that in the general election, with McCain obviously unconstrained by left wing inhibitions, that such a tactic would not only be of questionable value but might actually work to the opposite intended effect. That seems to have happened as McCain pushed back hard against the suggestion of racism and Obama camp came off looking weak.

"... the buzz words, the bylines employed by you new agey, post nation state types, all this world community crap and let's talk to each other crap and communication helps us understand each other crap, all this brave new world blubbering that makes you think that Obama's opened some magical gate of wisdom by promising to talk to our enemies - well, sounds like empty bombast to me, specious, an obtuse mistaking of the gesture for the deed, a pandering to mere sentiment, a... an unseemly grostesquerie of the real world. I mean, hell, what is talk? Are you people looking for wisdom or consolation? My teenage daughters talk constantly and although when I perchance have the misfortune to overhear these conversations they do prove somewhat edifying in an ironical way, believe me, the great soul of the world is decidedly not being laid bare..."

"... surely all I'm saying is I've yet to hear any liberal currently parading before cameras to congratulate themselves on opposing the war give an adequate description of what the Middle East would look like right now had we not gone into Iraq. To wit, Saddam would still be in power and probably free of the sanctions which had ostensibly contained him, Iran would still be pursuing nukes, Afghanistan, which we would occupy in much the same way we occupy Iraq now, would still be an onerous problem and Osama and his minions would still safely be ensconced across the border in Pakistan. I mean, aside from listing the obvious downsides of war, no matter how just or unjust the cause, would we really be any better off, vis a vis the Middle East, had we not gone into Iraq? Certainly, it's hardly an insult to common sense to argue that, for all the extant problems, by virtue of going into Iraq while the oppurtunity presented itself, we are in fact in a better position to manage the complexities of the region. But, even if in your irrational hatred for all things Bush you deny me that perfectly reasonable contention, still, it is incumbent upon your precious Obama to answer a few simple questions simply if he hopes me to take his claim of better judgement regarding the war seriously. Did he consider Saddam to be a problem that needed to be taken care of? If he answers 'yes' that puts him in agreement with every serious thinker on the subject prior to 9/11; if he answers 'no', he has some explaining to do. Assuming he answers yes, he needs then to address issue of sanctions being viable in this regard. Assuming then he comes to the conclusion, in keeping with most experts on the subject, that the sanctions were no longer viable he'll need next to address the question: what the fuck then do you do? Because bascially at that point there are only two options: let the sanctions expire or threaten war. Now I suppose Obama could, if he were an idiot, argue that letting the sanctions slide is better than war, but assuming again he decides rightly that the threat of war is the only real option... well, you see... he can't answers these questions, can he? I mean, of course he can and would argue that after 9/11 free nations were suddenly more willing to confront rogue states, but still, that requires the legitimate threat of force, which is exactly what Obama did not support in opposing the AUF. So, there ya go, the man's a fraud, his position on the war illogical if not incoherent, and the press is letting him get away with it to the point of making it sound like he and not McCain is more right about the war because Maliki has come out and endorsed - sort of - Obama's timetable for withdrawal, conveniently ignoring the fact that Maliki's intentions and true meanings are vague at best and entirely disingenuous or an outright lie at worst..."

A smart guy, writing on the emergence of the new world from out of the old, illustrates why conservatives tend to think they understand the reality of things a lot better than liberals do:

This kind of attempt to reconstruct the "logic of peasant economies" is explicitly presented by Wickham as a practice of "model-building." The "peasant mode of production" emerges as an answer to the question about what would have happened if peasants did not have to give a surplus to aristocrats because aristocracies had so weakened in the general "involution and abatement of the Roman Empire" (as Wickham might rephrase Gibbon's famous title). His answer, spun out over dozens of pages, is that in the absence of external coercion, people would work less, production would decline, technological innovation would be stifled, and family size would shrink to accommodate lowered food resources. And, of course, in the absence of demand, the quality of goods produced would also sink. This theoretical model, Wickham reports, is exactly what we find in the ground.

"... if we hadn't gone into Iraq would it have made it more likely that we go into Iran as regards its nuclear ambitions - and not only go into Iran, which, as you know, I think is inevitable anyway, but commit to such a course with much less of an understanding of our vulnerabilities, vulnerabilities exposed by our misadventure in Iraq? I mean, you liberals love to go on and on and on about how wrong it was to go into Iraq, but actions have consequences not all of which are obvious, can be known, or will relent or adhere to a logic that one may wish upon them. Which is not to argue that all actions are ultimately forgivable because one can never know what good may come of them... well, maybe it is to argue that... but only in the sense I imagine that sometimes you're never so wrong as when you're right - and vice versa..."

What's his name of something or other makes point that Obama's great gift is that, even though his slight political history suggests he's pretty liberal, he actually sounds like a centrist when he speaks. This similar to what I've been saying, except I'm more accurate. Obama's secret is that he comes across as so pleasingly reasonable - this appeals to lefty activists because it makes them think he's an intellectual just like them; appeals to youth because they want to feel rather than think and he lets them believe that it really is a Facebook world, with everyone just so nice and clever and doing such fun stuff; and it appeals to independents because they're just so worn out with Bush worry - they want to be soothed.

Related - sort of I guess - I read they're trying to gussy up McCain's speechifying. I think this is a mistake: possibly not feasible to jettison speech making altogether, but he's never going to get good at it and any attempts to pretend otherwise just accentuate Obama's advantage here. Best to try and turn that advantage around: Obama revels in the grandiose speech - he sees himself in those terms - but is not so comfortable in the humbler settings McCain seems to excel at. If you're smart you can turn this disparity into a question of character and not just a simple matter of style, which is why I wouldn't try to emulate Obama in any way whatsoever - not that McCain is specifically trying to emulate Obama, but how can you turn his speech giving advantage on it's head if you're trying to get better at speech giving yourself? You have to go anti-speech.

Of course presidents have to give speeches - but - do candidates for president have to give speeches? Not so sure about that. Certainly, the way it looks right now, McCain's gonna have to change some parameters if he wants to beat this guy.

"... and don't you think it's odd that no one brings up possibility that Obama's putting emphasis on Afghanistan is just a ploy? What I mean is, he has to push the getting out of Iraq stuff to keep super liberals content but knows that puts him on tentative ground with independents who don't trust him regarding foreign policy - thus the Afghanistan ruse, which makes him look like he's not shy when it comes to the military but which of course is all just talk, conjecture, since the States really can't do anything about Afghanistan right now - in short, he gets to talk tough for free since nothing's going to come of it. I'm not saying it's not in a sense smart on his part, I'm just curious as to why no one is mentioning or possibly even bothering to notice this very plausible scenario..."

Ahmmn... Obama says it was a mistake to allow his kids to take part in pulp TV portrait of his family [Hollywood Access, for christ sake!]. Essentially, he used his kids to burnish his family man credentials, his down to earth oh god no of course I'm not a detached elitist family man credentials - but doesn't really admit to that, rather making some excuse about how it all seemed harmless but now on reflection not so much. I mean, maybe I'm lost to the ravishes of a cancerous cynicism - but this is all bullshit, right? He clearly was using his kids as a political tool and everything about the show was scripted to that end, including the after the fact heart felt you see I'm such a sensitive, caring, thoughtful guy mea culpa - right?

This guy really disturbs me, and not just because I prefer McCain, which I guess I have to - I mean, McCain's campaign so far is so lackluster and disheveled and wandering that the only reason to prefer him over Obama is that he's not Obama, so it's not like I'm crazy for McCain - but that's not it. There's something at work behind the mask of the Obama campaign that is flat out disturbing: the striking disparity between his lack of relevant experience and his brash ambitions, his seeming narcissism, the blind enthusiasm of his followers that borders on zealotry, the way the press enables him, his heart-on-sleeve religious conversion [how like Bush, no?], his ultra liberal roots hidden behind reasonable sounding rhetoric, his calculated, ruthless equivocations on policy, the ease with which he lies and panders - it's all very fucking disturbing. It's as if I'm seeing the coming to fruition of something truly awful and dangerous that has been brewing in the belly of democracy in this age of superficial mass media and instant gratification for a generation or two now. [that's a little over stated, no?] [we'll see. Remember what Hamlet said to Horatio on the parapet] [well, of course, who could forget that, but... after all, really, he's just borrowing elements from successful Republican campaigns and smartly applying them to a Democratic campaign - not such an awful thing, I think. Should probably give him credit for it] [ah... we'll see]

Of course, democracy by its very nature is a bit of a problem child, a bit unruly, unpredictable, inchoate - difficult - and of course that's why it's so damn workable as well - and we who live with it tend to think, assume, that no matter how fucked up it gets every once in a while, it'll all work out in the end - and of course that too is why it's such an appealing system. But, of course, that's not necessarily true, is it? I mean, it'd be sadly naive to think that it could never happen that at some point some one or some thing is gonna come along and just completely muck the whole deal up, no? [sure, that'd be naive... but still not sure why you saddle Obama with this whole decline of the West thing: seems a bit harsh] [he just bugs me - besides it's not him per se that's the problem, it's what he represents, the fabric he's cut out of, the beast that has disgorged him, that's what we should be worried about] [ah... ok. But, ya know, if you just extrapolate from the quality of the campaigns each has run, kind of looks like Obama would make the better president] [yeah... not really sure what to make of that. Does tend to fuck up my apocalyptic conjecturing. Unless I respond by saying you make the mistake of thinking that being a good politician and being a good leader are the same thing, that most if not all the attributes required by each are interchangeable. They're not - and remember I have advocated that McCain's strategy should be to drive home point that the gap between Obama and McCain's political talents is essentially superfical and hints at issues of character which could cause one to favour McCain - ie I think Obama is arrogant and full of himself and that's why he's so damn good at giving speeches - man loves to hear himself talk].

War is the life blood of great powers - any great power that becomes detached from this reality or allows this reality to be compromised by forces that do not respect or understand it or in any other way sees this life blood significantly diminished will cease to be a great power. Both the right and left in America indulge factions which are a threat to the imperative of American military might - and by far Obama is more closely related to so described inimical factions on the left than McCain is to inimical factions on the right. I imagine or it seems reasonable to think that there are times in a great power's existence when an ebb in the ethos of war is tolerable - but with America mired in two difficult to resolve conflicts and with Israel set to exacerbate the situation in the extreme by bombing Iranian nuclear facilities, my guess is now probably ain't one of those times. America will rue the day it was foolish enough to elect a community activist as its commander in chief.

"... so, he was delivering some rather clever indictments of modern culture, strictly from an aesthetes point of view you understand, but humourous all the same, and then ruins it all by going off on a rant about capitalist war machines bombing the poor and ignorant for profits gain etc etc. I proffered the opinion that he shouldn't exclude the possibility that the world may be better served by an increase in the bombing of the poor and ignorant and, well, the festivities just went sour after that..."

Ah - Iranians are expecting delivery of latest in Russian anti-aircraft defense systems, not sure when, but seemingly within the year or possibly next few months. An Israeli attack, if not a certainty before, now is: the stances and threatening actions they have taken obligate them to intercede. Only two things can stop it now: a deal that inhibits nuclear intentions; or Iran backing down. Neither seems even remotely possible at this point, if only because Iran views itself as winning no matter the outcome: if nothing happens they have the bomb; if Israel attacks they have lethal propaganda to exploit - and probably a nuke program delayed only, not derailed.

So the key questions become when? and then what? I've speculated that Israel does not welcome an Obama presidency and therefore might move before the election - but the political calculations behind such a move would be pretty transparent and potentially quite damaging, especially if Obama were to win regardless. So assuming they wait til after the election, two scenarios come into play: a McCain victory leaves them free to wait and see how the Iranians respond to such an outcome - until of course they feel they can wait no longer; an Obama victory on the other hand forces them to act before the swearing in - assuming of course I'm right in thinking Obama worries them.

But then what? A wider war? A barrage of heated rhetoric seasoned with skirmishes here and there? Or a series of Hezbollah sponsored terrorist attacks on Jewish targets everywhere, especially in Europe and North America? My guess would be the latter, reactions to which may lead to events spinning out of control, most worrisomely in Iraq where Iranian proxies could easily convert anger against Jews to anger against Americans.

Still, it is conceivable, after initial volleys of spite, that the result will be more whimper and less bang. Conceivable it is, likely probably not - it will all depend on how the Iranians weigh the pros and cons of retaliation and how they judge what best serves their long term interests. But certainly, if we see Party of God terror attacks on American soil, that could get out of hand quickly.

My letter to Phil Carter, whose insights I used to admire, but now is lost to the Obama:

"All this linking of Mullens remarks with Obama in liberal leaning media is gratuitous and conveniently glosses over fact Obama's policy iterations re Iraq have all been dependent on electoral calculations. In state legislature he was fervently anti-war in keeping with his stridently liberal constituency; moving to the senate he moderates his anti-war sentiments considerably, often times making somewhat contradictory statements re the war depending on his perception of what electorate wanted to hear and his fear of doing anything too dramatic, ie politically risky; during presidential primary he again touted his anti-war bona fides in order to woo the ultra left wing of the party without whom he couldn't win the nomination; and now with general election in sights he tacks to the safe center again , not because it makes sense policy wise, but because it makes sense politically.

How Phil you jump from this mash of political expediency for the sake of personal ambition to suggesting that some well reasoned strategic integrity has brought Obama to this sublime point of consonance with military thinkers is - well, this is Obama propaganda, pure and simple, and quite frankly beneath you.

Obama's one chance, during his precipitous and fundementally superficial rise to the top, to exhibit true leadership and courage and insight was lost when he opposed the surge, virtually the only intelligent policy enacted during the six long years of war. So you're giving him credit for what exactly? Stating the obvious that Iraq is improving and Afghanistan getting worse? We're just getting rid of a president who cynically exploited the low expectations of a gullible public - you're really that intent on electing another one?"

"... what strikes me is how the left wing acts as if the only worthwhile candidate is Obama, as if a President McCain would just be an utter tragedy for the country. Now, you'd of course expect liberals to think this way, except that a mere year or two ago McCain was the left wing's favourite conservative. I remember when he was on The Daily Show not too long ago and Stewart, who now seems literally in love with Obama, gushed about how McCain was the last great hope for the country, the wise voice of bipartisan reason that would pull us out of the mire. Now he's just some senescent and possibly senile Bush redux - and, whisper whisper, possibly even more dangerous than Dubbya. Distinct lack of scruples for people who like to imagine themselves as being so exquisitely scrupled..."